7 Objections (& Answers) to "the Filioque" by St Thomas Aquinas

Today we will look at 7 objections (and answers) St. Thomas Aquinas poses to the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
I can't fit Aquinas objections AND responses so I'll just share with you his objections. Read the entire article to see the responses as well as Aquinas' main response: www.newadvent.org/summa/1036....
AQUINAS' 7 OBJECTIONS:
Objection 1. It would seem that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son. For as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i): "We must not dare to say anything concerning the substantial Divinity except what has been divinely expressed to us by the sacred oracles." But in the Sacred Scripture we are not told that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; but only that He proceeds from the Father, as appears from John 15:26: "The Spirit of truth, Who proceeds from the Father." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 2. Further, in the creed of the council of Constantinople (Can. vii) we read: "We believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceeds from the Father; with the Father and the Son to be adored and glorified." Therefore it should not be added in our Creed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; and those who added such a thing appear to be worthy of anathema.
Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 4. Further, nothing proceeds from that wherein it rests. But the Holy Ghost rests in the Son; for it is said in the legend of St. Andrew: "Peace be to you and to all who believe in the one God the Father, and in His only Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the one Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father, and abiding in the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 5. Further, the Son proceeds as the Word. But our breath [spiritus] does not seem to proceed in ourselves from our word. Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
Objection 6. Further, the Holy Ghost proceeds perfectly from the Father. Therefore it is superfluous to say that He proceeds from the Son.
Objection 7. Further "the actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual" (Phys. iii, text 32), and much less so in God. But it is possible for the Holy Ghost to be distinguished from the Son, even if He did not proceed from Him. For Anselm says (De Process. Spir. Sancti, ii): "The Son and the Holy Ghost have their Being from the Father; but each in a different way; one by Birth, the other by Procession, so that they are thus distinct from one another." And further on he says: "For even if for no other reason were the Son and the Holy Ghost distinct, this alone would suffice." Therefore the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Son, without proceeding from Him.

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Here's an excellent little video on the Filioque that sums up the controversy well - kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppaaZ6aea9Vrhc0

[@johnf587]

Neither Roman Christians, Russian Christians or protestant knows who is the Father. According to Peter, John and the Apostles Jehovah glorified and resurrected Jesus and don't even matter to most Christians Acts 3: 13 The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus Acts 2:32 God resurrected Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. Acts 13:33 God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ Acts 5: 30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus Galatians 1: Paul, an apostle, neither from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him up from the dead - Jehovah of Armies is the name of our Glorious Father! -

[@ThruTheUnknown]

Number 1 argument. The Creed Case closed.

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

Matt, I would also recommend reading Session 6 of the Council of Florence which sums up the differing explanations of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

[@ThruTheUnknown]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church number 246 states that the spirit proceeds from BOTH the Father and Son as one spiration. You must believe this as a Catholic otherwise you're not professing the true Catholic faith. Thus you CANNOT hold any other interpretation as much as you'd like to think you can. This terminology is NOT accepted by the Eastern Orthodox and cannot be found in any of the Eastern Fathers writings. Heck you wouldn't even be able to find it in any writings of the western church fathers other than a handful if that.

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

@@ThruTheUnknown One must hold to the Filioque, and Council of Florence helped reconcile the 2 different ways of explaining the procession. It helped settle accusations the Greeks had against the Latin and vice versa. I would argue the Greeks taught "through the Son" which means the same thing as "and the Son" The Eastern Fathers were in my opinion trying to avoid preaching 2 seperate spirations.

[@ZZZELCH]

Orthodox here: The mystery of the Trinity is so profound that I don’t know that either is exactly right or exactly wrong. As I continue to study this, I find that I quite honestly care less about who’s right and who’s wrong. Instead, I would be extremely grateful if each side would do a better job of trying to understand our unique differences and get on with our responsibilities together. We do not “need” full communion to do any of these. At the end of the day, I sincerely believe the better we understand and love each other in our differences, the faster and more likely our reunification. Thank you for another thought-provoking video.

[@bond3161]

Yes! Amen.

[@sands-tp1ul]

Yes! ❤️

[@SaliseProductions]

God bless bro. My thoughts too but people call me a heretic (I'm RC)

[@ggarza]

I prefer Aidan Nichols’ treatment of this topic in his book, “Rome and the Eastern Churches.” His argument centers around the Greek and Latin versions of the Creed and their complimentary meanings. Greek word for “proceed,” which is used in John 15:26 and many other times in the NT means to “come or go out” from an implied origin. The focal point of the word is the origin from which movement goes forth. This implied origin in the Greek meaning of the word is important and in context implies that the Father is the First Origin of the Holy Spirit. The Christian Latin word for “proceed” means “to go forwards” without regard to an implied origin. The focal point of the word is the action of going forward. Used by itself in the Creed the word implies that the Holy Spirit goes forth without regard to the Son. As Aquinas says in the Summa, “we use the term to describe any kind of origin (STh., I q.36 a.2 resp. Paragraph 4).” In order to fix this problem in the Christian Latin version of the Creed, the qualifier, “and the Son” was added to Western Versions. However, when the qualifier, “And the Son” is added to the Greek versions of the Creed, the clear meaning to the Greek reader is that the Holy Spirit has a two first origins. This is a problem. Greeks are correct to protect such a misunderstanding in their version of the Creed. Both versions of the Creed together give a fuller and more complimentary meaning of the ancient faith, the Western versions with the Filioque and the Greek versions without.

[@ggarza]

@@joshuamoore8278 Indeed. As the Council of Florence (Cantata Domino ❡2) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#248) teach, "the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as 'the principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit{.}" Furthermore, the Vatican document, Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit, issued by the Pontifical Council on Christian Unity addresses the involuntarily created false equivalence with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusin and the Latin theology of the processio due to the different meanings of the Greek and Latin words, respectively, which I warmly recommend to you.

[@ranaasali3420]

Awesome..thank you for this!..

[@athanassiosdesigner]

Very orthodox and very Catholic too ! ❤️

[@bh9225]

Which meaning of the word "proceed" was used at the council? Latin or Greek? If Latin then the original verse was used simply to protect the status of Holy Spirit from contemporary heretics. If Greek then the full meaning was lost when translated into Latin. Therefore, the words "and the Son" were added to bring about the implied understanding of the original council (or at least of the early Church Fathers) to help educate converts, especially the barbarians. If this is so, why did East object?

[@ggarza]

@@bh9225 The Council used Greek to compose the Creed and used the same word for “proceed” as the NT. The Latin used in the West is a translation of the Greek.

[@jennashlock6032]

Totally AWESOME! Thank you again for broadening our horizons when it comes to the St Angelic Dr.🙌

[@Cellalu]

Acknowledging that the Trinity has always been, I find a positive indication for the 'filioque' in the fact that 40 days after His resurrection, Christ Jesus ascends to the Father, and that 10 days after that the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles and others. It seems logical to me that the Spirit bursts forth in joy into the hearts of the apostles and other followers because of the re-union of the Father and the Son. It seems a disgrace to view the Trinity as the first-, second- and third-place finishers in a horse race.

[@Anyone690]

Very Augustinian

[@SlaveofGod777]

@@Anyone690 wdym?

[@keircampbell9374]

Without the filioque it does not reduce it to a 1 2 3 godhead. It just means the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him alone. I say the filioque but your not correct on that.

[@daniellindstrom1089]

Catholic here: I think the best argument from Aquinas comes from his Respondeo, in which he says that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone then the Spirit cannot be distinct from the Son, since the only distinction that could be made is material and in God there are no material distinctions. Best argument against (that doesn't necessarily disprove) the Filioque is Anselm in objection 7.

[@daniellindstrom1089]

@@joshuamoore8278 Hey Joshua-I hear you there, but unless John of Damascus has evidential reasoning to explain that a bit more, then it’s not more than an appeal to his authority, which by itself isn’t gonna do it for me. And even if it did, another question left unanswered might be, “Then what is the relationship between the Spirit and the Son?” which the supposed difference between procession and begetting doesn’t account for.

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

I swear Anselm believed in the Filioque.

[@daniellindstrom1089]

@@TheChunkyCrusader Hahaha you’re right, you’re right. I should have written, “Best argument against is the use of St. Anselm in objection 7.”

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

@@daniellindstrom1089 😁

[@athanassiosdesigner]

@@joshuamoore8278 Saint John of Damascus was right my brother since we all tend to forget that the Creed also states that the Holy Spirit “speaks via the prophets”. Neither St John nor St Aquinas were Prophets. That is why a Saint is not always a prophet but a prophet is always a saint.

[@tradtiger2468]

:) Thank you for making all these vids, Matt!

[@sibergirl]

I converted from Evangelical Presbyterianism to Catholicism in 2003. I, like many, investigated the Orthodox Church. The 3 big problems were their take on the Papacy ( I came to believe there had to be a primacy of one of the Sees, or nothing could ever be settled), the Filioque, and the overwhelming monocultural feel of each parish. Whether it was Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Coptic etc....as a person who’s ancestry is 100% British Isles, I didn’t feel at home in any of them. I even went to some Bible studies but didn’t get all the Greek “in jokes”. The people were lovely but I felt out of place. In the end, I saw the primacy of the Chair of Peter, the importance of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, and the sheerly obvious universality of the Catholic Church winning out. P.S. I’m so happy to be a Patreon supporter of Pints with Aquinas. You have such terrific content, Matt.

[@huskyfaninmass1042]

Maybe you didn't feel at home because maybe people from the British Isles in particular and the West in general are the bad guys. It was the western Christians who sacked Orthodox Constantinople. It was the British who blocked Orthodox Russia from retaking Constantinople from the Muslims in the 19th century. It is the US today that sanctions Orthodox Russia for Navalny while turning a blind eye while Wahhabist Saudi Arabia vivisects a journalist(Khashoggi). The Catholic and Anglican Churches give off weakand effeminate vibes. Maybe the Islamization of the West is a punishment from the Almighty.

[@dannielpayne3045]

@@huskyfaninmass1042 stop being mean. Your brother gave his point of view and this is how you respond? That's not a christian way of acting, sir. Anyways, no, Islamization is not a real problem in the west because it is an attack from the Devil, have you seen the government agendas. May God bless you ✝️.

[@jebbush2527]

@@huskyfaninmass1042 oh, dude, these arguments are bad. It would be so easy to go back and forth on this. - it was the Orthodox who massacred the Latins in Constantinople - it was the Orthodox who had a famous saying, “better the Turkish Turbin than the Papal Tiara” and cooperated with the Turks, which imperilled all of Christendom itself - it was the Orthodox who cooperated with the communist Russians, and who stole a mountain of eastern Catholic Church property, and martyred many of their bishops - the Orthodox Church largely tolerates divorce and remarriage and contraception, which I find weak and effeminate See how this goes both ways? It’s a total waste of time. It’s the theological disputes that matter, and in my estimation the west is right on those topics.

[@vaseman3639]

Coptic aren’t Eastern Orthodox, they are Oriental Orthodox. there is a cultural edge to Orthodox churches, but even in the British isles there are Western Rite Orthodox Churches that use an altered liturgy of St. Gregory the Great. God bless you and your family Edit: I am Catholic now and believe that you are right on the Papacy and the Filioque.

[@bond3161]

Say primacy with Peter. After he died, there was no more primacy. So... What's the big deal. Or do we go so far to say it was written that whoever be lays hands on has primacy?

[@KFox17]

Thanks Matt for posting this, I appreciate it a lot!

[@cyndichanou]

I lived in Thessaloniki, Greece for 30 years (I American, my husband Greek) and worked with the Catholic Church there. We did indeed have the filioque in the Greek creed. However, we once had a visiting English speaking priest who told us that no one except God himself understands how the Holy Spirit comes to us. It's a crazy thing to argue about.🤭

[@iammsmorales]

Thank you for your candor

[@IrishEddie317]

Wrong! TRUTH is NEVER a crazy thing to argue about. You sound like an ecumenist to me.

[@Thedisciplemike]

a strange thing for a priest to say; he may not understand the argument. No Orthodox disagrees with the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in the ekonomia. Rather, the disagreement lies in the life of the Trinity, and will say the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

[@sebastianbolt7886]

Indeed

[@princeofthekylineskyline2984]

Am I the only one here that feels like this is highly complicated material that's very difficult for a laymen to handle? To be fair, I'm not the brightest guy out there but this seems like a mystery that will take me years to comprehend with any degree of confidence. I'm OK with that. Christus Vincit.

[@briansardinas1359]

You are not the only one my friend!

[@igor.michael]

It's Not that complicated If we keep focused on and in CHRIST. The FILIOQUE is clarified in the Gospel of St John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

[@Chamindo7]

Yes, agreed. I have a Master of Divinity degree which only helped me to realize how little I truly comprehend. Thank God for the Church Doctors and the Magisterium. Ave Maria.

[@carolineg.5556]

Yes.... Reading Aquinas always sends me into a headspin! But Matt Fradd's channel helps a lot and I usually rewind the video a bit or re-read the section that's difficult. Even then, I still leave a bit confused, but I think it will just take time!

[@igor.michael]

As Catholics we have thefore the Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church and her teachhings so that we don't get confused. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in #246. 246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)”. the Council of Florence in 1438 explains: “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.” It's biblical as per Gospel of JOHN 20:22 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

[@princeofthekylineskyline2984]

This jacket is very clutch. Well done.

[@Veritas1234]

Literally didn't know I had something else of which I could disagree with others. Thanks Matt Fradd. Haha.

[@denakelley4363]

I'm actively exploring Orthodoxy vs Catholicism but the Filioque issue actually kind of baffles me as to why it's such an issue. If the Orthodox believe that Jesus is consubstantial (of the same substance) as the Father - and based on my research this is included in their version of the Creed- then I fail to understand their objection to the Filioque. Regardless, it's the least of the stumbling blocks to Catholicism for me because if an Angel will tell Augustine that he has a better chance of emptying the ocean with a cup into a hole in the sand than of understanding the nature of the Trinity, I'm fairly certain God will forgive us not having a complete understanding.

[@dwong9289]

You are absolutely right about the Filioque. The Orthodox seem to forget that the consubstantiality guarantees that the Father and Son share the same numerically one Divine Essence. Given that all is communicated to the Son, except for Paternity. The Father spirates, therefore the Son spirates. Paternity is still maintained as the Father is unbegotten - whereas the Son is begotten. The problem I believe is that many EO treat the Divine Essence as a genus - and think that consubstantiality does not guarantee one single concrete Divine Essence. In their mind - they are thinking of three separate instances of the Divine Essence. So the spiration would not transfer over - but that’s because they have a wrong conception of God.

[@athanassiosdesigner]

@@dwong9289 in orthodoxy all three hypostasises have one essence so the Holy Spirit is in essence just like the Son. The Spirit is not a mere product of the other as this would be an unorthodox heresy.

[@athanassiosdesigner]

Your confusion is because substance derives from hypostasis and essence from ousia/ουσία. The Holy Trinity has one essence of three distinct yet inseparable substances 😁 And substances does not mean ingredients.

[@user-nn3ox5rr9e]

What have you decided?

[@jini235]

Orthodoxy distinguishes essence and energy all the persons of the trinity are of the same essence/nature (a divine nature) but the qualities that are unique to each person are the energies. The father is the monarchae from whom the son is begotten and the Holy spirit spirates. Those are the qualities unique to each person. To say that the Holy spirit proceeds from both the father and the son diminishes the position of the holy spirit because now we have a nature that is not divine (doesn't belong to all three persons of the trinity) and now the father and the son have the same quality (of procession) and so that energy is not unique to the father. So both the father and the son have the same energy and where does that leave the Holy spirit?

[@Maskedlapis64]

Please get Dr. Hahn on to discuss Filioque, he alluded to it in the last video

[@ArchetypeGotoh]

That’s why this video was made, I’m sure :)

[@nerdanalog1707]

Yes, please, it would be a great discussion with Dr Hahn.

[@charliek2557]

Yes please

[@charliek2557]

@@TheWorldTeacher faith

[@bambbambboyguy123]

@@TheWorldTeacher I used to be atheists Gods existence is self evident

[@gabeboehne2469]

Pints with Aquinas getting back to its roots with St Thomas, love it.

[@theomimesis]

Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are - as a consequence - one in essence (homoousios) with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the use of the term homoousios by the Church Fathers involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from God the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to His progression (proienai), because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which - as I already indicated - is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, "Logos Apodeiktikos," I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature. Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from the Father and the Son "as from one principle," thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father. It is only in connection with the Spirit's progression (proienai), i.e., His outpouring as grace, that one may speak of a "filioque" of sorts (or to be more precise a "per filium"), but it must be made absolutely clear that the manifestation (phanerosis) of the Spirit as energy has nothing to do with His hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin, which comes only from the Father as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity.

[@bropeterdimond]

The main thing stopping me from converting to Catholicism instead of Orthodoxy is the state of the Church, especially considering Christ said the gates of hell wouldn't succeed against his Church. And the main thing stopping me from becoming Orthodox is because of their rejection of the Filioque and that I am hesitant to reject it given all the proofs for it.

[@colincyzon3627]

I am curious, do you you believe that the gates of hell have succeeded against the Church?

[@user-nn3ox5rr9e]

Have you made your decision, brother?

[@bropeterdimond]

@@user-nn3ox5rr9e I have actually. I have come to the conclusion the Orthodox are correct on the matter

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

I gotta be honest, given that both the East and the West have strong traditions affirming that we ought to be apophatic in our discussion of the divine nature (we call the Trinity a mystery a reason), I don't understand how anyone can read philosophical arguments on the topic of the filioque and come out convinced either way. Since Aquinas didn't think we could use reason to get to the Trinity itself, can we really be confident that we have a good philosophical argument that can determine such a detail as the relationship between the persons of the Trinity? This seems to be the kind of question we ought to trust as what has been revealed by God to His Church. Since I *do* think there are strong arguments for the primacy of Peter and believe the Catholic Church to be the Church that Christ founded, I'll assent to what the Catholic Church has declared.

[@AveChristusRex]

This.

[@AveChristusRex]

Except, once something is revealed, we can say some things about logical contradictions. There are no logical contradictions in God. Aquinas does seem to successfully argue that for the Spirit and Son to be truly distinct, the Filioque must be true.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@AveChristusRex This

[@user-gh6sn3wd7v]

@@AveChristusRex why? how can one claim such a thing with so much confidence?

[@AveChristusRex]

@@user-gh6sn3wd7v Because logic comes from God, it isn't something He's exempt from or created. He is Logos itself. Or are you saying God can be both God and not God?

[@johnsayre2038]

This is very interesting content. Thank you for sharing Matt. I'm certain that my mental capacity pales in comparison to Aquinas, but I have to say that it doesn't make sense to me why we say the filioque at my local N.O. parish, but do not say it at the Melkite Greek parish I visited last year.

[@TMPSpodcast]

If I wanted to read Aquinas for the first time what work should I start with?

[@connorbergeron639]

Matt! Love image of St. Mary MacKillop. She's in our family's litany. You should do an episode on her in relation to obedience and her 9-month excommunication.

[@masterchief8179]

What St Thomas Aquinas says in his “Reply to Object 2” (“Summa Theologie”, Prima Pars, Quaestio 36) is perfectly in compass with the history of the Church and the motives vindicated in summoning the Council of Constantinople of 381AD. So he was not only a phenomenal doctrinal mind but he knew exactly what he was talking about when referring to the historical context of the Council of Constantinople. To be much more precise, the heresy to what the Council addressed was Macedonianism, that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. So the Council of Nicea (325) was to Arianism what the Council of Constantinople (381) was to Macedonianism. Arius thought the Son was a creature of God; Macedonius thought the Holy Spirit was a creature of God, so structurally the parallel was obvious. Macedonius was the Patriarch of Constantinople (341-360) and the heresiarch that denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. _”The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father”_ (Catholic Encyclopedia, on the term “Filioque”). Besides, it is very, very intriguing to see the Nestorians were the first to deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son according to Aquinas, specially Theodoric, the Nestorian. It says something to me too (Reply to Objection 3, “Summa Theologie”, Prima Pars, Quaestio 36). Thanks on your help, Matt!

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Thanks for this, it explains the issue quite well

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

Yes, Its not like the church could declare every belief at one council let alone 1 creed. There were also a priority of issues and the Macedonians were the number 1 priority. The Nicene creed had to include that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father at the minimum.

[@iammsmorales]

Is the summa a good place to start learning more about the dogma?

[@masterchief8179]

@@iammsmorales I guess “Filioque” on the Catholic Encyclopedia (you can find it online in New Advent) is a great starter.

[@iammsmorales]

@@masterchief8179 oops I meant the overall dogma(s) of our church, 😬 to me the filioque makes 100% sense in light of I think it was aquinas' arguments that it's always been understood and even defended by other theologians, how nestorius was heretical for denying g it as well as his other heresy, and how if the HS has no Association to the Son (both proceededth only from the father like the EO think) it breaks the law of non contradiction in so much as the only relation ship they share in common is to the father, never to each other directly. I tried doing a with thought experiment three perfect and perfectly identical burning wax candles in a perfectly equilateral triangle that would NEVER go out (the 3 persons) and only ONE of them lit the other two (the father candle obvs) now when the Spirit candle descends to speak through the prophets, we have no real connection between the HS candle to the Son Candle, we can only trace its relationship to the father candle, and when the Son candle descends, there Is no relationship to the HS candle. The only relationship they have is with the Father. That's not a triune dynamic. It's like upside down Mickey mouse ears, no HS - S relationship F / \ HS S The relationship between the HS and the Son can only be inferred, not proven. It needs to be proven to make it true. That's why we NEED the filioque, to establish an actual connection with the HS to the Son or else all we have is a theoretical, but not rhetorical (written and spoken) formula to prove it, it's just a possibility not a reality (God *is* real) If we admit that the holy spirit has a relationship with the son as well, if we ABSOLUTELY assert this in the positive, only then can we establish a triunity. F / + HS = S It's the only way to link the HS Back to BOTH the father and the son in unity, and prove it, like a balanced math equation. Using fire as an analogy because you can only light the wick of a candle so much meaning once its lit, it CAN'T get *more* lit the more I use the other two candles to light it (same essences and energies) you cant light an already lit candle MORE by taking other lit candles to it, nor do you light the other candles less by using them together to light the third. This maybe grossly simplistic and if I am in error, God please have mercy on me, but it even fits with the ideas in the bible that God is likened to (heavenly) fire and light.

[@RevolutionDrummer47]

Roman Catholic here. What really is staying with me, is his response that Jesus proceeds as Word, and the Holy Spirit as Love. That without mentally grasping anything, we cannot know love/how to love. Amazing.

[@emmanuelariu8866]

This was my best part as well..

[@Sunicarus]

"The actual and the possible do not differ in things perpetual", Matt do you know where Thomas is quoting from? That's an amazing statement.

[@ModernPapist]

I use to have monthly lunches with a Greek Orthodox priest and the reasons for the filioque being an issue seemed connected to what happened to Constantinople. I may have read it wrong but it seemed to come up at the same time.

[@athanassiosdesigner]

The Filioque is only the excuse for the rise of Papal supremacy. We believe that the schism is due to theological issues but the truth is that there is nothing Theo- ie God/divine in it. Pope’s King wanted to have the absolute power and hence his subordinate “high priest” had to be the ruler of religion.

[@mjramirez6008]

oh the list of grievances....

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

I am convinced that the only obstacle to unity is animosity, not doctrine. I dont know a single Catholic that considers this the hill they're willing to die on. But many Orthodox talk about these things with a bitterness that, again, can only be understood as political/historical animosity - not doctrinal. They (Eastern Orthodox) put a magnifying glass on any potential differences between east and west to try to find a sense of self-assertion. It is an identitarian impulse. Its sad, and I don´t like to judge, but it reeks of pride. And all of this over "processions ad intra", when their own theology is entirely centered around apophaticism! It is so irrational that it clearly goes beyond doctrinal disagreement. Their hearts are hardened. This is my experience - as a Catholic convert FROM Orthodoxy.

[@JRX0X0]

My thoughts exactly... Also, why would you believe something then go to great lengths to hide it? The lovers of Truth come to the light!

[@jennbull0247]

I have to say, I have watched a lot a few videos recently interviewing Orthodox priests and monks (on the Gospel Simplicity channel) and I was really surprised at the slights and digs at the Catholic Church that would come up in the interview. They definitely had a chip on their shoulder, almost like a little brother living under big brother's shadow. A resentment that is still alive today a thousand years later. That does exist in the Catholic world. I have always viewed Orthodoxy in a loving and familial way. I was sad to see that the love doesn't flow both ways.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

@@jennbull0247 The vitriol I see against Catholicism on some apologetic pages on social media is quite explicit. I want to believe they dont represent most Orthodox, but really you hear this kind of language far too often, and its completely unwarranted and unprovoked from the Catholic side.

[@Cato_the_Christian]

The source and sustainment of the schism is pride.

[@costakeith9048]

Frankly, the theological issues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are probably bigger than between either party and the Oriental Orthodox, at least once you understand what they mean by 'physis' or 'nature', but those differences are still sufficient for the Orthodox and Catholics alike to maintain the ancient anathemas against them. Though I would concede that the specific issue of the filioque is probably less significant than the related issue of Absolute Divine Simplicity and the refusal of Rome to acknowledge the real and substantive distinctions that exist within the Godhead. But, at the same time, you are right that there is an instinctual repulsion amongst the Orthodox to the language and theology of the west, but I don't think it merely derives from political and historical circumstance. Rather it originates in Rome's insistence on trying to integrate into Christian theology what St. Gregory the Theologian called 'Aristotle's petty providence, and his artificial system, and his discourses about the mortality of the soul, and the humanitarianism of his doctrine.' His demonic system is utterly repulsive to the faithful of Christ and his god is no closer to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob than Baal or Osiris; and, yet, his heathen philosophy is always in your face whenever you engage with the west on theological topics. No matter how much they try to contort and twist his system to render Orthodox results, an encounter with it will always leave a bitter taste in your mouth. Of course, this philosophical system is also the source of the theological disagreements between East and West with regard to Divine Simplicity, but our dislike for it certainly goes beyond the overt theological errors it engenders. Oh, and our theology is not entirely centered around apophaticism, it is only with respect to the Divine Essence itself that theology is confined to apophaticism. But we acknowledge real and substantive distinctions within the Godhead and those other aspects of God that are not the Divine Essence can be spoken of in a positive manner.

[@masterchief8179]

The Greek Scriptures use different Greek verbs to speak of different kinds of “going forth” from the Father (a cognate of “erchomai” in John 8, 42, for example, but “ekporeusthai” in John 15, 26), but the Latin Scriptures (in the Vulgate or in earlier manuscripts) translate these different Greek words by the same Latin verb, “procedere” (to proceed), the word from which the past form “procedit” comes. The whole problem with the Greek-speaking Christians was the possible understanding of the “double procession” of the Spirit as both the Father and the Son would be like two autonomic principles of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit on the love relation operating between the Father and the Son on eternity, from which the Holy Spirit is spired as one sole principle. But it is NEVER taught by the Catholic Church; the Church never taught the Holy Spirit have two autonomic causation within the eternity of the Holy Trinity. That is what is proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon (2nd) and Florence. In both the Greek Eastern Orthodox fully participated, accepted the explanations and ended up retreating the support. In Florence, it was even more significant: unification was inclusive signed and the understandings were settled, until after the Council they simply said they wouldn’t follow it albeit attending every possible ecclesiological definition not only of a Council, but of an Ecumenical Council. That said, I personally agree with the Eastern Greek Catholics on the position of not adding it to the Creed in Greek since the words are clear-cut in that idiom and at the same time with the Holy See treatment of it in “Orientallium Dignitatis” (Pope Leo XIII) and “Orientale Lumen” (Pope St John Paul II). But I wouldn’t agree with those who say the Latin Creed should take the “Filioque” words out, because in Latin it is vital for understanding it adequately.

[@Alexandru20101991]

EO AND RC could settle this în the same way St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioh settled their debate. It don't know it's just my opinion. But best solution is to remove the addition from the Creed.

[@masterchief8179]

@@Alexandru20101991 Tks for the response! Yeah, I know some defend we should simply take it out of the Latin Creed on the purpose of achieving ecumenical efforts, as if not adding to the Greek Creed (the original language) - the official Catholic position - wouldn’t be enough to satisfy those in schism. I personally believe it would not make any effort more concrete towards unity and at the same time it would compromise the clarity of the teachings of monumental writers as St Ambrose, St Augustine and many other in the Latin Fathers. Getting rid of the Latin Fathers (and anything Latin) is the way most Catholics feel on the position adopted by the “Byzantine Greek”, in the context of the schism. St Maximus the Confessor was the true ecumenical orthodox Catholic here, I think, and his example should inspire us.

[@adamgoldwasser]

I just came back to the Catholic Church. I left for Orthodoxy for a year, came back during Holy Week. It was issues like this(which just doesn’t feel like a true issue to me, or at least true enough to divide the Church) that always had me scratching my head. I read Photius and something about him reminds of Christ’s warning about wolves. That he is a Saint there, over Augustine, who isn’t one, says a lot to me. Just a subtle spirit of contentiousness I sensed there, not among the faithful but definitely among their “champions” of Orthodoxy. And I think this is why they are not Church but simply a bunch of Churches.

[@diansc7322]

@@adamgoldwasser Saint Augustine is a full saint and church father in the Orthodox Church

[@BrandonCorley109]

The biggest problem for the filioque is that it conflates what's true of the essence with the processions of the persons. If the Son receives the spirating of the Spirit from the Father *as God through the communication of the essence*, then the Holy Spirit must not be God unless He spirates Himself. Robert Letham for example writes, "The filioque clause is misleading for three possible reasons. First, if the Spirit were to proceed from two separate sources, the monarchy of the Father would be undermined. That is not the way it has been understood but, having said that, it must be admitted that the clause lends itself to that kind of untutored interpretation. Second, if in the Augustinian sense (the way the West has consistently understood it) the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single source, the distinction of the Father and the Son is blurred. The Son is not the same as the Father-he is begotten, and the Father is not. The Son is forever the Son, and the Father is forever the Father. Thus, the Son does not have the identical relation to the Holy Spirit the Father has. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit must take this distinction into account. Third, there appears some evidence of a tendency to the subordination of the Holy Spirit if the filioque is needed to support the consubstantiality of the Son. If the deity of the Son requires him to be the spirating source of the Holy Spirit, where does that leave the Spirit, who is the source of no other hypostasis? The argument for the filioque comes with a price, a subtle undermining of the Trinity. In this connection, is not a basic principle of trinitarian theology flouted by the West? The attributes of the divine nature are shared by all three persons while the divine properties are held by one person. Here a property (spiration) is shared by two persons while the third is excluded". And likewise, Brannon Ellis writes, "Put simply, Photius - whose arguments I take as representative here - was right to criticize supporters of the filioque for subtly transferring discussion of the Father’s spiration of his Spirit out of comparative personal predication into absolute or common essential predication. The Spirit’s personal origination from the person of the Father is a claim about the distinct identities of the hypostases and the relationship between them, not a comparison between the Father (‘and the Son’) and the Spirit as one God. Western theologians, of course, have been quick to affirm that generation and spiration are personal; ‘God of God’ certainly does not mean the divine essence begets another essence. And it has become abundantly clear that all sides grant a single, original source of the Godhead in the Father. Yet Photius and his successors still have a point: when the power of breathing the Spirit in God is what the Son receives as God from the Father as God, then advocates of the filioque are still speaking of the Spirit’s origination, but no longer on the level of personal predication. The West’s language was intended to guard against subordinationism (by bolstering the Son’s full consubstantiality with the Father), and to ground the immanent relationship between the Son and the Spirit - but it is also a transposition of properly personal speech into an essential register". "From the Father through the Son" is preferable.

[@henrylansing9734]

Honestly as an ex Protestant I was never that compelled by Orthodoxy. The Papacy isn't that hard to accept once you see that the Faith is contingent upon such a Church established by Christ. So in fact the Papacy probably helped lead me away from Protestantism, not the other way around or towards Orthodoxy. I think you give it too much credit haha 😄

[@jennbull0247]

I totally agree! As an Ex-Jehovah's Witness if anything is a testament to the need for one Church, one Faith and the Papacy it is the numerous Christian denominations that have resulted from the first schism onward. Jehovah's Witnesses theology is a prime example of what happens when random people think they can interpret the Bible outside of Tradition.

[@cccccc1]

@@jennbull0247 as an EX JW I was led to Orthodoxy but still have tremendous respect for our catholic brothers. I'm so glad you escaped that cult and kept your faith. Praise God.

[@vladtheinhaler8940]

​@@jennbull0247In all fairness, JW was never a legitimate form of Christianity. Unlike the Christian Bible, the Jehovah’s Witness Bible removes verses about the Trinity and alters some passages to fit its teachings. The Christian Bible is widely accepted among various Christian denominations, while members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses only use the Jehovah’s Witness Bible. JW' do not view Jesus as the second part of the Trinity.

[@vladtheinhaler8940]

​@@cccccc1Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13). In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the pope the title of “Vicar of Christ.”

[@albertbenny431]

Catholic here, Syro Malabar. Is it okay, if as a catholic we say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the father through the son? In some diocese, we say the filioque, in malayalam, but in the some other diocese, we don't. However, saying it in malayalam implies that there are two points of origin for the Holy Spirit which doesn't make sense (reason why some diocese skip the filioque)

[@TheChunkyCrusader]

As long as what is meant is that the Son does help with the procession.

[@gordo13371]

S@HisMarkcellencyKyleMarks so like, Jesus is the middle man between Father and Spirit?

[@Frankly7]

One thing that confuses me about St. Thomas's argument is that while the Son proceeds by am act of the intellect, the Holy Spirit proceeds by an act of the will. Yet elsewhere, Aquinas claims that without a relation between the Son and Holy Spirit there would be no difference between them. Isn't this a self-contradiction? Regardless, I am in line with the Catholic Church because I trust that 2000 years of tradition as well as interpreting and teaching the scripture has produced well-informed theology.

[@JGAstaiza]

Is The Holy Spirit, the same as Ruach Hakodesh?

[@marynewell5706]

I am RC, and I'm studying this...I am leaning towards EO as being correct.

[@slocole1005]

For the Filioque, I would suggest reading about it more throughly along with church fathers. It has a significant amount of proof in the scriptures and fathers

[@joecastillo8798]

@Mary Newell Mary, Remember whom did Jesus chose as His Vicar, the Rock, over whom He built His Church? Peter, who is constantly succeeded throughout the centuries carrying with him the Spirit of truth promised by Jesus to His Church. Having said that, I want you to feel confident that the promised to Peter and future successors is constant and relevant. Therefore, regarding the pricession of the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ, successor of Peter, together with the Universal Church, declares that just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). Church history shows that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" or "from the Father through the Son." These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son. God bless.

[@vladtheinhaler8940]

​@@joecastillo8798 Jesus is superior to the priests, and more importantly, the high priests. This is the key text: “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore, He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:23-25). This means that Jesus is our high priest forever. Since He is "holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, [and] exalted above the heavens" (Hebrews 7:26), He is unlike other priests in that He "does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when He offered Himself" (Hebrews 7:27). Men are appointed by the Law, and men are weak. But the Son was appointed by the New Covenant, and He has been made perfect forever (Hebrews 7:28). The ministry of Jesus is superior to the old, and it is founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6). The Bible says of Jesus that there is no other name by which men can be saved (Acts 4:12). There is only one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). We can now see that there is no biblical foundation for claiming to be a representative of Christ on earth. No man could do what Christ has done, or what Christ is now doing on behalf of humankind. But the title of vicar also carries with it another implication: the bearer has the same jurisdictional power of the official he represents. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ is the one who says He will build His church; He never delegates this power. By claiming the title of Vicar of Christ, the reigning pope is, in fact, promising to do what Christ promised. Jesus does indeed predict a “vicar” in the sense of a “replacement” for His physical presence here on earth. However, this “vicar of Christ” is not a priest, high priest, bishop, or pope. The only biblical “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 declares, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” John 14:16-18 proclaims, “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” The Holy Spirit is Christ’s “replacement” on the earth. The Holy Spirit is our Counselor, Teacher (John 14:26), and guide into all truth (John 16:13). In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit. It is therefore blasphemy to ascribe to the pope the title of “Vicar of Christ.”

[@athanassiosdesigner]

(orthodox 😁) Within the realm of God, the Holy Spirit proceeds, from the Father. Within the reality of Man, the Holy Spirit is proceeded to us by the Son. So for Logos, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father just as for us the Holy Spirit is proceeded by the Son.

[@bh9225]

Yes, but in the origins of the Persons of God no time is involved.

[@iammsmorales]

@@bh9225 agreed! I dont understand how anyone can think there's a question in time

[@Iesu-Christi-Servus]

Actually, Augustin is much better on the filioque, because he takes it way more humbly. In his response to Maximin, he states that there is a difference between procession and generation, but this difference is not relevant for us to know. "Who will tell His generation ?" says Isaiah about the Son, Augustin adds "Who will tell its procession ?" about the Holy Spirit. But however when Jesus says "Receive the Holy Spirit" Jn 20:22, it is clear that His breath is not literally the Holy Spirit, therefore it follows that it does say something at least symbolically about the procession of the Holy Spirit (Trinity, IV, 29), and then in Trinity XV, 25-26, he makes the best answer you will ever read on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

[@alexdiaz155]

The Orthodox fully agree with St. Augustine here. He states our position most humbly and succinctly.

[@connorbergeron639]

Forgive me, Matt, for not yet answering your question about the objections; still thinking on them. I’m Catholic, and could you please address the Eastern Orthodox reason to why they have not called any more councils? Often I’ve heard it’s because the Emperor is the only one to call them, and without an Emperor they cannot be called. If Eastern Orthodoxy is true, then am I to believe an Emperor is necessary for the Church? I wonder if there are parallels to the Christians Emperors & the kings of Jerusalem. Thanks!

[@alexdiaz155]

Because Rome is in schism. We can’t have a proper ecumenical council without the Roman successor to Peter. Ecumenical councils aren’t the only way to define dogma. There have been many dogmatic councils since 1054 (including the 9th ecumenical council) but without Rome in communion it is only a local council, similar to what cardinal Ratzinger said of the latter 14 Catholic Ecumenical Councils.

[@ghostapostle7225]

It's curious to see many people who converts because of personal taste (not believing in a specific catholic doctrine) and not because they recognized where the foundation of truth was. There were many catholic teachings I wasn't sure or fully aware when I converted, but as soon I recognized I had to be baptized because it's Christ's Church,and the pillar of truth, I obliged myself to accept all of its teachings, even ones I still have my personal reservations.

[@vladtheinhaler8940]

That's a terrible way to think. We shouldn't be putting our own personal feelings above what is truth. No one should blindly follow a particular church, which is a man-made institution and is susceptible to error. We should look to scripture for how we are to live, being that it is God's written word and is sufficient.

[@stanyukica382]

What about John 20:19-23.

[@anthonyfowler2623]

Matthew 3:13-17

[@djfunkychicken]

The bible was written in Greek.. its rich language (5 million words) gives accurate explanation and intended context whereas Latin/English has just 1 million words The word "LOVE" in English it has one meaning with context left to interpretation.. in Greek there are 7 different types of words used for the word love.

[@albertbenny431]

Matt, I think you could have put this better. May be slides on objections and replies to it, with explanation from you would have been great.

[@NG-we8uu]

Why do you say Summa Theologiæ instead of Summa Theologica ?

[@jefferypfister6499]

Dual progression vs single progression of the Holy Spirit. How is man to know that about God?

[@bond3161]

Because God can reveal I guess Just like how he reveals in general How do we know before we know? By God will

[@piafounetMarcoPesenti]

The Greek two worde to talk about the two modes of procession from the Father; one for the Son, one for the Spirit. Wouldn't that be enough to distinguish them, without the Filioque? I know that JP II uses the Greek distinction to clear up things.

[@faithwisdom788]

Can we all agree to convert to Catholic or EO is better than being protestant. Either way you're getting the body of Christ.

[@PauperPeccator]

It should always come down to unity between brothers. It’s what Lord Jesus prayed for before crucifixion. We should be hanging out more anyway.

[@faithwisdom788]

@@PauperPeccator My faith is catholic. Watched a coptic orthodox bible study recently. 😁

[@user-ii3zs2gr6u]

The Orthodox Church does not hold that RCC's sacraments are valid, so no, we can't all agree.

[@user-ii3zs2gr6u]

@Based Byzantine The decision on whether to rebaptised is made by the local priest or bishop, and some decide to only chrismate. Even the issue of Catholic baptisms being by pouring and not by immersion is enough to make a lot of clergy decide to baptise. The rejection of the real presence in Catholic communion is universal, and taking it is an act of apostasy by the canons.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Oh absolutely, I've said before that although I would hope I would have found my way to the Catholic Church, that if I had been born into Eastern Orthodoxy I would probably not seek conversion. Whatever online reputation they may cultivate, the EO are so close to us. Then again, I think I would still have some reservations about Palamism.

[@derekgeorgeandrews]

I became Orthodox because: 1. My suffering sister is Orthodox, I was praying for her and certain good things happened in her life, which inspired me 2. God blessed me with new friends at her church 3. Jordan Peterson helped me reconstruct my conception of the metaphysical domain and empasizes things similar to the Orthodox (take up your cross, accept suffering) 4. I am divorced from an unfaithful wife who did not want children. I could have become Catholic and got my marriage annulled, but it seems more consistent with the Christian message that my sin of divorce simply be confessed and moved on from as I am a new creation in Christ post baptism. I don't want some tribunal combing through my past to apply an unbiblical concept of validity to my marriage where there is no scripture to support this but several verses to support divorce in extreme circumstances. The Orthodox position on this goes back pre schism, too... 5. The spirit proceeding from the father yet sent by the son is explicitly stated by Christ. That is enough for me. God is like a great tree, the Father is the trunk and the Son and the Holy Spirit are branches.

[@ghostapostle7225]

We have a tribunal precisely because how rigid Christ was about marriage.

[@jerrytuler1536]

Matt you dont seem as joyful as you were in the past.. whats wrong man?? Keep up the good work just be grateful and hopeful

[@user-li2bo1qt1b]

I’m an Anglican and I’ve been considering converting to Roman Catholicism or EO for a long time. I see both sides of the Filioque argument. I think that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be distinct from one another either with or or without the Filioque, and also be one either with or without the Filioque. I chose to convert to EO in the end not because of the Filioque but because I don’t believe in the immaculate conception.

[@TheShard1771]

The Orthodox generally believed in it until Rome defined it. Here's a source list: afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-orthodox-church/

[@joelmontero9439]

I'm Catholic and oh my God my head hurts.

[@radovanmarcincin2502]

Me too, i got totally lost. XD

[@igor.michael]

JOHN 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

[@dannielpayne3045]

Me too

[@lennygold224]

Greetings and peace to you all. I am no expert on this subject but am interested in this topic. The first bit of scripture that popped into my mind when I read this was John 14:16 "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor/Conforter/Helper/Paraclete to be with you forever." Is "and He will give you..." not then saying that the Spirit comes from the Father. Otherwise it should've said "And we will give you" or Jesus could've said "And I will give you"...

[@GOorganics]

But you are talking about after Jesus ascended into heaven, not the origin of the the Holy spirit.

[@weirdschool]

One can almost never have a civil discussion with Orthodox online ; most of the ones online have nothing but bitterness & vitriol for us Catholics.

[@firenuckle98]

Is it really surprising when channels like this one get people like Eric Ybarra on to misrepresent us, then put out a call for Orthodox people to debate the papacy only to reject some of the best qualified of our apologists for associating with the wrong people

[@alexdiaz155]

I love you and am Orthodox ❤️

[@djfan08]

It would help if Latins would actually argue against the real issue and not build a straw man to argue against. No Orthodox argues against the Spirit being sent by Jesus. The issue of the Filioque is the Latin teaching that both the Father and the Son are dual causes of the Spirit. The Father alone is the sole origin of the Spirit. That’s why the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone but is sent from the Father by the Son.

[@Anyone690]

That’s exactly what Latins (Augustine in particular) argue. You’re last two sentences is correct Catholic orthodoxy. At least that’s what this Latin argues. (But to be fair I have my degree in theology)

[@djfan08]

@@Anyone690 procession of the Spirit from the Father and sent by the Son is not the Filioque though. The Filioque according to the Catechism says that the Father and the Son are both the sole cause of the Spirit. That’s heresy according to the East. There is only one cause of the Spirit and that’s the Father alone.

[@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.

[@iammsmorales]

I also would like to know, because I am aware that this might be a problem only for myself, if anyone else was raised to think that the holy spirit was the Breath of God? Hence the term spiration, from respire (breathe) or even conspire (breathe together), from spirit. That the Holy Spirit could not move through the Son (filioque) with out attributing causative action to the Son would be *like* saying a wind could not move through a house with out implying that the house caused the wind to exisit in the first place. A wind can and does move through things with out meaning that the thing which they move through is the source of the wind itself. Is not the Holy Spirit known to be the Lord, Giver of life, and the breath of God known to be the "Breath of life" Is the Holy Spirit not the breath of God? In the original languages of the septuagint the spirit was called pneuma (current of air) in Greek, or Ruach (air in motion) in hebrew therefore, can not air move through something with out the something which it passes through being the cause of it? I say yes 🤷‍♀️

[@theomimesis]

The East also rejects the Western notion that the persons of the Trinity are distinct through, what the Scholastics called, "relations of opposition," for there can be no opposition within the Godhead. Real distinctions as understood by the Eastern Fathers do not involve separations or oppositional relations; instead, the hypostases of the Holy Trinity are distinct through each person's unique mode of origin (tropos hyparxeos), which can be stated in this way: The Father has His origin from no one, because He is the font, source, and cause of divinity; while the Son has His mode of origin (tropos hyparxeos) from the Father alone by generation; and the Holy Spirit has His mode of origin (tropos hyparxeos) from the Father alone by procession (ekporeusis). That said, according to the Cappadocian Fathers generation and procession are distinct modes of existence and as such they distinguish the person of the Son and the person of the Spirit from the Father, but also from each other, even though - as St. Gregory of Nazianzus says - the difference cannot be fully understood because it lies hidden within the mystery of God and is known only by revelation (see St. Gregory of Nazianzus, "5th Theological Oration"). The idea of opposition within the Godhead would imply that a diastema exists in God, and that would destroy the divine unity.

[@zippie112]

On the Filioque, from a protestant perspective While it would be tempting to attempt to answer your question about the strength or weakness of the view of Aquinas about the issue, such a response would be far too involved for a reply here; Aquinas’ questions and answers probably took more than a few hours to compose. In general I would assert the Roman and Orthodox view are both correct and wrong (co-eternal in a sense). The more important question would be what was the impact, positive and negative, in embracing such a view. Did its adoption fundamentally change the relationship of man and God? Did it have a temporal effect only? Does it alter our understanding of the meaning of life? That the time and location for the adoption of the filioque coincides with the arrival of the Islamic invasion of Spain is not likely to be a coincidence. While I know the Catholic church, in particular, argues that its insertion had more to do with the older and more internal Arian heresy, history does seem to argue that more was afoot. I’ve always been skeptical that it was solely an internal Spanish issue of Aryan heresy; especially given its creation and introduction to Latin liturgy in proximity to the arrival of the Moors. Insertion of the filioque underscores the co-eternal nature of Jesus and God and establishes the inherent ecclesiastical superiority of the Christ to Mohammad. The Orthodox church did not embrace this point of view and also did not survive as the ruling dominant religious and political structure of the middle east. If given the choice, and the idea that Christ and Mohammad are both solely human, does the Islamic argument make more sense than the idea of Christ being coeternal with the metaphyscial being of creation? Did the establishment of Christ as co-originator of the holy spirit also lead the European Church to assume pontifical supremacy? A view that has also engendered a lot of problems in history? Possibly. I don’t know if these issues can be successfully addressed or resolved, but discerning whether a simple statement is the crux of belief seems ludicrous.

[@roddumlauf9241]

The Anglican Parish I attend recently took out the Filioque because in The Eastern Church are correct and more Biblical and consistant with the Apostolic Tradition. Romans were so so wrong in adding the Filioque.

[@charlesnunno8377]

"And the Son" along with "distguished from each other" sound like unneeded additions. This is walking in circles. His Objections seem stronger than his Solutions.

[@justinschmidt1299]

So as a Protestant looking into RC and EO to convert to I think it’s not so much about the words that were added that’s the point of contention but the fact that it WAS added. This added to or cemented, I’m not sure, the western (catholic) idea that the pope was superior which was already a cause of contention. If I’m wrong please feel free to correct me

[@charlesnunno8377]

6 minute mark. So we have another internal contradiction. Not only must God "know himself" but if the "son" "knows" "the father" you can also say, as if in an interlocking internal circle, that he can do what the Father does? Doesn't this feel like a problem at some point? Either the Father has a property or actionability the Son does or doesn't? Which is it?

[@Lodowax]

That one's easy: John 20:22 says:And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." If Holy Spirit was not from the Son how could it originate from His breath? ;)

[@user-dj3is2qh2u]

You are confusing the issue here bro

[@user-ii3zs2gr6u]

Econimic processionism. Are you saying that that Jesus was generating the Holy Spirit, or that He was delivering Him? We receive gifts of the Holy Spirit through sacraments, and those are administered by a priest or bishop. Would anyone dare to say: The Holy Spirit, who originates from the priest/bishop? And Our Lord was and is THE Priest, in the order of Melchisedek, so of course He delivers Him unto us, but is not the origin of Him. The Father is the only origin of both, who are uncreated, and of all of creation.

[@marcokite]

i'm Catholic but that argument seems weak, the Orthodox would say the Holy Spirit (in time) comes from the Father THROUGH the Son

[@diansc7322]

That just the Son sending the Spirit, just as the Spirit sent the Son when He was incarnated

[@johnlardas3221]

You know how we know the fathers didn't believe the filioque? St Basil wrote a comprehensive text on the Spirit and never mentions anything of it

[@Nick-rb1dc]

Aquinas was wrong in the very first claim about the Bible Catechism of the Catholic Church: ///1137 The book of Revelation of St. John, read in the Church's liturgy...[Rev22:1] presents "the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit./// The Greek word for "flowing" here is the IDENTICAL Greek word "Proceeds" in the Creed. Revelation 22:1 says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father and the Son. Until we address Revelation 22:1 and the fact it uses proceeds in reference to the Trinity, we will be closing our eyes to the truth.

[@RLord017]

The filioque is, at its heart, a linguistic debate amplified by messy Church politics. Theologically, we aren't that dissimilar. If we're being exacting with prepositions, we can both agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. The debate is in how we express that truth. The Greek word used, ἐκπορευόμενον, implies the ultimate source of something. It's describing the Holy Spirit as emanating from the Father. We both agree that with that connotation, it'd be heretical to say "and the Son". On the other hand, the Latin word, procēdit, only implies "passing through". You could say "Qui ex Patre procedit" and it would make sense, or you could add "Filioque", and it would still make sense. Once again, both sides should be able to agree to this. (Although Eastern polemics can get in the way of the latter agreement) The Creed was originally written in Greek, where the filioque is heretical, so it was excluded. And when translated into Latin, there was no pressing reason to add it and it made sense without, so it was left out. In a perfect world, that's where this debate would have ended. But then came the heretics. The West has aperiodically had to deal with Arianism, which claims Jesus is not in fact God, but a creation of God. And this isn't some historical claim. You can still see it today explicitly with Jehovah's Witnesses or implicitly with the rejection of Mary as Theotokos. To combat this heresy, you have to emphasize all the divine things Jesus does, like be the source of the Holy Spirit. Leaving the filioque out only supports their claims, and conveniently, our language lets us add it. On the other hand, the East has aperiodically had to deal with Sabellianism, or Partialism as fans of Lutheran Satire likely know it as. They make the opposite claim that there aren't any meaningful divisions between the Persons of the Trinity. To combat this, you have to clearly delineate what each Person does, such as by specifically not naming Jesus as a source of the Holy Spirit. To add the filioque would only confuse things, and conveniently, it was already heretical in the language. Except you might have noticed a problem. If we fought our heretics in the West, it'd only support the heretics in the East. And if they fought their heretics in the East, it'd only support our heretics in the West. Even if fighting heresy is a good reason to add something, it certainly didn't help our case that we had opposing heretics. And finally, the kicker. The reason it became such a major thing. See, we kinda forgot to call a council... And even if we had called an ecumenical council, there's debate as to if we'd technically have been able to change the Creed at all. Hence my comment on messy politics. Even if we had good intentions and weren't actively being heretical (in Latin), it really didn't help our case that we added it in a sleazy manner. Not my words but a person on the Catholic Reddit page from a few years back.

[@ChrisBrackman]

The linguistics and heresy issues make for an interesting explanation. Thank you (and thanks to the redditor) for posting. The filioque's one thing that's always bugged me and I think your last paragraph hit the nail on the head. The way it was done just seems icky (though I concede the Pope's right to do so).

[@igor.michael]

JOHN 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

[@S0l40]

"To combat this heresy you have to emphasize all the divine things Jesus does, like be the source of the Holy Spirit. " This is the problem with the filioque. You think because there is one divine essence shared between Father and Son that Son must also be the source of the spirit. If the argument is that the Spirit must proceed from Jesus because He is divine, then the Spirit must also generate the Son because He is divine. He must also proceed himself. In the words of Photius: "For if each hypostasis is as great as the others, then the procession is common to all three hypostases by virtue of the simple, indivisible essence. And if each hypostasis is as great as the others, then all share in a common and unique simplicity, and therefore the Spirit and the Father will be caused by the Son and the Spirit in a similar manner." I would suggest reading Photius' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. It's not just a language and politics. There are ontological differences between the two views. He also argues that what you're doing here will make the Spirit composite because the Spirit is imperfect in his procession of the Father and gains something in his procession from the Son the he is now composite.

[@jGeb-sx3kv]

How about Rev 22:1: "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... " Might the water of life be the Holy Spirit, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb (i.e. the throne of the Father and the Son)? Just a thought.

[@Nick-rb1dc]

CCC: ///1137 The book of Revelation of St. John, read in the Church's liturgy ... [Rev 22:1] presents "the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb," one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit./// St Ambrose: "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit" (Book On the Holy Spirit 3:154)

[@bond3161]

I thought meant from the father And the son (wherever he is) from the middle etc etc... Its two different thoughts Not father and son. Then continuing the thoughts

[@DoctorLazertron]

Seems like a political move to add something so theologically specific and contentious to an otherwise general confession. But what do I know? I’m here cause I’m new to all this anyway.

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

John 16 expounds on John 15 ("...from the Father"). When Jesus says "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 Spirit can be understood as proceeding from the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Jesus said "I will send Him(the Spirit) to you", the Spirit that "does not speak on his own authority".

[@Saved_Sinner0085]

I wonder what Jesus would say if someone asked him his opinion about the fighting over the filioque.

[@jofo817]

Jesus said He (Jesus) would send the Holy Spirit (John 14-16) so E.O. Would have a problem with Jesus and the Apostle John?? Both sides need to be careful NOT to slide into an “Arian” viewpoint whether intentional or not.

[@primuspilushb]

Filioque destroys the harmony of the Trinity.

[@gileswilliams3014]

May I please ask why this is argued with such vigour? Is it even known what it is 'to proceed' from the Father, or the Son anyway? I know it's the fundamental nature of God that we're debating here, so it can't be unimportant, but since the human mind can't possibly comprehend everything that goes into being three persons in one being, is it such a leap to imagine that the goings on between the three persons would remain a mystery? I just can't imagine being cast down at the Pearly Gates for being wrong, or undecided on the Filioque question.

[@chaldeanguy8356]

I'm still lost on the use of the word _"origin."_ We know that the Holy Trinity are co-eternal, and have existed eternally in union as One God. We know Christ was obedient to The Father, but that obedience doesn't mean He's less than The Father, so this word _"origin"_ is throwing me off. What do they mean when either side says _"proceeds from The Father (and The Son)?"_

[@IvanAgram]

Ancients were pretty quick on anathema...

[@glendanikolakakos7431]

St Thomas Aquinas is not infallible, his a Saint but he still can make mistakes interpreting the Bible. So if the Pope made a mistake in one Dogma therefore his not infallible then you cannot trust the Christ Church teaching anymore 🤷‍♀️Also why not gather another council with the Orthodox Church to settle this issues or better yet why not all the Orthodox have councils and debates about the Holy Ghosts if truly proceed to the Father and of the Son( Don’t just give a reason because they never had Councils when they added it or because the Pope said so therefore we don’t want to added reasons or comply to the Pope’s authority)

[@ematouk100]

EO here: If the son is begotten by an act of intellect and the Holy Spirit by an act of the will, wouldn’t that make them creations? It almost sounds like it’s a choice for God to be a Trinity, but not necessary. But it is necessary that God is Trinity

[@roseg1333]

Why do the Catholics always have to bend to everybody else the Protestants, the Orthodox, and so on. Why do we have to settle in order for everyone to get along this is exhausting. We need give and take. We don’t need to keep giving and giving and settling and settling.

[@TMPSpodcast]

I have a non Catholic friend who would object to this entire video bc everything that is being read is not in the NIV Bible

[@007Seraphim]

I was Roman Catholic for 50 years and became Orthodox in 2008. The Pope in the original Ecumenical Council that developed the Nicene Creed agreed to that creed. A later Pope changed it without consulting an Ecumenical Council. The Pope is also NOT infallible. The Orthodox Church is the way the Church of Jesus Christ is supposed to look...Conciliar...not vertical with a King (the Pope) who decides everything. Aquinas was wrong and just pushing back on orthodoxy. All three members of the Trinity are co-equasl, of one essence, and undivided. Popes do not get to change a Creed that all bishops agreed to.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

I'm greek and disagree. The council wants to be in accordance with nicea as opposed to the monophysites, apollinarians. no additions to the faith of the creed doesnt excludes how it was expressed. There were numerous versions of the creed in the catholic world which didnt constitute protest .Constantinople 1 made an addition to nicea adding clauses but didn't change the nicean faith. An addition to faith is different from an addition of words. The pope also didn't accept the canons of chalcedon or third canon of Ephesus only accepting the faith of the council. It's an interesting approach thinking the faith of something and the words that expressed it are synonymous. changing the faith of the creed doesn't equate to its words. This is deliberate obstinacy. Moreover, the pope strictly expressed that his authority was a devine prerogative in which canstontinople had no place to share or have similar primacy. As the fathers of chalcedon said Peter has spoken through Leo. If the son is only different to the father in relational terms then his consubstantiality includes spiration of the Holy spirit. If It didn't then the son lacks something of the father and becomes subordinate not consubstantial.

[@adamcowan7018]

Filioque is in the Athanasian creed

[@IrishEddie317]

Saying that something is implied in the text leaves the door open for everyone to defend their pet doctrine by making the same claim. Thus you leave what the text says for what you want it to say. This is what we call a "Weasel Clause" in legal jargon. "Just because someone is ancient and holy doesn't mean they are right about everything." Indeed. And that goes for Aquinas!! So far, this is all error and supposition, just like Aquinas's statement that after death the soul cannot repent. He is using his mind to defend a presupposition instead of to find the truth.

[@MBarberfan4life]

What??????!!!! Surely you're joking? What do you mean?! That doesn't follow at all; and by that logic, you would have to dispel the doctrine of the Trinity because the Bible doesn't explicitly say, in so many words, "God is a Trinity!".

[@IrishEddie317]

@@MBarberfan4life The Early Fathers of the Church understood and defended the Trinity, both in their writings, and in council against the heretic, Arias. The source of truth is NOT the musings of any single individual. It is the Sacred Scriptures, Holy Tradition, and the ecumenical councils. The Filioque violates all three of those in one fell swoop, and Aquinas should have submitted himself to them rather than using his brain to come up with vapid and silly answers. Did you know that the sixth and seventh ecumenical councils have both issued anathemas to anyone who would dare to change the canons of an ecumenical council? Maybe this is why the Roman Catholic Church is going to hell in a handbasket, because after a certain point of God's mercy, those anathemas are beginning to kick in? Whacha think?

[@TheLoyalCatholic]

The second objection is false, the councils were summoned by the emperor not by the pope of Rome. The first council to be convoked by a pope alone was the First Council of Lateran, which was done out of communion with east.

[@ChrisBrackman]

I'm Catholic but the filioque has often bothered me, and objection 2 is what I usually brought up as my concern with it but after reading the comment section here, I think that was more emotional distaste for how it was added than anything. The idea of modifying a creed defined by a council without a council just bothered me. The first objection seems the strongest to me because it pulls us back to Scripture and what God has revealed about himself. And I find the first part of Thomas' reply (the citation of John) convincing but his second part where he says, "It is also a rule of Holy Scripture that whatever is said of the Father, applies to the Son, although there be added an exclusive term" sounds like an assertion and I don't know what Thomas' basis for saying that is.

[@ablarod948]

I agree with you. Christ himself states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. True, Christ sends the Holy Spirit but He proceeds from the Father. Second, as I understand it, the filioque was unilaterally added by the Catholic Church, outside of a council of the whole church. That's a mistake. The Catholics and Orthodox together are one Church and can only speak on such truths when they come together and discern them. No individual bishop has the authority to alter church teaching decided on at a council. I find Aquinas' replies to be utterly indecipherable and a little suspect in the way he grabs something from somewhere to make a point without establishing why that something is even applicable and should decide the matter. By the way, I am Roman Catholic but I think the Catholic Church needs to remove the filioque from the creed to be true to the church councils of the First Millennium.

[@brunot2481]

“(...) As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. 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 the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son” (continue).

[@brunot2481]

“The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed: - the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447); - the so-called Athanasian Creed; - several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI); - the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521); - St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655; - Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795; - the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680); - the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem; - the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii; - the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054); - the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; - the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the Council of Florence, 1439. Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost. First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.] Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9). Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol” (continue).

[@brunot2481]

“The *ONLY* Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father”. (Catholic Encyclopedia) www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm

[@igor.michael]

@@ablarod948 JOHN 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.'

[@maximmed]

Are there any theological mathematicians that have proofs for this? I would think this would be able to be proved mathematically.

[@maximmed]

@@deusimperator Thank you for your response.

[@bond3161]

I agree But also with language Love History All roads lead back to God

[@johnreese7988]

The creed established by council should have been amended by council

[@borealopelta7284]

The filioque is not much of an issue for me, personally it is the Catholics teaching on predestination/divine providence and original sin. I recently read their understanding on divine providence and it almost sounds exactly like Calvinism. I think the Catholic church’s biggest issue was following Augustine.

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

St. Augustine was right and calvinism doesn't represent his teaching at all Original sin is the teaching of the early church. Synodes and fathers confirm this and we can talk about that if you want

[@borealopelta7284]

@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 sure, I do understand that original sin is supported from the beginning but not necessarily Augustine’s view. He seems to hold to a more original guilt system. Whereas Eastern Orthodox hold to original sin but as in we have a fallen nature from Adam but are not guilty of his sins

[@dalejohnson2682]

I don't think there is a dogma on predestination. I do agree that Augustine was the inspiration for Calvin, and I actually disagree with both Augustine and Acquinas on predestination as a Catholic. What I prefer is just that God respects our free will, but because he is outside of time, he knows who will persevere in the end. I am more open to Monilism, as this idea balances God's causal power for salvation with our free will, although this is just an idea.

[@dalejohnson2682]

The way you characterise Original sin seems to be the same as what is taught in the Catechism. Just because Acquinas or Augustine believed something, that doesn't make it the official teaching of the church in all circumstances. ​@borealopelta7284

[@borealopelta7284]

@@dalejohnson2682 thanks that is helpful

[@AlejandroGarcia-ek3uy]

Matt Frad, I love your accent.

[@johnbennett6665]

Just say " ....through the Son". Both sides would accept this.

[@Alexandru20101991]

Read Saint Photius and Gregory Palamas on the Filioque then compare it to Aquinas. See what makes more sense. Hands down EO.

[@Alexandru20101991]

@@servus_incognitus This is what the eastern Fathers fear most regarding the roman Church: their sense of intelectual superiority which ends up in infalibility another innovation.

[@magikarp2063]

Eh, Photius was really mad about the pope not recognizing and excommunicating him, apparantly we catholics are heretics for not having married priests and for not starting lent 3 days earlier. Well Photius was later recognized as the true patriarch and he made peace with the pope and the west implying that he either didn't see the filioque as heresy anymore or he was dishonest (something I'm not accusing him of).

[@Math_oma]

I've read Photios' arguments in "Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" and they make no sense at all. It's just one non sequitur after another. He does not argue well. The most charitably I can read him is if he was attacking a strawman wherein he thinks someone says the Son is principle without principle of the Holy Spirit. The only problem is that we do not say this.

[@Alexandru20101991]

@@Math_oma to me it seems pretty solid especialy in light of St. Palamas.

[@Math_oma]

@@Alexandru20101991 Photios' arguments when you put them into strict form and test them against the standards of what makes a good argument will not hold water and will be seen to be malformed. In fact, I aim to do this someday. He's trying to give reductio ad absurdum arguments and he was an educated man so I hold him to that standard. His rhetoric is excellent, but his logic is very poor. It's not a personal attack against Photios, but an assessment of the quality of the arguments he has made versus the standards of good argumentation, which is taken up in logic. Now if you want to complain that I'm holding him to logical standards, despite his text aiming to give a reductio ad absurdum, then one should stop making arguments, including against the filioque.

[@helena_augusta]

Eastern catholics omit the filioque. Rome allows it. Therefore, it's not as contentious as some make it.

[@Patrick-vz6im]

They omit, but the filioque was not included in the creed of Constantinople 381. They have to believe in the filioque as defined at Florence, but they're allowed to omit because it wasnt included in the original creed

[@Math_oma]

Eastern catholics are absolutely bound to the doctrine. They merely don't say it in their liturgical rites.

[@helena_augusta]

Semantics... Former EO Churches are now in union with the Holy See. Therefore, the spoken use of the filioque or lack there of has been settled definitively between them.

[@richlopez5896]

@@helena_augusta I'm a Byzantine Catholic and it is not an issue and I use the Nicene Creed with the Filioque

[@igor.michael]

Holy Bible Gospel by St John is called the Gospel against all Heresies for good reason. The whole FILIOQUE is clarified by JOHN 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

[@djfan08]

You clearly don’t understand what the issue of the Filioque is. It’s not a matter of sending the Spirit. It’s a matter of procession aka origin. The issue is that the Father is the SOLE cause of the spirit. The Spirit comes from the Father and is sent by the Son.

[@igor.michael]

@@djfan08 John 1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." JESUS is Refered as the WORD OF GOD and "The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[@djfan08]

@@igor.michael amen but what’s your point? The Spirit is God as well...

[@igor.michael]

@@djfan08 Yes, so GOD FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST is 1 GOD, 3 Persons. JOHN 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" JOHN 20:22 is clear as our LORD and SAVIOUR "breathed on Them and Said to Them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." after the Resuraction. This is a clear and direct act of giving the HOLY SPIRIT. JOHN 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." GOD the FATHER gave HIS only beloved SON. WORD became flesh so GOD can fulfill the Salvation. The HOLY GHOST is inseparable from GOD FATHER and GOD the SON. Holy Mother and Evervirgin Mary received trough the HOLY GHOST. JESUS, the WORD of GOD, became flesh so GOD is among us. If we Look at Pentecost we See our Most Holy Theotokos praying for the HOLY GHOST and the fire tongues come over the Apostols. It's not that Holy Mother Mary breathed onto them but prayed so that they can receive. Here we can clearly see the Difference between breathed onto them and prayed for them. JESUS breathed onto them - and as Being Fully GOD and Fully Man - eternaly inseparable from GOD FATHER and GOD the HOLY GHOST HE breathed onto them and Said "Receive the HOLY SPIRIT." This is clear and biblical. To be honest, I believe in the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church and the teaching of Holy Mother Church. May those who argue about the teaching of the Holy Mother Church fight in peace for truth. Ave Maria ✝️

[@djfan08]

@@igor.michael John 15:26 disproves the Filioque. Jesus himself speaking says “I will send the Spirit from the Father.” The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The rest of what you said has nothing to do with the issue.

[@orestislazanakis4960]

Thomas Aquinas: "We must not say of God anything that's not in the Bible, not even if it is there implicitly. Also Thomas Aquinas: "The Filioque is implied in scripture!"

[@starcityoldy]

Thank you for confirming Orthodoxy ☦️ Imagine calling St. John Damascus a Nestorian. Yeah, EO are the ones that worship the heart of Jesus.

[@Fasolislithuan]

Read careful the Summa Theological before put your prejudices in Aquinas mouth. St Thomas never say that Damascenus was a nestorian. That's your weak and false argument. Aquinas say that nestorians denied filioque and some fathers follow this error. This don't convert those fathers on nestorians. The only theologian in the text that Aquinas called nestorian is Theodoric, not Damascenus. The text of Aquinas says that not your false pressuposition. Aquinas does say that because some defend Damascenus' authority denied filioque, that argument is insuficient because any theologian can fall in some errors influenced by other theologian. His position about Damascenus it's not he was a nestorian (a nonsense inference) but Damascenus could deny filioque procession by influence of others. However, Aquinas position about Damascenus filioque question looks not definitive, because in the text Aquinas speaks that some scholars defend that Damascenus never denied the filioque but he didn't affirmed It. That's different conclusion. If I say nestorians deny filioque as orthodox christians it doesn't mean I'm saying orthodox christians are nestorians. That's a naive and defficient conclusion. And to say EO are the ones that worship the heart of Christ sounds presumptuous and uncharitable to the rest of christians (coptics, assirians, catholics or protestants)

[@enderwiggen3638]

I doubt this was the cause of the schism. Usually such things are more political in nature. Those who split off will answer for their personal desires. Jesus said that the father was in him and that he was in the father. That he existed before all creation. That he was the alpha and the omega. That he is I Am. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into the apostles. He did not stop and say God the Father now will put the Holy Spirit into you. We later found out about the trinity. That all are God and the three entities are the same essence. The bible never says the Holy Spirit cannot proceed from the son. In a earthly body, Jesus was able to walk among man and speak to them directly. In heaven, we could say he is no longer limited by a human body. Frankly anyone who gets angry over this is going to answer for it. Jesus formed one church and only one. That church is supposed to stay in unity. That church had one authority. Being outside that church is not likely going to help with showing God that you love him and are obedient.

[@gordanatomljanovic6671]

The first is the best

[@edwindewantoro5031]

Why we need discussion or even debate ?! In John 20:22 and galatian 4:6 the proof of filioque is right there! is not even implicit but that's Explisit from Bible!

[@athanassiosdesigner]

The Spirit of the Son in Galatians is the Spirit of Christ but the Spirit of the Son is not the Holy Spirit ie the Son is not the Holy Spirit but has His own hypostatic spirit.

[@edwindewantoro5031]

@@athanassiosdesigner if you go that route you will have 4 Divine person since the Son is equally God you're so called "hypostatic spirit" will be equally God as Holy spirit. You better pray, so God would help you remove spiritual blindness for something so obvious in the scripture but yet you can't see it

[@Alexandru20101991]

Father is God, Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God. If we accept the Son can proceed it means that the spiration is a nature property. Since The Holy Spirit is also God so divine in nature, what or who does the Spirit spirit proceed? In addition if spiration is common to all divine hypostases does also the begetting is common? Can the Spirit beggett the Son? If you say that the properties of unborn, beggett and spiration are common to the hypostases then you end up with no hypostases at all. Saint John Damascene contradicts this line of reason. So does St. Gregory the Theologian.

[@Math_oma]

" If we accept the Son can proceed it means that the spiration is a nature property." Doesn't follow. Compare: if the Son can be generated, then generation is a nature property, etc. Then you're going to start asking who the Son and Holy Spirit generate. "In addition if spiration is common to all divine hypostases does also the begetting is common? Can the Spirit beggett the Son?" Spiration is not common to all divine hypostases. The 'if' part of this is false. "If you say that the properties of unborn, beggett and spiration are common to the hypostases then you end up with no hypostases at all." We don't say that these properties are common to the hypostases. Once again, the 'if' part of this is false. The form of your reply seems to be "if [insert false thing that no one says] then [absurd nonsense]". These arguments are no good.

[@Maskedlapis64]

@@Math_oma Please make a video on this topic dude! You’re a powerhouse. Praying you are well

[@Alexandru20101991]

@@Math_oma quote from St. John Damascene:" We do not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son". I am sorry but it follows. These three properties are specific to each hypostasis, they are not interchangeble: the Father is unbeggotten and unproceeded, The Son is beggoten and not unbeggotten and proceeded. The Spirit is proceeded not beggotten nor unbeggoten. This is how we distingwish the hypostases by their personal mode of being. If the Father proceeds and The Son proceeds why does not the Spirit proceed? Because it is not a nature property but a hypoststic property.

[@Math_oma]

@@Alexandru20101991 We don't say the Trinitarian properties are interchangeable. You've misunderstood. Also, one quote isn't going to solve anything, because I could just find a quote from St. Augustine from De Trinitate in which he supports the Catholic position. You have to attend to what each is saying and the linguistic difficulties, and how we translate words, which is oftentimes a rabbit hole.

[@Alexandru20101991]

@@Math_oma This is what it sounds like when you, not specifically you, atribute procession to The Son also.

[@no_prisoners6474]

Jesus promised the Holy spirit to the apostles. So I don't understand how it's a question that the holy spirit comes from him as well as the Father. In my thinking, it's a no brainer

[@IvanAgram]

What a stupid point of division!

[@Ciupanezu1923]

Let's not forget Christ enemy 🏳️‍🌈.