The Filioque: Arguments For/Against and a Compromise

[@kristina_eb]

to me "through the Son" makes the most sense. it's clear and concise, and it also seems a lot more firmly rooted in the Bible and how the Holy Spirit is described

[@NUKE.2024]

awesome presentation. I learned a couple new words!

[@danstoian7721]

9:51 The real problem is actually, and Torrance writes about this, the Eastern-Orthodox wrong understanding of the "Monarchy of the Father". The Cappadocian Fathers were basically subordinating the Son and The Spirit to the Father. For them, they are diving beings, but not God. For God the Father alone is "without cause (aitía)". The real solution is for the Eastern-Orthodox to affirm the the whole, undivided Trinity is the godhead and without cause, not just the Father alone!

[@danstoian7721]

4:45 I'm sorry but I really don't understand all the hate for the Filioque. If the procession from the Son is implied, and I agree with that. Why deny it? This is like "Let's have communion less often, so it will be special", if it's special, let's have it more often! I feel sort of betrayed because I see it as one sided towards Eastern-Orthodox. How is the affirmation of Filioque "subjugating to the Son" sin both Father and Son are affirmed. And how is it suddenly not subjugation to the Father, if the Father alone is affirmed?

[@matthewmckoy955]

I don’t really get your analogy, brother. Often, or always, the speciality of a celebration is determined by the rarity of it’s occasion. That is why a blood moon, a birthday, Christmas, Easter, etc. is special, because of 1. The meaning and 2. It’s rarity

[@matthewmckoy955]

It is already implied that the Son receives the Holy Spirit through the Father as there can be no Father with no son, so the double procession (from my understanding of this video, this is my first time hearing of the Filioque) is absolutely unnecessary

[@danstoian7721]

@@matthewmckoy955 But that's the thing, the Filioque does not imply a double procession. It affirms the spiration of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

[@danstoian7721]

@@matthewmckoy955 True! Something can be special because it's rare. But it doesn't have to be rare because it's special.

[@jdwagman]

From the perspective of a behavioral scientist; The Filioque was not the real reason for the schism; it was just an excuse.

[@NaSkemez]

Then explain

[@jdwagman]

@@NaSkemez The reason was politics, they didn't want or recognize the Pope in Rome as their head. Their was always rivalry even since Christianity became the Roman/Byzantine state region. It was for much the same reason that fueled the Reformation. But they all needed some kind of religious excuse so their subjects can "keep and defend the faith". If you look at the backdrop when Jesus was crucified their was the politics and the excuses.