The Filioque Heresy (Global Catechism)

Father Josiah Trenham
To Access Global Catechism:
patristicnecta...
Our Newest Lecture Series:
Demonology: Understanding & Winning the Spiritual Battle
Click Here: patristicnecta...
The study of the Church’s demonology is a part of basic catechism and Christian instruction. The Scriptures are replete with teaching on the dark powers. Additionally, it is impossible to appreciate the magnitude of the saving deeds of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, without understanding how He, and He alone, has conquered Satan and destroyed his works. Lastly, Christians are called to fight and win in the spiritual war, and for this reason, it is essential that believers understand their enemies and their tactics. Toward this end, Father Josiah presents in these lectures in-depth studies of the Scriptures, Divine Services, and pedagogy of great saints and teachers on the subject of Satan and spiritual battle.
Lecture titles include:
Lecture #1 Jesus and Satan
Lecture #2 Demonology in the Baptismal Rite and the Divine Liturgy
Lecture #3 Gaining Mastery of Satan: The Life of St. Anthony the Great
Lecture #4 How to Win the Spiritual Battle according to St. John of the Ladder
Lecture #5 Engaging the Unseen Warfare: Fr. Lorenzo Scupoli and St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain
Lecture #6 C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters and Demonic Warfare in the 21st Century Falling West
If you are interested in other available titles, or if you would like more information on Patristic Nectar Publications, please visit our website at www.PatristicNectar.org
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Patristic Nectar Instagram: bit.ly/3kmupqE
Patristic Nectar Facebook: bit.ly/33Bzmpx
Patristic Nectar Twitter: bit.ly/3igrH4f
---SUPPORT PATRISTIC NECTAR---
1) Spread the Word - tell your family and friends about Patristic Nectar. Share Patristic Nectar website links to content you have enjoyed. A personal invitation is the number one way the Church grows. Tell a friend to "Come and see!"
2) Make a Donation -Patristic Nectar is a small non-profit ministry with a big vision for expanding access to Patristic Orthodox teaching throughout the world. Since our establishment in 2010, we have made steady progress but there is so much more we could do. With funding, we can work to make our ministry vision a reality.
patristicnecta...
3) Pray For Us - remember us in your prayers, asking that the Lord strengthen, help, and direct us according to His divine will.
#orthodoxchristianity #jesus #christianity #patristicnectarpublications #patristicnectar #frjosiahtrenham #josiahtrenham #orthodoxchristianity #orthodoxchristian #christianity #church #jesus #jesuschrist #god #shorts #salvation #youtubeshorts #ytshorts #priest #ministry #pastor #identity #internet #christianity #churchfathers #saints #protestant #conscience #catholic #filioque #heresy

[@jeffdavis-nc1sn]

I'm considering converting to Orthodoxy. I grew up in baptist and non-denominational churches, and never once in them did I ever hear a metaphysical, comprehensive understanding of the Holy Trinity. It was always just explained at face value and we had to accept it because of dogma. It's the difference between saying the sky is blue vs understanding why the sky is blue. After listening to Father Josiah and other Orthodox Fathers, I now have a true understanding of the concept. There seems to be a lot of richness in Orthodoxy.

[@MrWesford]

I was baptized Orthodox 2 years ago coming from baptist/non-denom. The richness and the depth never stops.

[@BecomeAnOrthodoxChristian]

Visit your nearest Orthodox Church and speak with the Priest. God be with you!

[@voievod9260]

Hey, Im Orthodox. Feel free to ask me any questions. Im not a theologian but any questions I can't answer, I can ask my spiritual father in my parish. If you feel like it, we could also talk live using discord or other platform.

[@flawlessvic]

I was a prot for 3+ decades. Not once did I ever hear a discussion on Christology. Because within the protestant tradition, there really is none. Orthodoxy will unlock those questions you have and you'll find the original Church.

[@cigler3299]

Come and see.

[@Metascetic]

Coming from the protestant world, all of a sudden this clicked for me I had never heard, for 30 years, about the original creed without the filioque All it took was hearing it once, plus the explanation for it, for me to ultimately turn to Orthodoxy

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

Praise God, Glory to Jesus Christ forever.

[@bonnie_gail]

amen

[@thekatarnalchemist]

​@@bolshoefeodor6536Glory forever!

[@KOVACHOT]

God bless

[@soulfulplaya5508]

The Father is my hope. the Son is my refuge, the holy spirit my protection. Holy trinty Glory to you.. Bless you Father Peter and world family...

[@justanotherlikeyou]

Thank you Father for standing for the Orthodox Truth. Long live Orthodoxy☦️

[@giantrotatingcarrot]

Fascinating! Having been born into and raised in the Roman Catholic Church this was never taught and now I know why. I left the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago and have traveled within the Protestant tradition for many years. Now I have discovered recently the Orthodox tradition and everything that I read and hear just rings true. Blessings to all.

[@voievod9260]

Hey, Im Orthodox. Feel free to ask me any questions. Im not a theologian but any questions I can't answer, I can ask my spiritual father in my parish. If you feel like it, we could also talk live using discord or other platform.

[@LadyMaria]

May God bless you! ☦

[@thedon978]

Keep traveling…

[@voievod9260]

@@thedon978 why? He finally found his home.

[@hamontequila1104]

why would he travel on a broken train?

[@KonstanzArrens]

There seems to be a renaissance of Orthodoxy going on abroad, especially in America, both in rediscovering its spirituality and in attracting new souls to its way and its life.

[@dmacarthur5356]

It's true. I've been curious about The Orthodox Church and have watched a ton of videos and a lot of comments are from recent concerts or by people like myself considering. I am from an Evangelical background and just got to the point where church was a rock concert, a power point seminar, and a Starbucks style coffee shop in the lobby. I felt no connection to God so I stopped going. The more I learn about Orthodoxy the more I am drawn to it. Even Hank Hanegraaff who I used to listen to all the time and have great respect for converted. It's definitely a thing.

[@KonstanzArrens]

@@dmacarthur5356 I liked the description of your ''Evangelical background''. Rings true. lol

[@dmacarthur5356]

@@KonstanzArrens lol, yeah no lie the church had baristas. Unreal.

[@ElonMuskrat-my8jy]

​@@dmacarthur5356My mom's megachurch has their own Starbucks.

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Just a reminder for my Orthodox brothers: try to be respectful and kind with non-Orthodox people who visit this channel. 😊

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

Of course that de9ends on how they behave, and whether they are spreading blasphemy and heresy! Sometimes, we need to follow Christ's example, and "whip the money-changers out of the Temple", no?

[@DexiPawnz]

@@bolshoefeodor6536 how about we leave God's judgement & veangence to Him, for He claimed those.

[@mrjkstark]

@@bolshoefeodor6536 Definitely we should defend our faith, but let’s not stoop to their level and be nasty about it.

[@josephodoherty7864]

@@mrjkstark "let's not stoop to their....." What a nasty arrogant attitude 😒. Why would I trust a single unchristian word you say?

[@josephodoherty7864]

@@bolshoefeodor6536 the speaker/clip & many commenters are just shocking & hate mongering. I hope & pray this doesn't represent the Orthodox Church in any way shape or form. Horrific & sectarian.

[@alvinf6981]

Well, what I have a problem with is not "filioque," but "procedit." But, I believe we need to wait until we get to heaven to learn about these details and refrain from calling each other "heretics" unnecessarily.

I find I agree with a lot of the orthodox but I can't see myself ever praying to departed human beings or elevating Mary far beyond a place of respect and admiration. I would think any worship or prayers given to someone other than God would be error. Christ made the way for us to be saved and to have the most precious Holy Spirit lead us through life. I will speak with Him myself and take the lives of those who came before as encouragement for the marathon that is ahead. I absolutely hate watching believers, professing Christ lovers going at one another over the internet. Just makes us look silly and a reason to keep walking as many non believers do. I am of the belief that Christ can reach down and save any person in any condition and lead them to His church. The church He will build NOT built by human hands. We all see and know in part but someday we will see in full when we all will stand before Him. ❤ to those who fight with one another- where is the common ground? Is there only One God? Is Jesus the begotten Son who lived, died and resurrected providing the salvation of all those who He would call? Then argue in private about the other stuff.

[@guyparker1749]

The sky is falling ,and it's raining cats and dogs ,think of it as a door to Christ heaven which there is no end..

[@amakrid]

@alvinf6981 You've entered into the core of the whole issue my friend... Qudos!

[@1337wafflezz]

Thank you. We as Christians and brothers need to be able to have hard conversations about theology without name calling. I’m sure every single one of us in some aspects what we personally may believe? has some heretical opinions in the sense that it is not how God operates. But that’s not important as long as we BELIEVE in Christ, have faith, and let Him do His works in us. Jesus and Jesus alone is our salvation. That’s how it was and that’s how it will be eternally. everything else is secondary to following Him and His words

[@williamrosario8534]

I agree. We shouldn't be calling Christ followers heretics. People think they know every detail of god. They don't. Nobody does. The church split because of a few words and couldn't get over it for a thousand years. This is error of man. Being stubborn and prideful gets us nowhere. Catholic or Orthodox, who cares. People put way too much emphasis on denominations. Which is not biblical at all. Jesus said to follow him. Period.

[@ICXCNIKA8]

Well said Fr.Josiah! We are blessed to have priests like you! May God watch over you and protect you and your family 🙏🏼 ☦️

[@panagenesis2695]

Happy Feast of The Dormition of The Theotokos!☦⛪🕯

[@AkiRitchey]

Joyous Feastday! May the Holy Theotokos pray for us all for our efforts!

[@royalbirb275]

Joyous feast!

[@LadyMaria]

We have 13 more days before the Feast of the Dormition here, but blessed Feast to you. ☦︎ 🤗

[@AkiRitchey]

@LadyMaria May God bless your fast and your efforts! Blessed fast to you!!

[@Kostas_Dikefalaios]

​@@LadyMariaOriental?

[@Chrisc-sn6uh]

Im currently reading, Apodictic treatise on the procession of the holy spirit. It makes it so very clear why the filioque is a huge mistake! I highly recommend it. I am in awe at the brilliance of st Gregory!

[@josephodoherty7864]

This is apologetics not theology per se and sadly rationalises a serious point of schism which needs clearer Christian dialogue.

[@comsortecomvoce4865]

Catholic here: obs: i love you guys, Viva Cristo Rei! Hello, for all those here,there is 2 arguments in saint thomas aquinas writings that made me understand the filioque importance, first one: the Creed nicea-constitopolitan was created strategically thought to fight each hesery of his time, so every single word put there was to combat the relevant heresys at the time, and because the filioque question was not in debate it was not explicit put on the creed, just when the nestorian hesery started to gain power and say that Christ didn't had the same nature as the Father, they also start to say that because of it the Holy Spirit didn't came from the Son, but just the Fatherso because of this the hierarchy saw the necessity to include explicitly this truth that was implicit on the Creed already(because the Creed was write in Greek and had no negation against the filioque attribute of the Holy Trinity. This was included to combat the heresies like in the previous councils. Second argument: The Holy Trinity has the same essence, because they i God in essence, but at the same time in this essence exist 3 persons, so the material (essence) of the Holy Trinity is the same, therefore what makes the persons distinct is the relation (order, i understood like that) between them, therefore if we affirm that the Holy Spirit came just from the Father and not from the Son, it means that they are the same person, otherwise there is 2 persons only in the trinity, but this isn't true, so thats why the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, and the Son come from the Father, because now they have distinct relations therefore are distinct persons, and i like to relate it wkth atoms, they have the same essence, but in other to them create something totally distinct in frequency vibration and energy dissipation they will ordering themselves in a different way, so they still continue to be atoms, but with different characteristics. The point that you brought in diminish the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity doesn't even make sense to me, because we are talking about the same essence (principal) and a perfect relationship, how can something that is perfect and infinity be diminished by his order of origin?

[@MsTennisAddict]

Makes sense. Also if you just say from the Father, it leaves the Son on His own. As if the father and holy spirit only are related. The filioque ties them all together. ☺️. In my opinion, the only heresy is not loving Jesus. All these little differences do not matter. We should all unite and leave our differences behind. We have bigger problems in this world lol

[@MC-ot7xl]

That is called post factum case building. If Filioque is small difference why dont you renounce it and come back to original creed? Pope is not primus interpares , he is equal to all other patriarchs. We should only worship The Holy Trinity, not high priest. Patriarch of Rome is that, Patriarch. Ecumenism is only truthful if not imposed, but agreed among equals. Jesus told Peter that one who wants to lead needs to be servant of all - the most humble. Hence, brother Roman Catholics, humble your self and renounce Filioque and Papal primacy and return to your one Holy Catholicos Church of Jesus Christ - come back to Orthodoxy - we are waiting for you with open arms ❤

[@MsTennisAddict]

I am actually greek catholic (melkite). Not roman. Our creed says only from the father despite the fact that we do follow the pope. 😊 I actually go to a roman catholic church because I feel so close to Jesus in that church. But I love them all. I wish we could unite and try to bring everyone on earth to Jesus instead of being divided. But it’s human nature…

[@orthospch]

this is singlehandedly the best explanation of the filioque i’ve ever heard, thank you Father!

[@illustratoriusrex5949]

I love Orthodoxy more by the day

[@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded]

same here

[@melroycorrea7720]

The Catholics don't speak of the Son as the origin of the Spirit, but as the one who recieves the Spirit from the Father and through whom, the Spirit is given to the world. It is in this understanding, that the Spirit is of the Father and the Son.

[@arturmonteiro8541]

If I’m not wrong, orthodox don’t have an issue with the Filioque itself, but the fact that it was inserted into the creed without any proper discussion

[@melroycorrea7720]

@@arturmonteiro8541 this video claims Filioque to be a heresy. Also, the Church in the West had to make this change in the Creed because it was fighting the Arian heresy that was denying the full divine nature to the Son.

[@Maxx02897]

The council of Florence teachs that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principe.

[@amakrid]

@@melroycorrea7720 The looser structure of the Orthodox Church, gives the priests the opportunity to add a few more words, not always in the wisest way. To the Orthodox, the insertion of the Filioque in the Credo was initiating a diarchy in the Trinity - and that was heretical. Today, the traditional Patriarchs of the Eastern Church don't speak of heresy and heretics, Constantinople and Rome engage into dialogue in good terms and maybe are closer to each other, than say Constantinople in relation to Moscow... Forgive the priest please. He is a convert and converts are always zealots! 😉

[@melroycorrea7720]

@@Maxx02897 That's because it's one divine nature and not because the Son is the Origin of the Spirit.

[@AndrewKendall71]

Thank God we come to him as children do. Thank God we don't have to have full knowledge and understanding to be in Christ, trusting him alone for salvation.

[@henrysmith5784]

My children and I were received into the Church in October of 2022. I was raised in a Roman Catholic family but I was converted to a non denominational (but pentecostal) church. The protestant church that I converted to did teach some proper theology, such as being very much against the doctrine of "once saved, always saved", and taught basic fundamentals such as Christ is fully human and fully God, the Trinity. Although we practiced speaking in "tongues", we were taught that most charismatics/pentecostals were in the equivalence of spiritual Prelest. I say that to say this, the heresy of the filioque has been hard for me to wrap my head around, but this has been the best explanation that I've heard and because of this I feel that I finally understand! Thanks so much! : )

[@danktankdragkings7117]

thank you I'm in x Protestant Western right Orthodox convert I have been trying to explain for years why Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same thing. thank you for making it so succinctly I've been trying to explain the schism from the Orthodox perspective

[@ericlammerman2777]

The difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is a LOT more than the Filioque clause, even pre-schism. If I had to boil it down to one thing, though, it's the papacy. Christ is the head of His church, not any bishop. The bishop of Rome was not satisfied, however, being the first among equals. Having said this: It's not that simple.

[@danktankdragkings7117]

@@ericlammerman2777 of course it's way more but that's the part my Orthodox, Catholic, protestant discussion groups bring up. If you just say the papacy is dumb they will give their talking points, we will give our rebuttal then no dialogue happens after that.

[@Darth_Vader258]

​@@ericlammerman2777 As a cradle Catholic, to be fair to the Orthodox. There have never been an *ABOMINABLE* Orthodox leader like Pope Alexander the VI, Pope Boniface the VIII and the many ANTI Popes throughout the centuries.

[@matthewporcelli6288]

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son." -- Seventh Ecumenical Council, St Tarasios of Constantinople

[@marcokite]

'through the Son' refers EITHER to the procession in Time and Space OR to the Eternal Manifestation NOT to the Cause of the Holy Spirit. **Glory be to the Holy Spirit, Eternal King, Treasury of Blessings!**

[@giorgirazmadze5102]

We have no problem with such definition but we oppose what was defined in Florence

[@Pontifical_Jester]

As a fairly new convert to Catholicism (a few years), I have never heard any priest, bishop, or layperson describe a belief that matches your description of the heresy. This seems like making theological mountains out of linguistic molehills.

[@t.d6379]

Typical Lil Bro behaviour from the Orthys

[@on_the_journey_101]

And unilaterally changing what the whole church agreed to is somehow ok?

[@t.d6379]

@No_One_infinity no it wasn't okay, we admit that, well most of us anyway. But in the end we were right about it and it defeated a growing heresy, something the church has done for almost 2k years. We could unify and orthodox brothers wouldn't have to admit it into their creed.

[@on_the_journey_101]

@@t.d6379 it does not seem to me that you are expressing the desire to seek forgiveness for this but you are seeking for submission from us for something you admit was wrong and divided us based on your stated desire to defeat heresy you entered into error(if you admit something is wrong how is it not error) do you understand?

[@on_the_journey_101]

@@t.d6379 also please forgive me if i mistook you for someone else who was attacking fr josiah

[@miketacos9034]

I never really understood this issue until this video. Thank you Father!

[@josephodoherty7864]

Get some other viewpoints to get any sort of balanced understanding.

[@diannalaubenberg7532]

Thank you. I had never heard the explanation of why the Orthodox Church considers the filioque a heresy from the Orthodox perspective. I understand it better now.

[@Motomack1042]

They don't, the dispute has been settled. Catholic and Orthodox now have a common understanding. Unfortunately there are still a few who beat the drum of division

[@ElonMuskrat-my8jy]

​@@Motomack1042Wrong.

[@acekoala457]

​@@Motomack1042 "Common Understanding"? The Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent all proclaim the Dual Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit, which is not Orthodox and is in fact a distortion of the Apostolic Tradition. Just because some Ecumenist Bishops claim "common Understanding" doesn't change the truth.

[@ApostolicEchoes]

Only the Orthodox have the true Trinity. Catholics have a Modalist “Trinity” with their absolute divine simplicity and filioque. Protestants have a Nestorian one with their penal substitution. God Bless the Orthodox Church of Christ. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners!

[@IsaiahWilson-k4o]

I'd say protestants have a modalist trinity especially since Sola scriptura led to oneness pentecostals.

[@NavelOrangeGazer]

@@IsaiahWilson-k4o they have elements of it as they inherited the heresies of the papists and calvin and his goons piled more heresy on top of it.

[@ApostolicEchoes]

@@IsaiahWilson-k4o several sects of Protestants do have a Modalist trinity. I myself am A former oneness Pentecostal. Glory to God for leading me to truth.

[@humbledandgrateful7411]

"Modalist"?? And with our "absolute divine simplicity" at that 🙂 I suppose you mean by "Modalist" in the context of this video that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds sometimes from the Father and other times from the Son. So, sometimes He's in Father-mode and other times in Son-mode? As a convert to Catholic from Orthodox, I assure you that is neither our teaching nor our reality 🙂 Catholicism is Trinitarian with the Father the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Spirit the Preserver. They co-exist and are not One Person in different modes.

[@ApostolicEchoes]

@@humbledandgrateful7411 Here are two examples why the positions are similar. Modal Manifestations of Simplicity: In this argument, one could propose that the different modes or manifestations in Modalism are not distinct "parts" of God, but rather different ways in which God's simple nature is revealed or expressed. This interpretation would emphasize that God's simplicity remains intact even as these modes are experienced. Unity of Essence: Another way to argue for compatibility is by emphasizing the unity of essence in Modalism. Supporters might assert that the three modes or manifestations of God are ultimately expressions of the same simple divine essence, thereby maintaining the principle of divine simplicity.

[@alpha4IV]

I will have to relisten to this multiple times. Interesting explanation of the issue.

[@thevonschmittousvonschmitt8839]

Saint Gregory of Palomas has written in depth on this and other topics concerning the Latins. Fr Chris Moody translated this into English and I believe its available on uncut Orthodox press. Fr. Chris Moody has a youtube channel where he discusses the Filioque that was quite edifying also.

[@ZZZELCH]

My goodness, this helped me get closer to understanding more than YEARS of study. Thank you Father.

[@watchaddicts1213]

The Filioque sort of seems to make the Holy Spirit a subordinate errand boy. Christ makes this crystal clear-I will send The Comforter, who proceeds from The Father. Period.

[@awake3083]

I seldom can't find "alone" in that statement.

[@despairknot]

​@awake3083 gotta try and get that hyper-rationalized jab in when your reason falls flat don't you؟ That's what Romans always do.

[@awake3083]

@@despairknot It’s a fair reply, you guys act like Protestants on the issue. When a Protestant quote mines scripture in an attempt prove Sola Fide they always use Ephesians 2:8-9 yet we can’t find “alone” in the Scriptures either.

[@despairknot]

​@@awake3083it's not a fair reply at all. God doesn't need you to correctly worship Him. He's not affected by a show of hands as to what humans want to believe. You are the one who needs to worship God correctly because that's what he made us to do, and if God is love; then tampering with what Christ taught his apostles about the nature of the trinity also ruins our understanding of Love. That's why ROMANticism has led us astray from what love truly is.

[@despairknot]

That is why Fr Sophrony insists that it is only in Christianity, where God is revealed in three personae (Mt 28:19), that we find the completion of the revelation about divine persona. Since the personae in their threeness cannot be reduced to their essence it follows that their relationship is determined by their personeity and not by their essence. Their self-determination in eternity is the eternal fact. In divine being, which is utterly personal, self-determination of the divine hypostases derives from the hypostases themselves and is in no way predetermined or imposed by the essence. Hence the first implication: in its self-determination in relations, persona is absolutely free. No factor necessitates its determination: “Where there is no liberty, there is no persona; and vice versa-without persona there is no liberty. This kind of eternal being uniquely concerns the persona, in no way the individual (cf 1Cor 15:47-50).” The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony Nicholas V. Sakharov ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS YONKERS, NEW YORK I suggest you read it @awake3083

[@gregorypizarro9403]

I love Fr. Trenham and I Almost became Orthodox. I continued to study Both Catholicism (West and East) and Orthodoxy and I concluded that Catholicism is the correct place to go. So I went From classical Anglican to Melkite Greek Catholic. The problem with saying the filioque is heretical is that you have many western saints in Orthodoxy who hold to the Filioque, such as Ambrose. The good thing is that the US bishops no longer see the filioque as heretical but through much discussion there has been a correct understanding.

[@acekoala457]

St. Ambrose didn't hold to the Filioque as explained by Florence. None of the Church Fathers did.

[@nicadag]

⁠​⁠@@acekoala457according to whom? These statements always make me laugh.

[@dave1370]

​@@acekoala457Hilary of Poitier, Augustine, and Ambrose absolutely held to the Filioque.

[@servus_incognitus]

BASED Melkite Catholic! I attend a Melkite Divine Liturgy in São Paulo, Brasil, although I am of the Latin rite by baptism.

[@acekoala457]

​@@dave1370 The Filioque as explained in the Councils of Lyon and Florence? Or the Filioque as explained by St. Maximus? Because St. Maximus' Filioque and Lyons/Florence's Filioque are not the same.

[@carlosz.5460]

Was the son not given all from the father? Including the principle that the spirit is begotten from the father? Would that not be a heresy to say the Father has not given everything to the son including the spirit?

[@amakrid]

Every verbal description of the Trinity has its own problems my friend. Roman Catholics like you, say that the original Credo somehow demotes the Son as a real God equal to the Father. The Orthodox reply that the dogma of Filioque establishes a kind of diarchy in the Trinity. With the Filioque we have one Deity but with two internal Sources from whom the Spirit proceeds independently. People outside Christianity, the Jews for instance, think that we believe in three Gods... Since every Christian receives the Unction (Chrism in Greek) he receives the Holy Spirit, so he becomes annointed, i.e. Christ in the making. Imagine now the possible implications of the Filioque: Christ has received the Holy Spirit from the Father but the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, not "through Christ" (as the Orthodox accept) but "from Christ". Can you understand the difference and the danger? The core problem may be only verbal, and the initial intentions of the people who conceived the notion of the Filioque where the best for sure; some things though, sometimes, maybe it's good to be left alone...

[@XyzWse001]

In the Western Church, from the end of the 8th century, it is professed that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son"; the Spanish councils applied this phrase from the 5th century. It spread to the empire of Charlemagne. The debate with the Eastern Orthodox began in 807 when Western pilgrims in Jerusalem began to sing the Creed this way in the Mass. Pope Leo III recognized the correctness of the phrase but objected to its inclusion in the Creed. Out of consideration for the Eastern Orthodox, he continued to demand that only the ancient text be sung in Rome. Pope Benedict VIII adopted the new formula at the request of Emperor Henry II, but for example, in Paris, they stuck to the old text even at the beginning of the 13th century. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople vehemently attacked the Western Church in 867 for falsifying the Creed. In 1054, Patriarch Michael Cerularius justified the schism with this, and in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyon, Michael's three delegates accepted the filioque, but a large part of the Eastern Church resisted the emperor's and pope's will and did not recognize the Lyon Council. In the 14th century, the Eastern Orthodox demanded that anyone coming to them from the Western Church must deny the heresy associated with the filioque. In 1438-39, at the Council of Florence, they again discussed the matter, but the Eastern delegates continually referred to the Council of Ephesus, which had once forbidden any additions to the Creed. However, that council only dealt with the Nicene formula, not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan. In the end, they recognized that the Eastern and Western teachings were substantially identical, and that the addition was legitimate, and the council officially declared this on July 6, 1439. However, the returning delegates encountered resistance again in Constantinople. The question always arose in the union of Eastern rite Christians. Pope Benedict XIV decided in 1742 that those who unite with the Western Church this way are not obliged to include the expression filioque in the Creed. After the Second Vatican Council, to facilitate ecumenical efforts, Latin-rite individuals living in Eastern Orthodox territories can also use the text of the Creed without the filioque. - As for the dogmatic truth, the Scripture expressly states of the Holy Spirit that He "proceeds from the Father" (Jn 15:26). We read also that the Father sends Him in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) or the Son sends Him from the Father (Jn 15:26). But He can only send Him because He is in the same relationship with Him as the Father, for all that the Father has is also the Son's (Jn 16:15). The Eastern fathers used this formula: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Westerners, since Augustine, have expressed the mystery this way: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, it is indeed a matter of faith that the Son also has a part in the origin of the Holy Spirit, although the Son received this ability from the Father.

[@nicadag]

Excellently stated.

[@fr.peterw.32]

Yes, very well done. Time certainly helps both Churches (East and West) to better express their theology. My understanding was that the Latin Church essentially believes what the Eastern Churches do in this matter but it is expressed differently. I think a lot of the challenge comes from what is meant but certain phrases and words, which is no surprise since this is a noted issue from even the early Councils. I sincerely pray that we are healed from our divisions and better reflect the unity of the Holy Trinity by being a united Church on earth.

[@nikopawlowic6557]

I believe that Peter was the head of The Church. I'm starting to not believe in Catholicism anymore, but Orthodoxy. Thank you Father for enligthtening me to this True Faith!

[@ionictheist349]

As an orthodox, we believe that peter had primacy (first among equals with the other apostles) but that was changed by rome to supremacy (monarchy) and was supported by papal forgeries made by the catholic church they declared this at Vatican I, but this led to separation between east and west. Although the papal forgeries are admitted by the catholics nowadays, they still hold the papal dogmas and other heresies like the filioque, immaculate conception .

[@ericlammerman2777]

The head of The Church, now and always, is Jesus Christ. The first bishop of The Church, in Jerusalem, was St. James...even though St. Peter was around. Also, St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was the bishop of Rome. I don't write this to take anything away from St. Peter, just to add perspective. And Rome was the capital of the world, essentially, when Christ founded His church. It makes sense that the bishop of Rome would be an important figure in the early church. It does not make sense, however, that the bishop of Rome would try to rule over the church.

[@nicadag]

If you believe Peter is the head of the Church, then you should then trust God made him so. One thing I see stand out in comments and videos on Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism is that orthodoxy is always viewed in from a different lense. Almost as a can do no wrong. Catholicism is attacked by what seems like everyone. Yet, when the Bishop of Rome speaks the world listens. When any of the Patriarchs speak, the world doesn’t blink an eye. As Flannery O’Connor once remarked, if the Eucharist is just a symbol, then the hell with it”. I say, if the Papacy, means what the orthodox claim (First among equals AKA SYMBOLIC title), then the the hell with it. Just as there is celestial hierarchy, there too is order and structure mirrored on this principle here on earth. Heck, even nature show that there exists a pecking order. I love Fr. Josiah’s content but find him unreasonable on this topic which at it’s core has less to do with semantics of Filioque and more with the problem and question of authority. Though now Orthodox, I still see a strong Protestant spirit in his framework thought towards the Catholic Church. If everyone has authority, then no one has authority. Do all bishops in orthodoxy unilaterally agree on divorce? On topic of birth control? You can find the answer in the Catholic Church without needing to go to your local bishop for interpretation. Why is three the limit for remarriage in the Orthodox Church and not 4? Or 2, or 10? Orthodoxy is currently in vogue in the US, especially amongst Protestant circles. For them, it is easier to continue with their “anything but Catholic” attitude/framework of thinking. It often feels as if Catholic Church is the only church which is judged by its failed members, and not by it’s fruits. So then, it appears Satan has his eyes set on a target -on what he finds repugnant for what it represents. Christ’s church is the Catholic Church, his bride. He does not have many brides, he has A bride. Schism is a grave matter. Fr. Josiah makes the Schism larger by calling the Church heretical and claiming all the things that he does. We are closer than we are apart. Maybe I’m naive? Maybe I’m hopeful? That one day the west and the east will one day be one again and with renewed strength take on the biggest issues facing our times: expansion of Islam, the evil or f gender confusion, socialism, overall state of degeneracy in the world,tbh. Ends rant. 😅

[@nyktal]

@@nicadag good post, it seems that and not to be mean spirited to the Father Josiah that he does his theology on the basis of just going against Catholicism, and your point about Orthodoxy being in vogue with former protestants is correct, "apostolicity without being in union with the "anti-Christ" Papists of Rome?? sign me up"

[@MajorMustang1117]

Awesome. Something I've been trying to explain to my Protestant father..... like most things it doesn't go well. Maybe one day 😅

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

Tell him where is the filioque in the NT text Jesus Christ uses the word εκπορεύεται for the Spirit as the text says only from the Father.

[@tclearytcleary]

@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας John 15:26

[@jamesbancroft2467]

don’t focus primarily on intellectual stuff, pray for him and talk about the good stuff about Orthodoxy

[@LadyMaria]

​@@tclearytclearyThat's not the Filioque. Next time please write out the verse. It is lazy not to.

[@carlosz.5460]

I would just ask one question, if God is eternal and subsistent within himself, creating all things in a fashion that would look almost hierarchical then why would his own church not follow such a nature? One Head, flowing thru God in a magisterium, not co depending on other forms of ruling, but subjective to God thru one? All things are created by God and flow from his objective goodness, why should the church not also? I put faith in the Catholic Church because it doesn’t rely on man but only in faith that man flows from God within his magisterium that he in a way has begotten thru the trinity

[@amakrid]

Because my friend, the term Catholic (from the Greek word "καθολικός", catholicos) means universal, wide-ranging. And the structure you propose could truly be adopted by the Church, only if the Church would catholically, i.e. universaly agree upon it. That was the way the Church was structured and continued traditionally. Had God wished everything to flow through one, he would first baptize Peter with fire and then Peter would baptise the rest of the apostles. That didn't happen, and was never the case. Of course, the early Church in Jerusalem had its own bishop, James, the brother of Christ. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, and while the Church expanded, every new land had its own bishops, all equal, with the bishop of Rome (the largest Christian church) accepted as "Primus inter pares", first among equals. That meant that traditionally, the Pope's opinion was of an enhanced importance. Nothing like the "Vicarius Filii Dei" or the "Pope's infallibility" which were established later by the papacy. In my opinion, if the Church manages to reunite, the Pope could function as a coordinator and a spokesman for the whole Church but not as a person that would dictate how every bishop or Patriarch should manage his own affairs. The Church of Rome has started electing non Italian Popes; this is a move to the right direction in my opinion.

[@Slit-dl6gl]

I pray that Christians be given grace to recognize the Son (Filioque) in their hearts and Creed

[@johnnyd2383]

You pray that non-biblical invention of the fallen see of Rome becomes accepted by Eastern Orthodox.? On what drugs are you.?

[@Slit-dl6gl]

@@johnnyd2383 on the contrary, the only See not conquerered by Muslim is the Seeof Rome.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@Slit-dl6gl God's Church was constantly under attack by the forces of Satan throughout the history... just as He said... Not just Islam attacked the lands His Church was developed in, but later Communism plague hit it.. and yet.. none managed to destroy it... just as Lord promised.

[@ezdeezytube]

This was INCREDIBLY helpful. Thank you for providing these insights - I've never heard it explained this eloquently before.

[@marieegypt7091]

When I converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy what struck me the most is the pride and arrogance of the Popes and the Latin Church in their decision to change the Creed, the foundation of our faith that the Holy Fathers established! Who gave them such authority???

[@ericlammerman2777]

You know EXACTLY how most Catholics will reply to your question. "Upon this rock..."

[@javaman8895]

I find the Orthodox to be very prideful. Why do they have an ax to grind? If you’re right, we’ll know by the fruits. Right now all I see are people who are already Christian, mostly Protestant that become orthodox. The catholic who become orthodox have their reasons. I think we need to stop arguing and love God and our neighbor as Jesus taught us.

[@LadyMaria]

​​@@javaman8895I find Roman Catholics to be prideful, to be fair.

[@therealteacher8630]

Are you sure that Rome changed the creed? It simply made it clearer, to combat further against the Arius heresy, for which it had originally been made! You are just struggling with the Pope's Authority, but not theology! And if there be any theology in that, other than affirming that God is one in three coequal and coeternal Persons, that Theology is wrong! The issue is who did this right thing, and by what authority? But it is not wrong! Now let me ask the Orthodox! if you were allowed to put the word "ALONE" would you say.........from the Father alone"?

[@matthewporcelli6288]

Read about the Ecumenical Councils that approved the addition. (Lyons & Florence)

[@TheDroc1990]

Love you, Father. Joyous Feast of the Dormition.

[@d.o.7784]

Very interesting, but i assume the other side also have their own theological approach to the topic, it would have been nice if you could have addressed these in your answer, for example the biblical verses they use to support their doctrine and how you would refute them.

[@childofmary7959]

That was such an understandable explanation of that heresy. I especially appreciate that you followed through with the results of that heresy. What’s happening in the Roman rite is a travesty, and if this pope has his way, will destroy whatever is left of it. It’s the house that is built on sand. 😢

[@frankrosenbloom]

Father, I am responding as a convert to Catholicism 40 years ago who also considered Eastern Orthodoxy. Sergius Bulgakov opined that the Filioque did not represent an insurmountable obstacle to reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Maximus the Confessor did not object to the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed and defended the Filioque as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula when allowing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Photius, an opponent of the Filioque, was in communion with, and died in communion with a pope who advocated for the Filioque in the West. Maximus wrote: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him." All the Eastern bishops save one agreed yhat this was acceptable based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition. On 6 July 1439 in Florence a re-union was proclaimed (in both Latin and Greek) in the document Laetentur Caeli ("Let the Heavens Rejoice") which was signed by Pope Eugene and by the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos. Some Greek bishops, agreed that it was likely reluctantly, accepted the decrees of the Council. Other Eastern bishops did so by sincere agreement, such as Isidore of Kiev and others. Only one Eastern Bishop refused to accept the union, Mark of Ephesus, who became the leader of opposition back in Byzantium. Almost all the Eastern bishops of the time agreed that the Creed with the Filioque as it was meant by the Latins, origin by Spiration from the father, proceeding through the Son, was not heretical. Most of the Eastern Catholic churches do recite the Creed without the Filioque. This has not been a burden to unity and the Pope recites the Creed without when visiting those churches. If it were not for Mark of Ephesus, the document would have held. Now, one could argue that God may have used that one dynamic, faithful Saint to preserve right belief. I am OK with that argument and would find it plausible. However, to call the Filioque a heresy, as the Filioque does not entail "gaining origin from" is in my opinion false. On another matter, since you said the Filioque was used as a springboard to other excesses, the Council proclaimed: "We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church." All the Eastern bishops at the Council save one, and most of the Eastern Bishops, agreed with this. Other so called heresies can be discussed as you mentioned a springboard. Purgatory, for instance. Similar beliefs exist in Orthodoxy, but the descriptions are different due to cultural differences and the more scholastic Latin Church has made more specific definitions that, nonetheless, do not meet the criteria for "heresy." The Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672), states: "And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented-by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. Their souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed." A rose by any other name...... The "petty problems" to which you refer in Orthodoxy include the current excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Russian Patriarch and a current schizm. There is political discord in the struggle for primacy between the two Sees. The Ecumenical Patriarch has merely 5 million persons in his Patriarchate and if the argument for "the new Rome" is valid, Moscow would be the new Rome. If not valid for Moscow, it was not valid for Constantinople. Furthermore, Eastern Orthodoxy is very cultural with churches of mostly regional and national origin. I cannot ever be a Greek, or Ukrainian, or Armenian, etc. Even attending a Maronite Catholic church for a time, I was never in the "in crowd" as I did not share their culture. This is a problem for potential converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. Not so for the Western Catholic tradition. Catholicism is the way in which Christianity became universal. Don't get me wrong, we are going through a crisis right now. I am decidedly not a fan of the current Pope. But there have been very bad popes, and very bad eastern patriarchs, in the past as well. The abuses post Vatican II are a sad reality. However, I attend a very holy church whose priests properly and reverently celebrate the Novus Ordo, with the priests ad orientem, and it retains the holiness of the Sacred Mysteries. Additionally, though I follow you and respect you tremendously, you generally act in a very condescending way toward the Catholic Church, and your snarky sarcasm is in contrast to that which I would believe a sincere theologian should promote. You may feel that this condescending attitude underscores the "abuses" of the Catholic Church, but I do not think so. Nonetheless, you are a wonderful example to all Christians, even Catholics, and I will continue to follow you. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you or even debate you sometime. Thank you, Father, and God Bless you Frank S. Rosenbloom, MD

[@nicadag]

One thing I see stand out in comments and videos on Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism is that orthodoxy is always viewed in from a different lense. Almost as a can do no wrong. Catholicism is attacked by what seems like everyone. Yet, when the Bishop of Rome speaks the world listens. When any of the Patriarchs speak, the world doesn’t blink an eye. As Flannery O’Connor once remarked, if the Eucharist is just a symbol, then the hell with it”. I say, if the Papacy, means what the orthodox claim (First among equals AKA SYMBOLIC title), then the the hell with it. Just as there is celestial hierarchy, there too is order and structure mirrored on this principle here on earth. Heck, even nature show that there exists a pecking order. I love Fr. Josiah’s content but find him unreasonable on this topic which at it’s core has less to do with semantics of Filioque and more with the problem and question of authority. Though now Orthodox, I still see a strong Protestant spirit in his framework thought towards the Catholic Church. If everyone has authority, then no one has authority. Do all bishops in orthodoxy unilaterally agree on divorce? On topic of birth control? You can find the answer in the Catholic Church without needing to go to your local bishop for interpretation. Why is three the limit for remarriage in the Orthodox Church and not 4? Or 2, or 10? Orthodoxy is currently in vogue in the US, especially amongst Protestant circles. For them, it is easier to continue with their “anything but Catholic” attitude/framework of thinking. It often feels as if Catholic Church is the only church which is judged by its failed members, and not by it’s fruits. So then, it appears Satan has his eyes set on a target -on what he finds repugnant for what it represents. Christ’s church is the Catholic Church, his bride. He does not have many brides, he has A bride. Schism is a grave matter. Fr. Josiah makes the Schism larger by calling the Church heretical and claiming all the things that he does. We are closer than we are apart. Maybe I’m naive? Maybe I’m hopeful? That one day the west and the east will one day be one again and with renewed strength take on the biggest issues facing our times: expansion of Islam, the evil or f gender confusion, socialism, overall state of degeneracy in the world,tbh. Ends rant. 😅

[@redeemedzoomer6053]

The Orthodox have some great arguments but this one is really bad. "If the Spirit is from Father and Son then you have 2/3 persons sharing the same quality" The problem is that you have that either way. In the Orthodox view, the Son and the Holy Spirit share the common hypostatic property of depending on the Father for their exitance. That's why St. Anselm's version of the hypostatic properties is correct. Father: "God from whom God exists" Son: "God from God" + "God from whom God exists" Spirit: God from God"

[@riche7691]

Couldn’t it be said that the Father also depends on the Father for his existence as well?

[@luan0020]

Nice to see you here :)

[@chairmandrpepper]

no you have 1/3 persons sharing a different quality. Just like the sun gives off light and heat, they both are closely related but not dependent on each other, I.e. The holy spirit is not begotten of the son. The father is the head. And is the greatest. Only the head can make processions. Because it is limitless.

[@chunkspiggle3916]

Shut up poindexter

[@XyzWse001]

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Scripture repeatedly and formally declares. For example, "But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." (John 15:26; cf. 14:16-26 Mt 10:20 1 Cor 2:10-12 1 Thes 4:8 1 Jn 4:13.) But it also clearly teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. a) The Scriptures frequently and consistently refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (2 Cor 3:7, Gal 4:6 Rom 8:9-11 Phil 1:19 1 Pet 1:11 Act 16:6), thus establishing a constant and clear reference to the Son. But in the Divinity, there can be no other constant and clear reference between the persons except that of origin; interchangeability exists among the others because of the absolute simplicity of God. Therefore, if it were not trying to express a constant and clear reference between the Son and the Holy Spirit but merely an essential identity, it could just as easily reverse the relationship and speak of the spirit of the Spirit; which, however, it never does. Moreover, this expression, the spirit of the Son, even expresses procession from the Son according to the scriptural analogy (genitive of origin); for according to Saint Paul, the spirit of God means "the Spirit that is from God." (1 Cor 2:12.) b) According to the Scriptures, Christ sends the Spirit (Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 20:22, Lk 24:49, etc.). But sending implies a kind of power over the one sent. And since in the wholly equal Trinity there is no basis or title for a power difference other than origin, the outward continuation and pattern of which is the sending, the Son can only send the Spirit because He proceeds from Him; the Father sends both the Son and the Spirit, but neither of the two sends the Father; the Son sends the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Son. c) The Holy Spirit receives instruction from the Son: "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, 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. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (Jn 16:13-15.) Since the Holy Spirit is truly God, He cannot take truth from the Son in any other way than by receiving omniscience from Him eternally. However, omniscience is identical with the divine essence; therefore, the Holy Spirit takes the divine essence eternally from the Son, or in other words, proceeds from Him. d) Scripture always mentions the Holy Spirit in the third place, after the Son, in the Trinitarian formulas. From this consistency of expression, one may justly infer that the Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is not the same as to the Father; for then they could have been interchanged at will. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is beautifully symbolized in the book of Revelation (22:1): "He showed me a river of the water of life (the Holy Spirit, Cf. Jn 7:38.), clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

[@pj_ytmt-123]

Yeah, but the Immaculate Conception was made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit. "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Lk. 1:35)

[@michelleg7]

The Filioque is literally in the bible, its in the Gospel of John. " John 16:7, jesus says I will send the holy spirit to you", here we see that Jesus says he will send holy spirit. John 16:13-15 "However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you. 15 Everything that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said that the Spirit will take from what is Mine and disclose it to you", John 14:5-14 " Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." The way to god is through the son hence why we say through the father to the son and to the holy spirit. Jesus commanded the holy spirit not the other way around. SO its fine if you want to disagree with the filioque. But just know the quotes are also in the Greek orthodox bible because I checked.

[@dolphinitely_bro3944]

I was saved Protestant but the Holy Spirit gave me the orthodoxy understanding, and my pastors always said I was misunderstanding text, yet I find out I read it as the apostles understood it

[@stevemcgee99]

This is the first time I’ve heard an explanation of why the filioque heresy matters. It seems like nitpicking to me to just talk about “this to that” and kind of rationalize a diagram. But to explain the impact of “demoting” the Holy Spirit being the growing governance and bureaucracy of the church makes the heresy of the filioque clear.

[@hanszickerman8051]

Excellent explanation! And so say I, a Lutheran.

[@ericlammerman2777]

"The truth lies with the Greeks” - Martin Luther, 1519

[@Stophatingalready]

​@@ericlammerman2777So was he basically saying Orthodoxy is true?

[@thedon978]

This “heresy” (as the Greeks call it) didn’t seem to bother the Greeks until, in 1054, they demanded independence from papal authority. When Rome excommunicate them, they got it. Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople.

[@ionictheist349]

Which is still a greek name. And the filioque was being discussed between the Orthodox and also seen as a heresy but we remained united

[@acekoala457]

So you're gonna ignore the 200 prior years of condemnations of the Filioque and Papal Supremacy prior to the Schism?

[@emmetzet]

the best explanation I've ever heard on the subject. Thanks Father Josiah

[@scummymummy2548]

I feel smart when i understand what father Josiah is saying.❤

[@josephodoherty7864]

It seems to be simply summarised by a Trinity of - " Hate, Hate, Hate." - , utterly disillusioned, shocking, awful 😖.

[@dropsofink1336]

Brilliant! Perfect timing! Love and Blessings ❤❤❤ ☦️

[@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS]

The New Testament says that The Father and Jesus both send the Holy Spirit. This man did not go into the biblical text (or did he and I just didn't catch it?).

[@amakrid]

Just meditate about the following verse: "“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father (sic) will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) Why didn't Jesus say "the Holy Spirit whom I will send to you"? On the other hand, we read that “He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'” (John 20:22) How can we conciliate those verses?

[@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS]

@@amakrid The Father sent the Spirit to the Son first and then the Son sent the Spirit when he breathed on the disciples? Is that what you're saying?

[@amakrid]

@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS Look; whatever we write on paper concerning the Trinity can be proven to be problematic, since the words we use have been constructed to reflect the reality of this world and noth of the heavenly realm. For instance, to the Western theologians, the traditional Credo could imply that the Word is a lesser Person in comparison to the Father and so, they tried to correct it by inserting the Filioque. Their aims were good for sure and from their point of view, against Arianism, they wished to undeline that the Father and the Son are One. To the Eastern Church though, the Filioque initiated a diarchy in the Trinity: The Spirit seemed to proceed from two different sources, let alone that this depiction is in contrast to the first verse I gave you. If you consider that the insertion of the Filioque came right after the Pope claimed to be "Vicarius Filii Dei" on Earth (Representative of the Son of God) it was obvious to the East that things were getting out of control... The Orthodox accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through" the Son to us. It's a verbal and theological formula that could unite both Churches today in my opinion, while leaving the original Credo intact.

[@Chris-on5bt]

Excellent and very clear. Thank you Father.

[@davidefantoni874]

Echumenical council of Florence proved the opposite. That filioque isnt heretic. Council approved by all 5 patriarchs of pentarchy, with Emperor present, signed by patriarchs. So valid. So... Who are not following Councils canons?

[@johnnyd2383]

We Orthodox are puzzled as to whether to cry or to laugh at such an utter nonsense... Lucky me there is no bridge near by I can jump from in desperation over RCC ridiculousness.

[@janrobert3176]

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. There it is in the bible, Jesus breathing on the disciples, and they received the Holy Ghost. It does not get much clearer that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as the Father.

[@LightOfAllMankind]

Thank you for this teaching Fr.

[@psjasker]

I could listen to this caliber of instruction for days on end. The power of truth ….

[@disneyfamof8215]

Hello father I am Protestant but for the last several months I have been learning about orthodoxy and it’s truth. I have actually been chewing on this very thing for days trying to understand. Can you help me understand this verse “John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” ‭‭Luke‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ Hear my heart I ask out of genuine desire to learn not contempt. It makes sense the spirit only proceeds from the father but this verse seems to stand in the way for me in believing fully in this.

[@eens9579]

As a Catholic I was taught that this issue was almost resolved when the Catholics were willing to remove "and the Son" and replace it with "through the Son". Would that help or is it still a heresy?

[@oogaleeboogalee6522]

The original problem of the filioque was more so about the fact the creed was changed, by the Pope, without any consent of the other 4 Patriarchs of the pentarchy. The Eastern Orthodox Church keeps the creed in its original Niceno-Constantinopolitan form without addition because many councils after the introduction of that creed explicitly state that the creed cannot be edited or modified. If someone were to add to the creed, that would present a huge spiritual problem, as you would be saying the Holy Spirit forgot something at the 2nd Ecumenical Council.

[@mrpallycapoops]

Thank you Father for this clear explanation. I today have read of critiques of Orthodoxy for being traditionalist. But I’m concerned that Catholicism in its attempt to appease modernist forces may become something different to what it should be!

[@cabellero1120]

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.... How does the Filioque deny God when Christ was Co Eternal WITH THE Father??

[@despairknot]

Because the Holy Spirit didn't proceed from the Son. You didn't listen to this video because you were reciting papal tropes in your head.

[@stevereason6931]

As a non-denominational Protestant, I greatly appreciate this teaching about the Filioque. After months and months of reading and listening to various teachers on the Filioque I have come to understand why the Filioque is incorrect. However, I have no intention of changing my Church affiliation because of my new understanding of the Filioque. Having the correct understanding of the Filioque has no bearing on one's salvation. No where in Scripture does Jesus insist one have a clear understanding whether believing in the Filioque or not has a bearing on one's salvation. When the False Prophet eventually comes after those who follow after the testimony of Jesus, he's not going to asking whether one believes in the Filioque or not, whether you pray to Saints or not, whether there are seven sacraments or two sacraments, he just wants to know if you are a follower of Jesus or not before be determines if you get to live or die. I consider many within Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. We may not agree on a variety of issues, but we do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and that is what unifies the children of God.

[@johnnyd2383]

Orthodoxy insists on sound faith because of the Lord's promise that His Church will be pillar and ground of the faith and that gates of Hades will not prevail over it. One false doctrine and Hades won over those who introduced it and believe in that falsehood. Since RCC have had and still have numerous false beliefs, as per Lord's promise, such spiritual group can not be tagged as God's Church. And we know that nobody was saved outside of the Noah's ark. Do you understand now why we Orthodox maintain original Faith.? If you think you can believe anything you want just do a lip service remember God's words that not all who say Lord Lord will inherit His kingdom.... additionally, read: (1 Timothy 6, 3-5), (2 Timothy 4, 3-4), (2 Peter 2, 1-3), etc... God hates false teachings taught by the false teachers.

[@stevereason6931]

@@johnnyd2383 To answer your question, No. No, I do not see how you Orthodox maintain original Faith, strictly by your answer. The few scripture verses you shared has to do with false teaching and that God is against false teachers, which I agree with you. However when it comes to maintaining the Faith, it's all about the object of our faith. It is the Object of our faith that saves us. For you, and any Roman Catholic and the various denominations within Protestantism, it is our faith in Jesus and Him alone that saves us. The Church is designed for making disciples, you know...Go and make disciples of all nations (people groups)... We read in Acts 4:12 "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved." I assume you heard of John 3:16, however I will also include verses 17 & 18 here " For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans chapter 10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” Jesus in the 6th chapter of John tells us "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." An individual is not drawn to a particular denomination, but drawn to Jesus. Again, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 14:12 "So then each of us will give an account of himself to God." Did you catch that...we each individually will give an account to God. We are not going to be held accountable by groups, i.e. "All you Orthodox over there, the Roman Catholics over here, and the Protestants over in that area." I could go on and on, but let me conclude by leaving this from Acts 15 when the Apostles and Elders of the Church debated with believing Pharisees whether the new believing Gentiles should be circumcised and required to uphold the Law of Moses. 6"The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

[@Borzoi86]

It was my intense study of the Filioque controversy that led my wife and me to leave an otherwise sound and conservative Presbyterian church. We now are active members of a conservative and traditional Anglican church. We have unbounded love for our Orthodox friends and have learned much from reading the early church fathers.

[@bigmonkee639]

Why Anglican, Sir? It is heretical and not from the true origin of the church. I hope you and your wife are well, God bless you both! ❤

[@georgeince4136]

I am a Catholic who has been attempting to understand what the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs is in regard to that teaching . You have made the best definition of all of the one that I have heard. My fear is when others border on Arian-Christian or dedivinization of the Holy thank you. Spirit.

[@jasonmurray1771]

wow beautiful explanation

[@jasonmurray1771]

@BCaTo sorry but that’s simply untrue

[@jasonmurray1771]

@BCaTo 1. Everyone called him out for it as an irregular and wrongheaded statement and the bishop himself later clarified saying that it was a mistake :) 2. Everyone recognizes that the simple phrase “Filioque” can be interpreted in an Orthodox way. Depends on what you mean by the words. But you shouldn’t say it in the creed.

[@OrthodoxChristian809]

Thank you for explaining this Father Trenham 🙏🏻☦️🤗

[@benjaminisales5386]

What is the relationship between the Son and the Spirit in eastern orthodox theology?

[@amakrid]

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and we receive it "through" the Son.

[@benjaminisales5386]

@@amakrid so it is appropriate to refer to the Spirit as the spirit of Christ?

[@amakrid]

@@benjaminisales5386 It is appropriate, if we understand what we mean with that term. This term is found thrice in the New Testament, we also find it later, for example in the epistle of St. Ignatius the God Bearer to the Magnesians (a very early document of the Christian Church from the 2nd century AD) where St. Ignatius speaks of "the Spirit of Jesus Christ". Fact is that we don't meet that phrasing very often in the documents of the Eastern Church. The problem doesn't lie in the phrasing per se, but in our understanding of it. For instance, the Gospel of John starts with the phrase "In the begining was the Word"; it doesn't say "in the begining was the Word of God". Do we believe that the Word existed independently from God? No. We all know that Jesus is the Son of God, born from Him "before all ages". Things aren't so obvious though with the Holy Spirit, because in the end, we are unable to fully comprehend the mystery which the Trinity implies. The problem with Filioque was that it seemed to establish a diarchy in the Trinity. In the original Credo, it was understood that the Spirit derives from the Father, and since "the Father and the Son are One", Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit and could send it to the others, without breaking the Unity of the three Persons. With the insertion of the phrase "and from the Son" though (with good intentions in the begining) one could wonder for the reasons of that verbal separation. In my opinion, the greatest problem was that from the 9th century, the Pope had claimed that he was Vicarius Filii Dei on Earth (Representative of the Son of God). When the Church of Rome inserted the Filioque in the Credo during the 11th century, it was as if the "Represantative" was elevating himself to unprecedented levels...

[@EC42904]

@@amakridthis is exactly how I have always understood the Holy Spirit as a Roman Catholic, which is why I cannot for the life of me understand all the Orthodox reeeeing on the issue as anything other than plastering over what was, at its base, a political falling out more than a theological one.

[@amakrid]

@@EC42904 You are right and wrong in the same time my friend. Let me explain it to you as an intellectual and not as ana apologist! The Filioque was a politicall issue of great importance. The Western Church was using the term for quite a few centuries without anyone bothering to blame the Pope for heresy. I'd add that the pretext for the first schism was the demand of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor to depose the legitimate Patriarch of Constantinople (who was criticizing his morals) and appoint another one, favorite to him (Photius "The Great"). The Pope as Primus ante Pares acted absolutely legitimally, refusing the dethroning of the Eastern Patriarch - but then, the new Patriarch raised the issue of Filioque. The above prove your understanding to a certain degree. There is more to that though. One could also ask: Why did Pope Leo III, who personaly agreed with the Filioque, denied the change in the Credo, and ordered the original Credo to be written on two silver shields and be exposed at the Vatican? Well, intellectually speaking, I can give you a few reasons: First of all, the fact that you perceive the Filioque as "through the Son", it doesn't mean that everyone who reads the Credo understands the same thing. Consider for instance, that the Father and the Son are "male" figures, bearing a name, while the Spirit is neutral. If it proceeds from the Father and the Son, it can very easily be understood as an IDENTITY of God and not as a Person - exactly the way the Jews understand the term "Spirit of God". Then there is another issue: If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, i.e. Christ, what about the Body of Christ which is the Church? Can we seperate the Son from the Church? This is a very serious question. If you can seperate the Son from the Church, that means that the Church may err, not only practically but also doctrinaly. If you can't, then you have to acknowledge that the Spirit proceeds And From the Church. Considering that during those troubled times, the Latin Church introduced the notion that the Pope is "Vicarius Filii Dei" in this world, one can understand that the politicall issue wasn't far away from the theological and vice versa. This is at least, my understanding. Spend some time meditating on the above if you wish...

[@mauriciogranados2908]

The Italians and westernized Church believe they have the Right to reform the councils by their own, the Christianism born in the EAST and that´s were the truly faith remain,

[@XyzWse001]

Regarding the sacred tradition, the teaching of the Western Fathers is clear from the beginning: "The Spirit is not from another place but from the Father through the Son." (Tertull. Prax. 4.) "The authors of the Holy Spirit are the Father and the Son." (Hilar. Trinit. II 29; cf. VIII 20; XII 57; Ambros. Spirit. S. II 118; in Lc 8, 66 (cf. however Spirit. S. I 20); August. Trinit. IV 20, 29; in Jn 99, 6 ff.) But the teaching of the ancient Greek church is also quite definite: Origen professes that the Holy Spirit is necessary in relation to the Son, who gives existence, understanding, and truth to His hypostasis. According to Athanasius, the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit is like that between the Father and the Son; "whatever the Spirit has is from the Logos; Christ is the source of the Holy Spirit." (Orig. in Jn 2, 6; Athanas. Ctra Ar. 3, 24; Serap. 3, 1; 1, 19; De incarn. ctra Ar. 9.) St. Basil the Great likes this formula: from the Father through the Son, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. And this formula cannot be twisted with the later Greeks to mean that "the Father, after begetting the Son, breathes the Spirit"; this is protested by the διὰ's universal and constant causal meaning. According to St. Gregory Nazianzus, the Father is without principle, the Son is a principle, and the Holy Spirit is a principle through a principle: ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ, τὸ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς; his favorite thought: "the one God from the Begetter through the Son to the great Spirit" is the κίνησις τῆς μονάδος εἰς τριάδα; according to him, the Trinity is a golden chain where one person depends on another. Nyssenus also speaks of three torches that ignite each other. (Basil. Spirit. S. 18, 45-47 (cf. Bardenhewer Altkirchl. Lit. III p. 139-161); Nazianz. Or. 42, 15; Praecepta ad virg. cf. Or. 31, 2; Nyssen. Macedon. 6; Eunom. I (M 45, 464c).) That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is testified in this coordinate form by Didymus, Epiphanius, and St. Cyril of Alexandria (Didym. Spirit. S. 32, 34; Epiphan. Ancor. 7-8-9-11; Haeres. 62, 4; 74, 7-8; Cyrill. Al. Ador. in Spiritu et verit. (M. 68, 147); Thesaur. 34.); so that the later Greeks without historical basis wanted to proclaim their formula alone as legitimate: from the Father through the Son. For the aforementioned great Greeks used the coordinate formula (widespread among the Latins); on the other hand, the Greek subordinate formula is also found among the Latins (Tertull. Prax. 4; Hilar. Trinit. XII 57; Novat. Trinit. 24 etc.). Their meanings are more or less the same. The Latin formula directly expresses the equal rank of the Father and the Son in spiration; the Greek expresses the sequential origin, and what St. John Damascene lays great stress on, namely that the Son is not a source in the Trinity, like the Father: he is not a principle without a principle (Damasc. Fid. orthod. I 8, 41; cf. Thom I 36, 2 ad 3, who did not pay enough attention to this circumstance.).

[@XyzWse001]

The ancient Greek Church did not deny the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, except for Theodorus Mopsuestenus and Theodoretus. If the First Council of Constantinople taught only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not mean to deny His origin from the Son. Because the Macedonians, against whom the council fathers had to defend the Catholic truth, only denied the divinity of the Spirit without directly attacking His origin, the council fathers believed they had fulfilled their duty by establishing the Spirit's procession from the Father and thus His consubstantiality with the Father. Therefore, when the Spaniards began to sing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed loudly in the Mass, following the practice that arose in the East in 510, and immediately included that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque), they were only expressing the universal and constant faith of the Church. In any case, they made an innovation in the creed, in spite of the express prohibition of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, for which Pope Leo III opposed the new practice (the popes then gave their consent in the 9th century); but they did not innovate the faith, and only Photius, who was looking for a dogmatic pretext for the schism and accused the Westerners of falsifying the dogma, could be qualified as quarrelsome on this account. The schismatic Greeks soon made this thesis, that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, their main dogmatic difference (first at their council in Constantinople in 879). Even though "on the basis of the Greek fathers, it would be easier to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Son than that He proceeds only from the Father. Never has a heresy so denied its own past faith, the teaching of the Scriptures, and the inner content of the dogma, as Photius, who did not hesitate to introduce the schism into the Divinity, to justify the schism he raised in the Church" (Schell).

[@OmarDenison]

For the first two centuries of the Church, the Holy Spirit was not regarded as a hypostatically-distinct divine being, but only as an operative aspect of the life of God.

[@johnnyd2383]

The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VI "They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power." So we see St. Ignatius speaking about errors of those who did not hold the Three as separate persons... And he lived at what time.?

[@user-7lf7w]

Catholics still believe Father is source of Divinity to Son and Spirit

[@diegobarragan4904]

That’s not the issue. The issue is that Rome believes that the Son is also a source.

[@codynunez5246]

I really do love and admire my Orthodox brethren, but even before I returned to my Catholic faith years ago the Orthodox argument against the Filioque never made sense, and still doesn't, to me. John 15:26: Jesus says, "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." The presence of "whom I will send to you" suggests the Son's involvement in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father and His Only Begotten Son are eternal and the Holy Spirit is the love they share.

[@LadyMaria]

It makes clear sense to me. RCs confuse eternal procession and temporal (economic). Eternally the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, as the Son is begotten by the Father alone. Temporally/Economically (like at Pentecost), the Spirit is **sent** from the Father through the Son. Two different things. The former is what the Filioque is getting at, and that is heresy as no two Persons of the Holy Trinity share a faculty that the other does not. That would make the Holy Spirit a lesser god, not God, and be a form of Arianism.

[@agiasf7330]

Of course our Lord sends the HS. Of course our Lord was incarnate of the HS & the Virgin Mary. But what have these to do with the Eternal Procession of the HS from the Father (& not also from the Son) or our Lord being begotten by the Father (& not by the HS)? Only the Father is Unoriginate. The other two Persons of the Most Holy Trinity originate from the Father. The Son is begotten eternally by the Father, the HS proceeds eternally from the Father. It is really not confusing. Very clear. What is so difficult to understand? If I send you to do something, does it mean you originate in me?

[@agiasf7330]

Listen again (this time attentively) to what Fr Josiah says. Try also reading St Gregory Palamas' Apodictic Treatises, now, for the first time, available in English. It is published by Uncut Mountain Press (UMP). May the Lord guide you into all truth.

[@codynunez5246]

Yes! @BCaTo To quote Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmine regarding the Eastern Fathers acceptance of the Filioque: "First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, ‘The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He proceeds from Him likewise as from the Father.’ This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods. We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father."

[@codynunez5246]

@BCaToit’s funny how online you would think there are absolutely zero Orthodox who accept the Filioque but when actually meet Orthodox Christians in person and in their parishes you learn that MANY accept and have no issue with it.

[@NJP9036]

Is it true that the filioque is uniquely in the latin creed? Did the greek Nicene Creed ever have the filioque? Thank you Fr. Josiah.

[@LadyMaria]

No, there was never a Filioque in the Greek Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, still isn't. The Latin innovation came about in the 11th century.

[@agiasf7330]

Not in the original Creed (Greek). Never was. It's a Latin innovation, a heresy. And heresy leads to more heresy. Will never end well. Must be repented of. To repent is to turn away from the heresy, the world... & to turn back (return) to God, to Truth.

[@awake3083]

The Filioque has been a part of the Latin tradition since the 4th-6th century. The Orthodox claims that it was uniquely developed in the 11th century and added to the Creed is a farse. The earliest addition of the Filioque were at the Councils of Toledo (589) to stomp out the Arianism of Visigothic Spain. The Greeks affirm a "through the Son" idea which also correctly denotes the Spirit's procession, but some rigorists seem to deny this as well. Many Latin fathers teach it, and it was defended by St. Maximas the Confessor. Read the Church Fathers! Don't rely on KZbin videos!

[@LadyMaria]

@@awake3083 Latins are known for twisting the Church Fathers to suit their interests. We all know eternal procession is the topic here, not economic.

[@sihtnaelkk2187]

@@awake3083 Yes the Filioque was in the western tradition since then, but there are some powerful "but's" 1) The West had an orthodox understanding of it, as evidenced by St. Maximus Letter to Marinus 2) Other than the fact there was East - West harmony over its theology, for centuries they also agreed to not add it to the Creed till the West did a U-turn on it = Therfore there was perfect theological and canonical accord of East and West on the Filioque till the West defected from it In the final analysis no one needs to trust strangers from KZbin on issues of such importance of course and with this I agree

[@coopahtroopah1175]

Not quite sure how to feel about the filioque (for context, I’m a Protestant). On the one hand, the fact that the West inserted it into the creed without calling an ecumenical council is a travesty and inexcusable. Also, I think Father Trenham is right in saying that the Filioque confuses the roles of the Father and the Son by simply saying that the Spirit proceeds from them both. On the other hand, I’m not sure the East adequately accounts for the Son’s unique relationship to the Holy Spirit. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Son *sends* the Spirit (John 15:26, John 16:7, Acts 2:32-33, Titus 3:5-7). This is different from procession, and yet it affirms that the Son does have a role to play in relation to the Spirit. There have been some theologians (some of them Orthodox!) who have proposed a version of the creed that says, “who proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son,” and I think this is a great solution to the East/West divide on the Creed. Or perhaps pulling from the explicit language of Scripture, it could be something like “who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son.” The affirmation of Christ’s full divinity that motivated the West to write the filioque is satisfied, and the East’s desire to affirm the uniqueness of each person in the Trinity is also satisfied. Most important of all, it’s explicitly scriptural. I know it’s a far-off dream on my part, but I would love to see an ecumenical council of Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants that settle on a single version of the creed once and for all. I know it won’t solve every matter of church division, but having a universally accepted creed would be a great start. I mean hey, this century marks the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s Resurrection, the 1,000th anniversary of the Great Schism, and the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. What better century than this one to take a radical step toward a reunited church? May God bless you all. Psalm 133:1

[@Cosmere99]

Except that's the thing, it was already settled once and for all, and yet the filioque was added by the West. That's the issue lol

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

@ coopahtroopah You advocate for the Ecumenist heresy. The Creed was already settled. Protestants and Roman Papalists need to begin confessing it as is. Done. It takes about 2-3 minutes to recite.

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

​@@david_porthouseBecause you left the Church and adhere to heresies and blasphemies. Why would we attend?

[@MrWesford]

A big point of confusion for the Latins is that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, only in a temporal sense, the way we see in Scripture. In a hypostatic sense, The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father Alone. So, there’s confusion between The Relationship of the persons of The Trinity from all eternity, and historical events.

[@humbledandgrateful7411]

​@@MrWesfordAs one of the "Latins", I do not confuse the Holy Spirit with an angel that is merely 'sent' by the Father or the Son. It is the Holy Spirit's function to preserve what the Father created and the Son redeemed. The Spirit would act on His Own as He sees fit in His function of preservation, wouldn't He?

[@mirelaalina4050]

My favourite Father, please could you visit Romania and Uk? ❤ Please bless me, Father! ✝️

[@jasonpinto1013]

So what is your solution to remedy this problem

[@pj_ytmt-123]

Well, we can always recite the Apostles' Creed in private devotion. And it's shorter, too! 🎉🎉🎉

[@edwardhookway3312]

Besides these theological differences, we can just look at the fruits of the Church and all the saints God has given us despite these insane modern times. For me, this gives me a lot of reassurance that Orthodoxy is the one, true church when it produces such massive saints and more to come. St Paisios, St Porphyrios and St Jacob pray for us!

[@ColonelHathi]

Skip to minute 6:30 if you want to hear him answer to the question.

[@alepine1986]

Wow. Such a powerful explanation.

[@victoriabenjamin6484]

My head literally hurts when I try to understand what the problem is. My humble grasp of all this is that God exists outside of time, therefore the Father+Son+Holy Spirit exist in a n infinite loop. All 3 being one and the same, and yet 3 distinct personas. Isn't that why it's called a mystery? Our simple minds cannot grasp it...I just get a deep sadness when I think about what God must think about all our bickering over who is right. Reminds me of when the Apostles were fighting over who got to sit where in Heaven...sigh..we are such a mess!

[@LadyMaria]

Persons, not Personas. Personas entails modes. God is not modes. These things matter. This is how we know God. This He has revealed to us. To say it's not important says getting to know Him isn't important. We should know the basics in mind and heart. Heresies lead one away from God, outside of the Church.

[@agiasf7330]

Who's going to sit where relative to the Lord in His Kingdom is vastly different from believing the Truth as opposed to falsehood. The former is self-aggrandizement. The latter is to not be misled by the evil one, who, through heresy, leads people away from God. Heresy is not lightly to be dismissed. It separates us from reality, truth, God. It is a lie from the Father of lies, who lies in order to kill--cause eternal death. Heresy, unless one repents of it (& to repent is to return to truth, to God, Who is the Truth) always leads to more heresy. This, sadly, is what happened to the papalists & those who reacted to their (the papalists') false beliefs, teachings, abuses. By their fruits ye shall know them.

[@despairknot]

​@@LadyMaria That is why Fr Sophrony insists that it is only in Christianity, where God is revealed in three personae (Mt 28:19), that we find the completion of the revelation about divine persona. Since the personae in their threeness cannot be reduced to their essence it follows that their relationship is determined by their personeity and not by their essence. Their self-determination in eternity is the eternal fact. In divine being, which is utterly personal, self-determination of the divine hypostases derives from the hypostases themselves and is in no way predetermined or imposed by the essence. Hence the first implication: in its self-determination in relations, persona is absolutely free. No factor necessitates its determination: “Where there is no liberty, there is no persona; and vice versa-without persona there is no liberty. This kind of eternal being uniquely concerns the persona, in no way the individual (cf 1Cor 15:47-50).” - I Love Therefore I Am; The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite (Saint) Sophrony Nicholas V. Sakharov ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS YONKERS, NEW YORK

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

These dogmas are not just bickering over who is right. They have strong consequences in the way the spirituality of the Church developed. As a father once said (father Rafail Noica), the Filioque is the reason why the Catholic and Orthodox spirituality developed in 2 different ways. For those of us who have a somewhat moral life, it may seem that it is not a big deal. But once you start to reach the peak of the Christian spirituality you will see that these differences protect you against being deceived by the devil.

[@Val.Kyrie.]

That's the problem. You worship a completely different God. These things matter. Your understanding is that God has modes, you're a modalist, which has been a condemned heresy for around 1500 years.

[@sallymiller6139]

It all sounds very complicated To me and i wonder what this has to do with ones faith and Relationship.with jesus christ

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Well this is the reason why Western and Eastern Christianity is so different in its spirituality and theology. The West is focused on the Being of God (from which it has its own theology and spirituality) while the East is focused on the Persons of the Holy Trinity (from which we developed our own theology and spirituality).

[@sallymiller6139]

Thank you for your reaction I understand all the theology behind It but my.question is What does this have to do with my Daily walk with Jesus Christ? Will all this intellectual baggage help Me to become a better Christian? I doubt it But some.people need this i guess I just go from what i read in the Bible Love the Lord our God with our whole being and love our neighbor As ourself

[@randykinder268]

I don't agree with his argument that the philioque is blasphemous. He seems to suggest the notion that there are only 2 kinds of attributes: A) divine attributes shared by all members of the Godhead, and B) individual attributes unique to the persons. But why not C) attributes shared by 2 members of the Trinity and not by the other member? Furthermore, why would "C" constitute a degrading of the member lacking the attribute, anymore than "B" would constitute elevating the attribute holder above the other 2? As far as evidence that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the son, I look no further than John 16:7 "...but if I go, I will send him to you.". That's Jesus saying he will send the Holy Spirit (thus, the HS proceeding from the Son)

[@mtalk828]

🤔Yes, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. To send and proceed are two different things. Indeed you look no further in quoting John 16:7 ... because in John 15:26 Jesus defines what He means by SEND and what He means by proceed. He declares, *"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..."* ☝🏽Here, Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, and through Him, He sends the Spirit to us. Jesus is clear in John 15:26. The Holy Spirit does NOT PROCEED from the Son. Roman Catholics are teaching heresy when they say He does. If the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from Jesus, then Jesus being both "man and God" at the same time, would produce a spirit from "man and God." But the Spirit can never be of man! The Holy Spirit is beyond man and thus He must proceed from the Unseen Father, the Source of all things. As well, such imbalance of the Trinity makes the incarnation of Jesus appear weak that the Holy Spirit must originate and proceed from Him to accomplish the work of salvation. Because to do so would imply that the Holy Spirit receive from Jesus a body as well. Before Jesus was born, there was the Holy Spirit. So how could the Holy Spirit proceed from Jesus ???

[@drsingingeagle]

- HELP! This has been driving me crazy for years! I’m referring to John 20:22, “Then He breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” How are we supposed to understand this vis-a-vis the Apostle’s Creed?

[@yxngjayz2019]

Yea dude there are like a lot of verses that tell you very clearly that the spirit proceeds from Christ. This video is pure philosophy he didnt even give you one bible verse lol. That what Orthodox and Catholics do. They philosophize - they come from Rome & Greece which are pagan intellectual nations not Christian nations no matter what anyone tells you. Listen to your Bible, God is not the author of confusion, he tells you things very clearly and if a priest tells you something that goes against it you can stick with the Bible.

[@pete3397]

You know it would be a good start if the Orthodox didn't declare every disagreement with them a heresy. Technically, the Western position is that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father through the Son, and thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from a single principle. Without stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son there is no relationship established between two of the Persons of the Trinity (Christ and the Holy Spirit) and thereby makes Christ and the Holy Spirit unequal to the Father thereby contradicting the doctrine of the Trinity being monotheistic. Without the "and the Son" the Trinity becomes polytheistic. Moreover, the Western position was confirmed by the Patriach Tarasius I of Constantinople (ca. 784 or so) so there has been agreement on this between East and West in the past even with the differences in language. And that is what this is: a linguistic difference between the Western Church's use of Latin and the Eastern Church's use of Greek and that the language used in the Creeds derived from Latin requires the "and the Son" in order to preserve the equality of the Persons of the Trinity.

[@johnnyd2383]

We can not but speak the Truth - every diversion from the original Faith as preserved in the EOC is heresy. (period)

[@pete3397]

@@johnnyd2383 That would be fine if the EOC had a monopoly on the Truth, but it doesn't, and thefact that the EOC has had more than a few of its own diversions from the historic teachings and doctrines of the Church proves that it cannot condemn others as heretical as its own practices, by the same EOC standard, must also condemn heresies in the EOC. Throwing the label "heresy" around as loosely as the EOC does should probably be an indicator of the general theological sloppiness far too many in the EOC adhere to.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@pete3397 Assertion: "EOC has had more than a few of its own diversions from the historic teachings and doctrines". Examples.?

[@13w6rst]

Protestant here and I love Orthodoxy but didnt Jesus say that without him going the holy spirit cannot come? so wouldn’t it be right that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the son?

[@therealteacher8630]

Oooooh Wonderful! I like this video. I have always talked about the topic to my fellow Anglicans. I tell them that the Battle between Rome and the East is not the Filioque issue, but authority! The Eastern Orthodox shall be sincere to tell us that it is not wrong that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Bible also affirms it. But the question is who affirmed! They simply don't want to follow the path that Rome has taken, even if it is correct! In Anglicanism however, we are free, as long as we are practicing Scripture! We use both the Original and the New version, because both have no problem. "The Ghost proceeding from the Father" does not mean "The Ghost proceeding from the Father alone". So where necessary, we or for further clarity on the Trinity, we use the Filioque Creed even when we know that in 325 AD the Filioque issue was not raised. After all, it is in Scripture. Otherwise thanks

[@deiviboi]

Church Father on St John 15:26 Theophilus of Antioch 184 ad - he says he does whom I will send to you this declaring equality of the Father and son. John Chrysostum 407 ad -behold, it is no longer the Father alone, but the Son also who sends. Cyril of Alexander 444 ad - for as the Spirit naturally belongs to the Son, being in Him and proceeding through Him, so also He belongs to the Father. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[@letsgotospace1900]

Is it true that interpreting “proceeds from the father and the son” as “proceeds from the father through the son” is acceptable to the Orthodox? I’ve heard that it is okay for Catholics to understand the filioque like this.

[@amakrid]

"Proceeds from the Father through the Son" is a scheme which is totally accepted by the Orthodox.

[@benthomsen2220]

If from the Father through the Son then the Son is included, hence ..'que' as a copula fits since "and" means to include and all that is through something includes that something. Disagreement on this seems to be trying to find division where none is really necessary. Arguing over mere words than real meaning. There are areas we disagree on, but I've always found this the silliest. The real disagreement is if one has the unsiftable rock, the new steward of the House of David.

[@amakrid]

@@benthomsen2220 One may truly view the whole case as a political conflict, and largely it was. Even as such though, the official "correction" of the Christian Creed six whole centuries after its formulation was something unprecedented, a potential for future revisions, and theologically, the inauguration of a diarchy in the Trinity. That's at least how the Orthodox officialy declared that were viewing the question. In my opinion, the fact that the filioque was officialy anounced at the time when the Pope claimed to be the Vicarius Filii Dei, wasn't accidental: If the Spirit could derive from the Son per se, the Spirit could be also under the stewardship of His Vicarius - and this was a step that nobody should be able to take. After all, "the Church is the body of Christ". Does the Holy Spirit derive from the Church? Following the rationale of your first sentence, we should be able to claim that too: If from the Son through the Church, then the Church is included. Who dared to declare it though? Small and barely noticable changes can lead to dramatic overturns: The story of the Reformation proves it in my opinion.

[@johnnyd2383]

Everything related to the creation is done through the Son... That does not imply that Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit..

[@benthomsen2220]

Of course the Son alone is not the origin of the Holy Spirit, He proceeds from the Father through the Son, not by the Father alone, hence, He proceeds from the Father and Son.

[@vasileseicaru8740]

I know that you have to pick and choose which concepts get special treatment and which are only glossed over, due to time constraints, but I think you should have paid special attention to one concept: "to proceed from". Many people who have learned the creed may be under the impression that they don't need this concept defined, but I assure you that they do need this concept defined. And understanding this concept is the key to fully understanding the implications of the filiogue.

[@kingdizzy2871]

If my priest says we believe in the filioque by accident how do I correct him as a layman

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Tell him that we don't? I mean in the Creed things are very clear: we don't use Filioque (and from the Son) in it. I'm not sure what else you can do. If he can accept it, ok. If not, I wouldn't waste time trying to convince a priest that he is wrong. If he is not very humble, he would probably refuse to be educated by a layman. So I would search for a different church.

[@kroyy3629]

No pope has ever condemned filioque. Some of them forbade to put it in the credo. And they said it was ok to believe in it.

[@jasonobermeyer1865]

Where does the idea that any aspect not shared by all has to be the procession of only one come from? It's is derived from the fact that they are co-equal?

[@foundsoul5024]

Father Josiah is right. Filioque is not what scriptures assert and even popes have resisted that teaching. Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father. Filioque emerged in Eastern Syrian Church in Persia. It's invention that doesn't correspond with original dogma but heresy, it is not logical due to the common sense that if Holy Spirit needs two of the Holy Trinity to come out and act, then He is a minor deity, making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The problem with this is that it confuses consubstantiality with co-personality, namely doctrine of triune God as one substance (ousia) and three persons (hypostaseis) which is crucial for distinction of orthodox trinitarial theology from polytheism arianism. The Father remains the sole principle, because the Son has nothing he has not received from this source. Hence while the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father, he proceeds energetically from Father and Son , which brings us to the the doctrine of perichoresis,that the different hypostases of the Trinity eternally co-inhere in one another. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.

[@XyzWse001]

The Holy Scripture also clearly teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. a) The Scriptures frequently and consistently refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (2 Cor 3:7, Gal 4:6 Rom 8:9-11 Phil 1:19 1 Pet 1:11 Act 16:6), thus establishing a constant and clear reference to the Son. But in the Deity, there can be no other constant and clear reference between the persons except that of origin; interchangeability exists among the others because of the absolute simplicity of God. Therefore, if it were not trying to express a constant and clear reference between the Son and the Holy Spirit but merely an essential identity, it could just as easily reverse the relationship and speak of the spirit of the Spirit; which, however, it never does. Moreover, this expression, the spirit of the Son, even expresses procession from the Son according to the scriptural analogy (genitive of origin); for according to Saint Paul, the spirit of God means "the Spirit that is from God." (1 Cor 2:12.) b) According to the Scriptures, Christ sends the Spirit (Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 20:22, Lk 24:49, etc.). But sending implies a kind of power over the one sent. And since in the wholly equal Trinity there is no basis or title for a power difference other than origin, the outward continuation and pattern of which is the sending, the Son can only send the Spirit because He proceeds from Him; the Father sends both the Son and the Spirit, but neither of the two sends the Father; the Son sends the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Son. c) The Holy Spirit receives instruction from the Son: "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, 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. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (Jn 16:13-15.) Since the Holy Spirit is truly God, He cannot take truth from the Son in any other way than by receiving omniscience from Him eternally. However, omniscience is identical with the divine essence; therefore, the Holy Spirit takes the divine essence eternally from the Son, or in other words, proceeds from Him. d) Scripture always mentions the Holy Spirit in the third place, after the Son, in the Trinitarian formulas. From this consistency of expression, one may justly infer that the Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is not the same as to the Father; for then they could have been interchanged at will. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is beautifully symbolized in the book of Revelation (22:1): "He showed me a river of the water of life (the Holy Spirit, Cf. Jn 7:38.), clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

[@GTmarine77]

The Filioque is present on the book of revelation 22:1. Also Maximos the confessor, St Agustine, St Cyril of Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage, St Hilary of Poitiers (the ones I can think of) understood the Filioque, so is not a heresy.

[@viz8746]

John 16:7 ".... I will send him to you" vs John 14:26 "... whom the Father will send.... " and John 14:16 "... and I will ask the Father, and He will give you...." ... 🙏✝👍😄

[@andytheindividual3862]

But doesnt Jesus give the holy spirit when he dies as a gift?

[@JihadScarf]

Proceeds from the Father and the Son

[@georgiacap9294]

Nope!

[@ionictheist349]

Once a heretic always a heretic

[@kp7100]

Proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Not proceeds from the Father and the Son

[@JihadScarf]

@kp7100 The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are Co- Equal, Co- Eternal. "... the Father and I are One." Look up and read the Athanasian Creed, from St Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century

[@henryconner780]

Wow, what I would do to sit down and talk to this man!

[@joelvarghese3370]

But if you're saying that if the holy spirit proceeds from the Son makes the holy spirit less, then that means that the holy spirit is already less than the father because the holy spirit already proceeds from the Father.

[@Mr.C-you-later]

No false union with Rome

[@kevinninja787]

Where does the idea that each person of the Trinity has to have a unique attribute come from exactly? I believe Father said the church held that view but I'm genuinely curious from where?