The Filioque Is Only A Few Words... Why Does It Matter So Much?

[@OrthodoxEthos]

Learn more about how Rome walked away from the Orthodox Faith: REGISTER to attend the conference on the Eighth Oecumenical Council via livestream (March 14-16, 2024): www.crowdcast.io/c/8th-council Fr. Peter mentions two books on the Filioque to read: 1) "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by St. Photios the Great, published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Their website may not show any copies available but please email them and ask: www.bostonmonks.com/contact_us.php 2) "Apodictic Treatises on the Procession of the Holy Spirit" by St. Gregory Palamas. Buy now: uncutmountainpress.com/shop/product/apodictic-treatise-on-the-procession-of-the-holy-spirit/

[@orthodox1717]

Thank you Father, your blessing. May those outside the church see the truth and be baptized in Christ. May those already in the church not be deluded. God help us all! Panagia intercede for us sinners!

[@charlesmaximus9161]

I know that some may have their criticisms of him, but one of the absolute best and thoroughly clear explanations I’ve ever heard of the problem of the Filioque was by Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson. He rightly noted that an often overlooked aspect of the Filioque is correlated with the heretical western concept of created grace, which the Orthodox Church naturally rejects. The result of this is how you get the pope calling himself the “vicar of Christ”, which is about as satanic as it gets. He pointed out that if the pope is the supposed “vicar of Christ”, and if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son, then, that must therefore mean that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the papal office and, thusly, from the pope himself. When one views it in this way, the ghastly aims of the Latins against Orthodoxy become all the more horrifyingly clear. And this is why the Greeks were willing to die fighting this. They knew how wicked this was; it goes beyond mere misunderstanding. They (the Latins) tried to defend this so stubbornly for a reason. They wanted to justify their endeavours towards papal supremacy. It is one of the vilest heresies there is, as far as I can tell. The vomit of satan. In any case, thank you for all you do, Father. May we have your prayers and blessings. 🙏

[@lighthousephotographybandera]

Thank you for sharing that brother, it really makes sense that this is the root of that terrible error. Notice also that they had to start a campaign to make Rome the "central Church" because of course everyone just assumes that the Church of Jerusalem would always be seen as the prime Church because it's Jerusalem. But the Orthodox Church doesn't raise up anyone over another, so the Church left alone wouldn't make Jerusalem into a head Church. However, if the conversation begins to say Rome is somehow more important than Jerusalem, that's not a Christian idea because Jerusalem has always been precious in Christian hearts, not Rome. So this campaign was also very evil and clever, because they convinced many Latins that Rome should be the heart of Christianity. Which is a strange idea to anyone who has read the Bible.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

It matters so much because it upends the teaching of the saints East AND West.

[@Kai_Stwosz]

Can you justify this statement in light of the fact that the Athanasian Creed used widely throughout the West taught the filioque? It doesn't teach economic procession but hypostatic.

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

This requires a good textual history known for origin, of pthe passage in question, authors, etc.@@Kai_Stwosz

[@thane816]

@@Kai_Stwosz I thought the Athanasian Creed was regarded as a forgery.

[@Kai_Stwosz]

@@thane816 I think you're referring to the suspicion that Athanasius didn't write the creed, which, if true, is immaterial to the fact that it was used didactically throughout the West before the schism.

[@riapresley5446]

Clear...simplified ..to the point. And yet...true to Orthodoxy you mention many more references for those that want/need more

[@GuitarTunings33]

🙏

[@mjamesmcdonald]

One of my favorite quotes from a Reformed Pastor on this subject is John Piper saying, "The entire world almost split over an iota and people criticize it as if there is no difference between the words 'yes' and 'no' because they are both short."

[@johnnyd2383]

Protestants are full of heresies and one more, like filioque, mean nothing to them... sure... bring it on Brandon.!

[@lighthousephotographybandera]

In social media discussions on this, I've noticed our Catholic brethren are trained to say "it's just a few words" and "no big deal." Which revealed to me that the Catholic leaders don't inform their people about the Great Schism. In the rare instance that I come across a Catholic who knows Early Church history and about the Great Schism, they have learned this through personal investigations, not through the Catholic Church and Catholic Fathers. The only Early Church history they recite is the line about Peter being the first Pope, which isn't true. Also, since they tend to not know much about Early Church history, it's hard to explain to them that the first Pope with the same papal authority that the Pope that has never existed in the first 1,000 years of the Church. If they knew the history, this wouldn't take an explanation. So I love my Catholic brethren, but in my experiences, it appears that they are deliberately kept in the dark about Early Church history because of what it reveals.

[@lighthousephotographybandera]

@@david_porthouse If you don't mind me asking: Do you know that for the first 1,000 years in the Early Church, every Pope was just another Bishop among equals? Is that history taught in England? It wasn't until after the Great Schism that a Pope was created that had authority over other Bishops that followed them, and this was the first time a Pope was no longer equal to all the other Bishops. It appears to me that this historical fact is hidden, but I could be wrong. I don't come across many Catholics that know the early Popes were just equals among the Bishops, with no special authority.

[@lighthousephotographybandera]

@@david_porthouse Thank you for sharing that with me. That's a bit concerning because in the first thousand years of the Church, there was never a Bishop that had any special authority. This should be obvious of course by the fact that there were councils held (councils of equals). If there was an umpire, for example, then there would be no need to hold Council. The Fathers would have simply just gone to the umpire to get the answer to the issues. But because the Bishops were actually all equal to one another, including the Popes, the Councils were necessary.

[@TranslatedAssumption]

I don't know how many times I've heard people in Catholicism, such as Scott Hahn, say things like, "read the church fathers, read the church fathers" and yet we get people in Catholicism asking why things that the church fathers said and did matter. What I would ask is if they have an understanding of what relativism is?

[@stevelenores5637]

Thank you Father. Sometimes I think the deference between Protestants that convert to Orthodoxy and those that convert to Roman Catholicism is that the later doesn't read the Bible and were used to their Pastors telling them what the Bible says. Being of the former group I would go home after a sermon and actually read what the Bible says in context. Filioque is obvious not scriptural from the plain reading of the text. God Bless you and your work.

[@MartyRodriguezOrthodoxMarine]

@stevelenores5637 : I'm A Recent Convert To Byzantine Rite Eastern Orthodoxy From Latin Rite Roman Catholicism, And, I Can And Will Tell You, Here and Now, I've Always Read and Studied The Holy Scriptures From Beginning To The End Complete, And I Follow What The Scriptures Speak Of The Procession of The Holy Spirit. That's Why I'm Antiochian Orthodox Christian ☦️ As Of Christmas Day, Monday, December 25th, 2023. Glory To God In The Immortal Name of The Father and of The Son and The Holy Spirit.

[@BillSikes.]

Christmas day is January 6th

[@kayedal-haddad]

Why did the Roman Catholic Church adopt the Filoque anyway?

[@cabellero1120]

The Trinity is union in communion. The Filioque means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as Well as from the Father.

[@eikon7001]

You have said nothing. But thank you for this basic definition of the Filioque. We would be lost without you.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@Gigi-ho2qkthat is not what Filioque means.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

The Filioque is a heretical doctrine which obstructs peoples’ path to salvation. This is not my opinion. This is *the decision of the eighth Oecumenical council which everyone agreed to.* The solution is simple. Repent. Come back to the council that solved everything in the ninth century. No agreement can be reached until there’s repentance. And these questions have to be answered honestly: Why did Rome agree at the 8th council to no addition to the Creed? There was an anathema to anyone who added to the Creed. And why did they then go back on that and turn their back on the council and turn their back on all previous councils and add to the Creed? Why did they walk away from the one confession of the faith for the first thousand years?

[@fgutie35]

John 14: 15-18. So who requested the Holy Spirit to the Father? So technically the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father at the request of the Son, therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is also mentioned in Luke 24:49 " And behold I am sending the promise of my Father upon you(Holy Spirit); but stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." Also John 1:16-17; "From His fullness we ahve all received Grace in place of Grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and "truth" (the Holy Spirit is also described as the Spirit of Truth), came through Jesus Christ.

[@johnnyd2383]

Are you runaway from the kindergarten.?

[@ajtsanvk]

Ok lets not be childish.. So no, in John 14:15 we clearly see that Jesus had to pray to the Father to give them the Holy Spirit. He didnt just say "oh here you have it im giving you the Helper". He had to ask Father first because Holy Spirit proceeds only from Him. It's very logical.

[@ajtsanvk]

​@@johnnyd2383 even though we are Orthodoxs we don't need to act childish please.

[@thomism1016]

There may have been “utter corruption” (and woe betide those by which it came) but still the “gates of hell” did not prevail, lest Christ be a liar 🤷🏽‍♂️💐❤️🎊🥂🌹

[@anthoulla100]

Isn't it easier to say that when Jesus was baptised the Holy Spirit was sent down to bless Jesus when God said ' this is my Son....'

[@cabellero1120]

Matthew 28:18 Jesus says All Power And Authority have been given Him ( By His Father, God) Jesus breathes upon the Apostles and says " Receive The Holy Spirit!" The Book of John states that apart from Him Nothing came to be... Filioque means And From The Son

[@eikon7001]

Unless you’re just unable to communicate your thoughts properly in writing, you have apparently just claimed the Holy Spirit ‘came to be.’ That’s wild. The only other takeaway is that you’re confused about eternal hypostatic procession and economic procession.

[@eikon7001]

@@wiard Why are you dropping in just to offer up a silly rhetorical question? Did you have anything to say or was that it?

[@eikon7001]

@@wiard I was done reading after the first dumb sentence accusing me of gnosticism. But I made an effort to continue until my eyes glazed over and had to stop. I’m sure the rest was just as riveting though.

[@eikon7001]

@@wiard What an odd thing to say just now. Is that because you feel someone is obligated to carry on a congenial discussion with your highness after the way you started out? Or is it because you think I need to adopt your heresy? I don’t really want to know the answer of course.

[@LadyMaria]

​​@@eikon7001This person has no idea that he de facto believes that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and Son in eternity and comes from Them. He also doesn't get that the Byzantine Uniates believe as we do, most of them being Melkites who don't even believe in Papal Supremacy or Infalliblity.

[@nicp2344]

Father when you stated that there is something particular about the Godhead, i bekieve i heard someqhere that the God is the only one where the Holy Spirit Proveeds from, Christ is the only one that was Incarnate, and the Holy Spitit is the Life Giver and I want yo make sure that yhis is correct. Apologies if i didn't phrase it right.

[@eikon7001]

Stick to the definition in the Creed (without the papal addition) and you should be fine. It’s all there. No need to rewrite it another way.

[@corneliusoswald6139]

Why only orthodox church and oriental church still recite nicean creed without filioque despite schism between orthodox and oriental happen 500 years before 1054 ad?

[@eikon7001]

You’re asking why the Orientals did not adopt an addition to the Creed from a confession they had no communion with for hundreds of years? I think you have your answer.

[@coldjello8436]

Algorithm boost.

[@JmsCaray-fx8qx]

Unification between Catholics and orthodox is 1 year away, when we both celebrate Holy Pascha on the same day…the 1700th anniversary of the council of Nicaea…Orthodox Christians are looking for answers on what they should do if unification does take place…instead people’s time is spent on such theological issues as the Filioque, icon veneration, sola scriptura etc. etc these are issues that only a handful of people care about and used mostly by bloggers looking for clicks…there are only 2-3 million Orthodox in North America, half of which are converts…get ready for the mass exodus if unification takes place…what is your position on this…is it based on obedience or on free will

[@Lizzie236]

It matters because loving your neighbor would grow the church. So the devil being smarter than humans knew we needed things to fight about to divide the church. He is a genius the church fathers not so much!

[@johnnyd2383]

... so you propose new heresy of ecumenism that would create melting pot based on Syncretism... so that devil can be even more happy.!

[@Lizzie236]

@johnnyd2383 What should have happened is both sides should have done an examination of their own conscience seen where pride and whatever was coming into play. Then they could have listened to each other. Yes, the examination should have been done even by the east. Had the church fathers in the east done this examination and sat down and listened to other side then they could have seen clearly enough to correct the other side. Instead you ended up with Christians going about it on their own. The results of what happened where christians divided and ended up killing each other . Which now days people see the history and think Christianity is a joke because of christians killing other christians. I assure the devil couldn't be anymore happy then with what did happen. Especially considering it stopped/hindered theosis in some as a result. The filoque teaching isn't something that would have caused someone to live an immoral life and stop theosis. You know the whole point of Christianity is theosis. After awhile it would have been corrected had it been handled the correct way.

[@Lizzie236]

@johnnyd2383 What should have happened is both should have had an examination of their own conscience seen where pride and whatever was coming into play. Then they could have listened to each other. Yes, the examination should have been done even by the east. Had the church fathers in the east done this examination and sat down and listened to other side then they could have seen clearly enough to correct the other side. Instead you ended up with Christians going about it on their own. The results of what happened where christians divided and ended up killing each other . Which now days people see the history and think Christianity is a joke because of christians killing other christians. I assure the devil couldn't be anymore happy then with what did happen. Especially considering it stopped theosis in some as a result. The filoque teaching isn't something that would have caused someone to live an immoral life and stop theosis. You know the whole point of Christianity is theosis. After awhile it would have been corrected had it been handled the correct way.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

The Filioque is absolutely a heretical doctrine which obstructs peoples’ path to salvation. This is not my opinion. This is *the decision of the eighth Oecumenical council which everyone agreed to.* The solution is simple. Repent. Come back to the council that solved everything in the ninth century. No agreement can be reached until there’s repentance. And these questions have to be answered honestly: Why did Rome agree at the 8th council to no addition to the Creed? There was an anathema to anyone who added to the Creed. And why did they then go back on that and turn their back on the council and turn their back on all previous councils and add to the Creed? Why did they walk away from the one confession of the faith for the first thousand years?

[@anthoulla100]

In other words the Holy Spirit came from God alone

[@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

[@OrthodoxEthos]

Through is not what you say in your creed and does not mean the same, and thus…

[@Kai_Stwosz]

​@@OrthodoxEthosactually Saint Tarasius used the word ekporeuomenon which you asserted in this video refers to eternal procession so it definitely does refer to eternal hypostatic procession. Through the Son was recognized by Pope Hadrian to signify the same procession as filioque in his response to the Franks who objected to Saint Tarasius' use of the phrase. Also Revelation 22 uses the same term to refer to the procession of the Spirit from the Throne of God and of the Lamb, which was a vision of heaven, not in time.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@OrthodoxEthosThat’s exactly what it means. But please keep believing it means something different so you can continue in your schism feeling good about it.

[@marshallsilverstar9636]

​@@thejerichoconnection3473filioque is 《and the son 》 or not?

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

@@marshallsilverstar9636 the Western fathers used both expressions interchangeably. “And the son” doesn’t violate the monarchy of the Father, if that’s your concern.

[@makenoimage]

WHAT?!! a distortion from Him His ways? LOL an INNOVATION?...Imagine "He is NOT God alone...but 1 and 3 but 1..." was taught daily at the temple by the disciples...they arrested and wanted to kill the disciples for merely teaching One resurrected...Gamaliel advised "Just leave them alone" I doubt zealous Jews would have left them alone... if this was taught "from the beginning of the Church"

[@josephcarter1480]

Your not making any sense

[@dariuszpietka1845]

The dualism in understanding the proceeding of the Holy Spirit (from the principle and from the common nature) is still visible in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In paragraph 245 there is a reference to the Constantinople Symbol that we believe in the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father. And further in the Catechism we read: "The Church thus recognizes the Father as the source and origin of all Divinity." In the next paragraph 246 we read that the Council of Florence specifies: The Holy Spirit ... has its essence and its independent existence simultaneously from the Father and the Son and eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as one Beginning and one Breath. It may be worth adding that the Roman Catholic Church bases its interpretation of faith on the Apostles' Creed, in which the problem of the origin of the Holy Spirit does not occur. From what I remember (I may be wrong about the year), Pope John Paul II refused the Creed without the "Filioque" in 1993 with Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome (and I don't think it happened just this one time). I don't know whether "Filioque" should not be treated in the West as a theologumenon.

[@thane816]

My Orthodox priest wants female priests.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

Who ? What jurisdiction?

[@RockerfellerRothchild1776]

Doubt that

[@DKjellby]

I don't think so.

[@FideiDefensatrix]

Interesting how Constantinople fell on Pentecost, the feast of the descent of the Holy Spirit. It’s almost as if God chastised the Orthodox for refusing to accept the Filioque. “And so that they may understand that the cause of their fall is their stubbornness in error about the procession of the Holy Spirit, Constantinople was taken, the Emperor killed, and the empire wholly extinguished by the Turks on the very feast of the Holy Spirit. For as Gerard Mercator proves in his Chronology, in the year 1452 on the 26th day of May Muhammed ordered his army to the final attack and on the following day he took Constantinople. But in that year the feast of Pentecost was on the 28th of May, as is plain from the bronze number and the dominical letter by which movable feasts are examined. For the bronze number is 8 and the dominical letter is A. Therefore many compare the Greek Church to the kingdom of Samaria, which separated itself from the true temple and was at length carried off into perpetual captivity.” St. Robert Bellarmine

[@eikon7001]

What’s more interesting is that you have to use the Pope’s calendar to make the day match. It was on a Tuesday according to the Julian calendar. Pentecost is always on a Sunday. But we can let that mistake slide and amend it to being a holy season at least. Yet it still proves nothing except that you and good ole ‘saint’ Bob think you know why, how, and to what end Providence allows, orders, and uses the plans of mice and men for His purposes. It’s not so simple and you have no access to that information-it’s not an argument nor sure testament. We could just as easily say that Constantinople fell when it was Uniate after capitulating to Rome (for a blessed short interval). The empire fell and the Church remained free from error and union with heretics.

[@FideiDefensatrix]

@@eikon7001 Seems pretty obvious to me that God punished the Orthodox for reneging on their reunion with the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. Seems obvious that He would punish those who literally murdered their own bishops b/c they voted for reunion. Either way, it’s clear that God is allowing the Orthodox to diminish b/c of its false ways. Orthodoxy is losing more members than it gains, more so than Catholicism or Protestantism. The few members you have gained recently are cancerous, so much so that Metropolitan Saba had to issue a statement recently referring to them as “Pharisees.” The bad fruits of your recent converts will seal your final demise.

[@stephenstavrosdimitriou4513]

God is not a man. God is not two men. God is a Spirit - a fluid.

[@standout_deviations]

😬

[@johnm.speight7983]

A fluid ? ? ? ? ?

[@stephenstavrosdimitriou4513]

@@johnm.speight7983 The Spitit is able to "flow" within and without.

[@stephenstavrosdimitriou4513]

God is not a man. The "Father" is not a man. The Son is not a man. The Spirit is not a man. All parts of God is God. God is a three-in-one fluid. The Romans entered the word "filioque", enabling them to insert a king, a Roman king. For example, the word "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" is superfluous and is there to give power to a Roman king.

[@bobskanal]

Saying "the son is not a man" sound pretty heretical to me. And the "roman" relates to the rite. There is also a byzantine catholic church, that is part of the catholic church. You can be a catholic papist, while not being a "roman" catholic papist.

[@JmsCaray-fx8qx]

Please stop with a rehash of an issue the solution to which has already been resolved by the joint committee of Catholics and orthodox priests/bishops on unity between the two churches…both sides now agree that the “and the Son” language will be replaced with “through the Son”…Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome have already publicly stated as much

[@OrthodoxEthos]

We don’t work by committee in the Orthodox Church . Tried that, many times, didn’t work. The local orthodox churches, and all the Saints have to agree… Besides: No agreement can be reached until there’s repentance. And these questions have to be answered honestly: Why did Rome agree at the 8th council to no addition to the Creed? There was an anathema to anyone who added to the Creed. And why did they then go back on that and turn their back on the council and turn their back on all previous councils and add to the Creed? Why did they walk away from the one confession of the faith for the first thousand years?

[@cabellero1120]

It wasn't just the Filioque that caused the Schism It was also Geography Politics Sociopolitical Ideation Attempts to control an empire The East sought just as much " supremacy" as the West... It was also a battle between Rome and Constantinople as to which should be the capital of Christendom..... It was so much more than a literary innovation......It was Political and Geographical, Mostly!

[@eikon7001]

False. Focusing only on certain details (real or imagined) to create a narrative you want to promote is not a good way to go about anything. I heard CNN is hiring if you need some work suited for you.

[@thejerichoconnection3473]

Ding ding ding! You nailed it

[@humphrey212]

This guy is boring.

[@OrthodoxEthos]

Are you interested in truth?

[@DKjellby]

Why are you watching this then?