Thank you Fr. Moody, the Filioque was one of the determining factors that assisted me in my conversion to Orthodoxy from the Roman Catholic Church. Despite much academic research on this subject, your lecture was truly enlightening!
Your schismatic sect doesn't tell you that the Filioque was taught and accepted by Cyril of Alexandria's 3rd letter to Nestorius at Ephesus. You have never even heard of this letter.
Did you know that your sect is under *ANATHEMA* as per the council of Carthage? One of the chief heresies of Pelagius is his denial of original sin. This is why the Council of Carthage placed an anathema against anyone who denies original sin, and this canon was accepted ecumenically by the seventh ecumenical council. *Canon 110* of Carthage states that, "Whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, *but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration* , from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, *let him be anathema* " You are under Anathema, sir. Repent
@@SAHOVNICU We have. Not all stances of every Saint is accepted and not all councils are canonically accepted. You know for sure you RC have canons and councils, and stances by pre schism Saints you do not accept that uphold Orthodoxy and are against the Filioque. There are massive debates and bodies of literature about this, and the outcomes of the Filioque, it’s Arian presuppositions, the papacy, Divine Simplicity, plenatary indulgences, and scholasticism subverting the Catholic Church in the Renaissance and causing the reformation, Rosicrucian and then humanist enlightenment are obvious, as is the government infiltration and revenge of all these things on the Catholic Church post WWII that has become globalist. We can easily spot our radical gnostic clergy and ecumenists, and ideological and state subversives: they want reunion with Rome 9 times out of ten and start with defending the Filioque.
@@Ac-ip5hd Cyril's 3rd letter to Nestorius at Ephesus absolutely taught Divine simplistic nature of God and not Palamas' heretical Essence/energy distinction, which ultimately gives rise to your many other heresies such as the monopatrite heresy, and that the Holy Spirit's procession from the Son is merely energetic and thus temporal. The monopatrite heresy leads to a semi-arian reading of the Creed. If the Father is the source of unity within the Trinity, then this leads to subverting the Son and Holy Spirit as creatures. The West Universally taught the Filioque from the 6th-11th centuries and yet the East remained in communion with the Apostolic See for these 500 years. So either, the east remained in communion with heretics for 500 years or the east today are heretics for not being in communion with Filioquists. This is checkmate. Also, the Eastern Heterodox sect is under Anathema as per canon 110 of the council of Carthage (419 AD) for denying Original Sin One of the chief heresies of Pelagius is his denial of original sin. This is why the Council of Carthage placed an anathema against anyone who denies original sin, and this canon was accepted ecumenically by the seventh ecumenical council. Canon 110 of Carthage states that, "Whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, *but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration* , from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, *let him be anathema"* I suggest you repent
@SAHOVNICU Do you speak Koine Greek? If you don't please remain silent. Remember your Bible is a translation from Greek. Our Bible is not a translation. Remember the term lost in translations. All of the early Christian documents are in Greek. May I ask a question? If you had to follow the instructions written in a foreign language, any mishap would cost you a large fine. You are given permission to seek help with the foreign document. You have a choice between, a highly educated non-native person who took six semesters of the language or a highly educated Native speaker who has studied the language non-stop for many years? As Orthodox Christians, many of us continue to use the liturgical languages of The Church, as well as apostolic teachings "παραδόσεις" passed down to us. I read your arguments, trust me I can go to the original Church teachings in Greek, and tear down your words, word for word! But here is the deal, God gives us the Freedom of choice. I accept his ways of doing things, in saying this, you made the choice to be Roman Catholic, cool! I made the choice to be Orthodox Christian. I attempt to live daily in a manner pleasing to God. When you and I debate each other about faith, in many ways it is useless, such vain arguments yield nothing in the eyes of God! Think about it, we often behave as if we were in a sporting event, trying to convince the other guy that our team is the best, In the end, God will judge us. He will judge us in multiple ways, we will be judged for all the unbridle junk that precedes from our mouths. Έκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου δικαιωθήσῃ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν λόγων σου καταδικασθήσῃ.. Τranslation, For by your words you will be justified, and by your words, you will be condemned.!”
Palamas is brilliant! He surely has experienced God and the Heavens. I was surprised how identical his accounts and descriptions to my experiences with God and the other side. Any Person who has not experienced the energy of God and the Heavens, but has only been stubborn in citing reading and learning texts with out believing and living them, can never experience the grace and nature of god and through this the understanding of the spirit and also of Jesus life and mission hear on earth. God has truely revealed himself to Palamas! Glory be to God! And many praises to Palamas.
Filioque is not only an insertion in the Nicene creed, but also contradicts the decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council, reviving the heresies of subordinationism and macedonianism. The Council decided the origin of the Holy spirit from the Father and the EQUALITY of the Divine hypostases, with the EXCEPTION of the causality of the Father in relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit. From this it is evident that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, as the Son does, but cannot proceed from the Son.
@@FrMoody I was raised Baptist then non-denominational then I converted to Roman Catholicism...but now I'm seeking... Are you familiar with fr. Richard Rohr???
This helps it make more sense to me, as someone interested in Eastern Orthodox who hasn't converted to it yet. Without these explanations, it seems like an incredibly minor issue to have a dispute over.
Fr Moody, would you be interested in being interviewed on this topic? particularly, Palamas' use of the Greek translation of Augustine's On the Trinity.
I think this is a good summary from Alexandros Chouliaras On the contrary, Palamas most probably draws on a common patristic tradition, though not much developed, which finds a Trinitarian image in the intellect( nous, logos, and pneuma) It seems that Palamas, having read Planoudes’ translation, found some useful tools, which he exploited in order toelaborate his views more fully. Perhaps. I still demur. If it were so, he would have definitely cited him. It was ALWAYS his method to cite an authority.
Speak about substance and activity in Eunomius and how that Essence and Energies distinction kinda of impacts that ingenerate misnomer. Its subtle but ousia and energeia onviously makes the matter clearer in regards to the essence being unknowable but inner faith possible to use a line Romanides theology/lectures.
It is not a misnomer as I generate is the description of the Creatir. Yet only the Father is the Source of the divinity and so He alone is un generated. There activities are all shared as they are common to nature. The generation of divinity pertains to hypostasis and so it cannot be shared.
FrChris Moody thank you! Are there any particular sections that represent the clear stance against Latin pneumatology? Anything clearly stated? I think I saw you on Facebook if you are I’ll friend you as I will love to buy a couple copies ASAP. I am starting to get into koine Greek to specifically translate Palamas from PG Migne, as almost nothing is in English. I taught myself latin years ago while ancatholic and am sure I can do so with Greek (I started and gave up for other reasons back then). My concern is that in apologetics these days the new trend is to claim Palamas is reconcilable with uniatism and even Latin Catholicism, as he didn’t believe in a “real” distinction but could be said to believe in the more nominal distinction found in Aquinas or that his belief is equal to that of Scotus, which are equally as ridiculous for anyone who knows the entire background and the basis of uncreated light and grace that Palamas bases his pneumatology on. If I had clear words on rejecting the Latin filioquist as you mentioned it would be tremendously helpful in bringing people to investigate true orthodoxy rather than the via media of uniatism
I’m sorry for the rambling response Father haha. In short, something along the lines that you quoted asnever communing with Latins until the Filioque is dropped
@@larrycera9276 yes. He spefically says "as long as you say the Holy Spirit is from the Son we will not receive you as communicants" exact quote. I will actually post it later, when I get a chance, as well. Re translating. Koini is like slang. Palamas is a college professor. His homilies are easy, but theological texts dense. I would recommend you master Chrysostom first. Plus. St. Gregory is like the cap stone along with St. Mark. So you have to be familiar 1st with Dionysios, the Basil, then the Damascene, then , Maximos. Above all, master the greek nt. Memorize as much as you can to imprint the phrasings. As far as vs uniatism, yes, there is a lacuna. Unfortunately you will not make inroads with a uniate. The root problem is they like protestants do not have the mind of the Fathers. If they did, they would reject the worldly Papacy. They have been beset by Modernism and so do not take the Authority of the Fathers. They are much like Anglicans . St Greogry was intolerant of the Latins because there authority ultimately is the Pope and thus they cannot see their error no matter what unless they reject that root heresy. God bless your attempts to help. Once in a while God grants us to save one from their error. May God have mercy on us all.
FrChris Moody as far as mastering Dionysius, Basil, Maximus and Damascene you are referring to the Greek they wrote, or the theology? I am read on their theology but in English and that is, of course, another matter. I found with latin that reading the originals is an entirely different exercise that most monoglots are unaware. I found this exact process in Latin. I was a proud self believing scholar after mastering the vulgate until I picked up Augustine, much less Cicero
Which Faith do you practice? I know Orthodoxy but are you Eastern, Greek, Antiochian, Or Byzantine Catholic? Im reading Photios Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit but think I shouldve got Photios against Carolingians? Whats the Palamas Work please can you comment where I can find it.
I still don't understand how the filioque makes a difference when the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be fully understood by human intellect. I'm also wondering if this all boils down to a translation error or if it all boils down to linguistics and politics.
Because Filioque smaller the Holy Spirit to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity .each person has it own hypostatic idiomat that is distinct from the others persons idiomats .in fillioque the Spirit not.
All Persons are unoriginate as they are the one Creator. Only the Father is the source of the divinity thus He ALONE is unoriginate. The distinction is between the principle of creation and the principle of divinity.
Didn't many of the Eastern Fathers teach the the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son? St. Maximus the Confessor said: “By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten” St.Gregory the Great explains the procession in this way “We can also understand His being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit[.] … The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” I think it's important to note the linguistic differences between the Latin verb 'procedere' and the Greek term used in the Creed (ekporevomenon). The Greek is more precise and denotes that the Spirit 'generates or originates from' whereas the Latin is more loose and general and could simply mean to 'flow from or 'advance.' When it all boils down, Latins and Greeks can agree that the Spirit takes His origin from the Father and this spiration passes through the Son.
FrChris Moody, I recall a video you had made, but can't seem to find it anymore where you take the claims from a Sedevacantist cult that accuse Hesychasm of Hinduism, which from what I can tell is mostly association fallacies and not looking into important writings from the Pre Schism Greek fathers, additionally St John of Sinai literally calls the monks of his day Hesychasts (in the 6th-7th century), so part of it is historical ignorance but the accusatory video itself has yet to have an in depth response. But I remember you having a shortened response to their claims. So my main point is would it be possible to find that video somewhere or did someone else make a video dealing with that question. Thank you and God bless.
I actually did address the claims in part. But I took the video down as I finished translating the first Triad and read the Hindu texts in detail because there are looming questions. The greater question is not whether hesychasm is Hinduism but if hesychasm directly borrowed from Neoplatonism which derived many of its ideas from Plotinus . I can talk with you personally if you want a more nuanced statement.
To all to know’ All orthodox Church Father’s were great saints like St. Basil, St Cyril, St Spiridon St Gregory Palma’s etc they have the gifts of the Holy Spirit before their education and this was and is the number 1 Weakness of the west and will be until they repent and return to themselves and God church. Our Lord today in Orthodox Churches still blesses as with uncorrupted bodies of Lords people in present time.
This is why I must crucify my Protestant mind with the old man. 'Like a child', Matthew, like a child 🤯 Thank you for this teaching. Also: (ref Jn15v26), Proceed(eth), strongs 1607 & Send, strongs 3992 Simply put 1607 (out of) 3992 (from/to) In other words, Jesus sent the letter which the Father wrote. One might argue, 'therefore both (God) sent the letter' yes absolutely but the content of the letter came from the Father alone. Please forgive my inadequate description of the most Holy Spirit my resource is very limited. (I am am unborn again Orthodox, not even a catacumin, just a 50 yo recovering junky ex-protestant who's desperately searching for the real Lord Jesus through the true body of Christ. St(s) Paul the Simple & Ephraim of Nea Makri plz pray for me, a broken dog hungry for crumbs)
" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved
This month I and my editor are wrapping up the 2 apodictic treatises for publication. Finally by God's grace. We scrutinized our translation as close as possible. So June I will be too busy. Mid July I can, God willing. I am starting a new job (I will be an army brigade chaplain) so it will be hectic. Just write me frcmoody AT Gmail. Christ is risen!
Our editor is on mount Athos right now: the text is done awaiting English proof. When these are volunteer efforts it is slow. The Triads are now being finished in English by us, as well.
@@FrMoody thanks you. When and where do you think you will publish it? So I can keep an eye on it, and don't need to ask you all the time? Thanks in advance.
Cyril of Alexandria did not believe in todays meaning of the filloque. Actually Theodoret of Cyrus was under the suspicion that Cyril of Alexandria was talking about double procession, however Cyril of Alexandria assured Theodoret of Cyrus, that he wasn't talking about double procession, he assured Theodoret that he was talking about temporal procession. Temporal procession is different than eternal procession, meaning the spirit proceeds from the father alone and is poured into creation from the son, meaning the holy spirit proceeds from the father alone. If you actually look at what Cyril of Alexandria meant you will realise that not only he condemned the filloque, he was outright against adding something to the niceo-constantinopolian creed. Actually, the pope condemned the filloque in the Fourth Council of Constantinope in 879-880. He condemned the alteration of the creed. Furthermore, Eastern Catholics venerate St. Gregory Palamas which wrote in his work ""The Triads"" which i suggest that you read, because it explains nicely that the filloque is heresy.
@@SimonSlPl which book and what chapter and paragraph from cyril should I read of him talking about energetic procession? Also, the orthodox churches in america don't see the the filioque as a barrier anymore.
@@Ternz_TV Here is a quote from St. John of Damascus Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that He is from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father; while we dont say that He is from the Son, but only call Him the Spirit of the Son. (Theol., lib. l.c. 11, v. 4.)
@@Ternz_TV Saint Maximus the Confessor 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.
@@FrMoody well my friend I’ve now listened to your talk twice, brilliant and I’m now signed up to your channel! God be with you in an amazing ministry my friend
Because that is in the so called economy οικονομία there is a difference between the how the person are there hypostatic properties and the economy what they do for salvation . There the Son sents the Spirit. We see the Spirit gets Christ in our hearts in Paul's epistles. So the Hypostatic property _idiomats the non born the behotten the procced are for each person not common to all but God in the economy οικονομία created and saves redeem From the Father through the Son in the Spirit .The west got in confusion because could not follow the greek speaking fathers of the church and got in confusion for the Hypostatic properties and the economy of the Holy Trinity
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f Yeah, I realize that the issue is more linguistic in nature than anything else. The Latin "procedure" is broader in meaning than "ἐκπορευόμενον".
@@Schmittposter the fathers in the second Ecumenical council where not idiots if they wanted to say that the Spirit εκπορεύεται also from the Son they would have said it
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f That's why I said it's a linguistic issue. The problem is that "ἐκπορευόμενον" implies an originative procession, while "procedere" implies that as well as sending. The fathers weren't stupid, but they were predominantly of the Eastern church. By 1014, the Western church by and large weren't speaking Greek, and a resurgence of the Arian heresy in the west was using the Creed to undermine Christ's divinity, so the papacy had to respond quickly. Could it have been handled better? Certainly, but hindsight is 20/20.
@@Schmittposter εκπορεύεται for existing is only from the Father , the greek speaking fathers are so clear on that.. In the economy what God does for the salvation the Son can sent the Spirit and the Spirit can bring the grace of the Son in us.So don't confuse things .the father in the second Ecumenical council where not idiots.if they wanted to say that the Spirit was εκπορεύεται from the Son they would say it...
I marvel at the utter stupidity of many people. The Nicene Creed is simple and crystal clear. If the Holy Spirt eternally proceeds from the Son as well as the Father, how can the Son be conceived by the Holy Spirt and the Theotokos? The creed goes on to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. If He proceeded from Son as well, the creed would have said "and the Son." Reading the creed in context and with understanding, it is impossible to say He also proceeds from the Son. It completely distorts the Godhead, and makes the Holy Spirit an inferior divine being. Really bizarre!!
Not necessarily.Fathers speak of it this way. For practical purposes it is described this and lived thus. There is obviously but one church, but your view, imo ,is simplisitic. The west while STILL in communion had a very distinct form of liturgy as opposed to the byzantine. So no. I disagree. If I am understanding you correctly. You misinterpreted what was said. No matter how you slice even when they were i communion it is western not eastern. Lol.
@@FrMoody They left, and started their own Church. It is not Catholic. Catholic means to have the same Universal Teaching . They do not have the same teaching as the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church does. They were the first Protestants who decided to have their own Sacraments instead of the Holy Mysteries. Starting with Baptism you can see how much they have fragmented the True fullness of the Faith which reached its pinnacle at Vatican II....I suggest you read and study the research done by Fr. Peter Heers, on all of this... Plus I can go on extensively about this from my own experience. Forgive me for simplifying this. I guess I was taking the easy way out , especially when I can tell you about how much I was lied by them as a cradle Roman Catholic, Catholic Grade School, Catholic Minor/Major Seminaries and a Benedictine/and Trappist Novice Monk before going through 3 years of Conversion to the Orthodox Catholic Church(Russian/Serbian). After that was a Monastic for 2 1/2 years in Orthodox Monastery before going back into US military service again. So yes it is Complicated but it is simple when you realize the Latin theologians are totally wrong for pushing all of their lies from the beginning of their Catechism with birth all the way to the end with pushing and justifying cremation. And shall I go on with their pushing of Evolution and Big Bang Theory too. After hours of talking about it you will finally realize it is more than just a filique difference between the Churches....
@@FrMoody Also I can go on as to how they(Latins) force fed me on how Truthful the Theology of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were. When in fact they are Intellectual Heretics who do not speak from an experience of Theology like our Hesychasts have. They are totally against the Core of Salvation with theosis and our teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Father, Re: #1 - How does Orthodoxy see the relationship between the Son and the Holy Ghost? As a former Catholic Seminarian (more traditional - Fraternity of St. Peter [FSSP]), the discussions I had about this amongst more traditional-minded Latin priests, theologians, and scholars suggested that since the distinctions within the Godhead are in hypostasis (person), then there must be some relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost. It's interesting you mention the notion that the 'economic' Trinity is not a '1-for-1' with the theological (or eternal) Trinity, since this is one of the reasons I was told FOR the Filioque. We know the 'relations' of the Trinity in the economy of salvation; these relations mirror the relations of the eternal (or 'ad intra' in the Latin) Trinity. I am not aware of any documentation, Scripture, or Tradition to support such a notion, but it's something I heard second hand. Or does Eastern Orthodoxy simply take the position that there is no explicit mention of exactly how the Son relates to the Holy Ghost within the Godhead (eternally, theologically, or ad intra...however you want to phrase it), then it is not for us to know or speculate? Thank you for your videos; I found them from a link on Jay Dyer's page. As a Catholic beginning a serious inquiry into Orthodoxy, I appreciate your videos, scholarly knowledge of all things Orthodox, and (almost most importantly), you sincere, yet unabashedly Orthodox positions in addressing your perceptions of Catholic error. Pax Tecum, Geoff
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in order to rest in the Son. The eternal relation between Son and Spirit is called the "energetic procession" to distinguish it from a hypostatic relation like the Son's generation from the Father. Since we are adopted into God's family by sharing in the divine energies, that the Spirit is the "Spirit of Sonship" according to energy explains why He adopts us into that very sonship. Check out Papadakis' "Crisis in Byzantium" which goes into this theology. This was affirmed by the Synod of Blachernae and taught by St. Gregory Palamas.
The best explanation St Gregory gave is there are two procession. The Son is begotten directly, brought into being , timelessly and immediately, without interposition of another. He has a direct existential relationship with the Father. This begottenness cannot be shared. The Spirit is processed immediately without any interposition and receives existence timelessly from the Father only. The Father is uncaused and thus the only cause. The Spirit and Son are caused eternally. Therefore the Spirit cannot exist through the Son. This is what we call theology proper. The internal relationships ad inta between the persons. The economic trinity relates to their giving of grace to the world, their dispensing, in Latin, or economy, in Greek, of grace to us. The giving of grace, which is the economic procession, can be through the Son in the sense of manifesting Him.
Everyone thinks they have it right, there are just as many on the RC side that think they are right and the crazy Mormons thing we're all wrong lol. Pray pray pray and God will direct you to his Sons Church.
You said the word 'alone' is implied. Why is this implication accepted? I've been told by Orthodox people that justification by faith alone can't be true because the word 'alone' isn't found in the Bible. If Orthodox people want to argue against justification by faith alone, go ahead. But doing so on the grounds that the word 'alone' isn't found in the Bible is invalid.
"And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Apocalypse 22:1). it's crystal clear to me sir :)
@@thepalantir7321 Also the river of life seems to pertain to the spirit's part in salvation of mankind which is within time whereas the trinity existed before time? This is an argument I used earlier. Hopefully it makes sense.
But the Father is NOT a Father without a Son, Likewise the Son CAN'T be a Son with the Father. Unless you're saying that the Father hasn't always been the Father in eternity. If the Father and the Son are co-eternal, neither having a beginning (including the Spirit), which the Bible teaches, therefore there's no issue justifying the Filioque from scripture. Revelation 22:1 is also a strong support for the Filioque including other verses which the fathers used to justify it inclusion in the Creed. That's just my opinion. I also do hold to the monarchy of the Father as a biblical doctrine. Shalom
That is not the point of the filioque. The filioque posits that the Son gives existence to the Spirit. No one says the Father has been without His Son. The filioque does deny that the Father has always had the Spirit for the Spirit is THROUGH the Son, which subordinates Him. As the Son is from the Father so the Spirit is from the Father. God bless.
No one denies the Spirit in the economy of the Father is THROUGH the Son. All CREATION is THROUGH the Son. That is the point we are making . You reduce the Spirit to CREATED by having His procession THROUGH the Son.
The Son has a begging eternal from the Father. Not a created time beginning.understand the difference between the two says. The Son is not created because it is from the essence of the Father eternal Αϊδια in greek
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat no filioque means that the Hypostatis of the Spirit is from the Farher and the Son.when in reality only the Father is the reason eternal for the Son and the Spirit Hypostatis
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat saint Greogory Palamas calls the papist as πειθήνιοι σατανά meaning that for the filioque they obey blindly and follow satan
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat first saint john the Damascian says the Spirit εκπορεύεται from the Father. Read ch 8 exact expodition of the orthodox faith. He says there all and no filioque there.
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat i read saint john the Damascian exact expodition of the orthodox faith in the original language actually he says about the Spirit only from the Farher read it ch 8
Do you know the Lord? I follow the ancient pattern orthodox always have. Romans reversed it because they SAW THE PRIEST FACING THEM. Ad orientem means the people see the presbyters backs.
Unfortunately, I noticed that Dr. Siecienski book is based on dishonesty and a very literal approach to the the verb "ἐκπορεύεται" as if it's unique and only applied the the relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit. 1) The verb "ἐκπορεύεται" which is translated in English as "proceeds" can also be simply translated into different verbs (in English for instance) : * "However, this kind does not go out "ἐκπορεύεται" except by prayer and fasting.”(Matthew 17:21) ** Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out "ἐκπορεύεται" into the draught, purging all meats (Mark 7:19) *** "They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out "ἐκπορεύεται" to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty."(Revelation 16:14) This verb was written in an "economia context" not "theologia" >>> The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople changed the conjugation from economia into theologia : Original John (15:26) : O para tou Patros ekporeuetai It became : to ek tou Patros Ekporeuomenon (which is proceeded from the Father) Which proves that economia reveals theologia contrary to what Greek Orthodox say against Catholic teachings on this point. ALSO, we don't find the word "alone" in John (15:26) in regarding the Holy Spirit procession or coming out from the Father. 2) Church Fathers : He didn't mention this very filioquish quote : Saint Ephrem declared: "The Father is the Begetter, the Son the Begotten from the bosom of the Father, the Holy Spirit He that proceedeth from the Father and the Son" (the Syriac text : archive.org/stream/sanctiephraemsy01lamygoog#page/n188/mode/2up (paragraph 11) Dr, Siecienski mentioned the following quote from St. Cyril of Alexandria (insisting that the Saint used ἐκπορεύεται to relate the Holy Spirit to the Father as unique verb) "For he is (The Holy Spirit) consubstantial with them and he is poured forth (prokhestai), that is, he proceeds (ekporeutai) as from the fountain of God the Father and he is bestowed on creation through the Son." (Letter 55 / from paragraph 40) BUT , he didn't mention the following quote from the same Saint (which is a clever remark I found in St. Aquinas "Against the errors of the Greeks): "For even if the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis, and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit is poured forth (prokesthai) from him just as undoubtedly he is also poured forth (prokesthai) from God the Father." (Letter 3 / from paragraph 17) Let's swap the verbs, and here is the result : "For even if the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis, and moreover is considered by himself insofar as he is the Spirit and not the Son, yet he is not therefore alien from the Son, for he is called the Spirit of truth and Christ is the truth, and the Spirit proceeds from him just as undoubtedly he also proceeds from God the Father." (the Fathers of the Church, Volume 76, page 89) To proceed, to come out, to pour , to flow from, etc,,, there are all synonyms used by some Church fathers and even if they didn't use synonyms to ἐκπορεύεται, this verb will always grammatically have synonyms as we saw in the biblical verses above. Finally : from Summa Theologiae /part I/ Question 36 , from article 2 : "Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son." Thank you Joseph Hechema Maronite Catholic Apologist (Egypt)
Ultimately the verbal semantics are irrelevant as the chief concern of the filioque is the ranking of the Spirit as a creature. All of creation is THROUGH the Son. Placing the Spirit’s Hypostasis through the Son makes Him in directly and not immediately related to the Father. There will always be haggling over the meanings. Ontology and existence are determinative.
@@FrMoody Thank you for your reply If semantics are irrelevant , why did Siecienski stubbornly insist that "ekporeutai" is used only in relating the Holy Spirit the Father ? >... what about the explicit Father quotes I mentionned ? ..
Because it is an ontological issue. This is Saint Gregory’s argument as all fathers: the Holy Spirit relates IMMEDIATELY , αμεαως, To the Father which means He processes WITH ,συμ, not THROUGH, δια. If He was through, He is ranked with A CREATURE, for ONLY created things are through the Son. This is an ontological issue. Secondly it is impossible for the Spirit to be dependent on the Son for His being as far as origination is concerned. The definition of Father is source. Ergo the Son would be a Father.
I agree that the filioque shouldnt be added to the creed. However, many latin fathers used expressions similiar to the filioque. So how can it be a heresy?
As a Protestant, I do not find the exposition of Scripture offered here compelling. I also think there are some logical and rhetorical fallacies at play.
I don’t know what you’re referring to. The Scripture teaches three persons of one essence or in Greek Mia ousia en Trias upostaseis. The Father ALONE is the monarch begetting alone the Son and spiraling alone the Spirit. Are you a Christian?
Apparently you misheard. The terms used are omotimos, of the same honor, SUNanarchos, together without beginning. There is nothing Arian at all in what I said
Sure let’s reject that verse where the Son you know that guy they call Jesus…literally said my Father will send the Holy Spirit in My Name…” ya let’s ignore the verse that shows the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the father and the son. The best part about this is if you orthodox get offended by my comment what you gonna do rally under one leader…oh too soon?
John 15:26 is not wrong when it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Holy Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father too, but where in the scriptures does it say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *alone?* it doesn't, the Holy Spirit indeed proceeds from the Father and the Son and this the scriptures says in many instances: Revelations 22:1 And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God *and* of the lamb. The *river of water of life* is the Holy Spirit. See John 7:38-39, where Jesus explicitly states this in reference to the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy at first accepted the filioque in the ecumenical *Council of Florence* in 1452, where the pope, Roman Catholic bishops, orthodox bishops and priests gathered to discuss this, and they did accept. However the Orthodox *again* turned back, and that is why the next year in 1453 Constantinople (the orthodoxy headquarters) fell to the Muslims on the *Feast on Pentecost.* Coincidence? While the Holy Roman Catholic Church won against the Muslims in the famous Battle of Lepanto. Marvelous isn't it? God gave them a 2nd chance to come back to the right faith. How marvelous the works of God and his ways! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_Rrzo55G364.html
Your theological illiteracy aside, you are totally incorrect. The last few emperors in Constantinople attempted to treat with the Latins and the papacy, and held ecumenistic services in Hagia Sophia with papalists, prior to being decimated by the Ottomans. We were punished by God for making compromises with your sect, which ensured that we would not repeat that mistake. Your citation of that instance in history is a bullet in your own foot, and Providentially proves that God despises your sect as a heretical cult and He chastened the Orthodox, His true Church and His people, for doing as King Jehoshaphat did with the Syrian idolaters. Wrath from on High burned against him for treating with infidels. Emperor Manuel II, Emperor Michael, and Emperor Constantine XI were all pro-papacy, and expected backup from the West. Look where that got them. Also, the small number of Orthodox clerics who "accepted" Florence, were anathematized and exiled. And today, your popes pray with Moslems and kiss their "holy book", while their bank in the Vatican is under ownership of the Rothschilds. It is better to be forcibly subjugated by Mahometans than to voluntarily invite them into your "holy see" so-called to hold prayer services. You have widespread idolatry and apostasy from the most basic tenets of Christianity in your sect, and the spiritual rot, with the liturgical abuses at the hands of your atheist priests, is only growing. This is not counting the fact your hierarchy is totally overtaken by freemasons, flesh abusers, closet secularists, and syncretists who believe in nothing. A bad tree produces only bad fruits, both doctrinal and moral.
There is no schism. The papal cult simply left Gods ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Or, we can say it also that way - the ONE Church has deficated papacy and all its satanic heresies, like a body defecates needless things that bring no fruit anymore. Even to speak about the Church being seperated into several branches that are in schism is nothing but the all- and archhersy of ecumenism and MUST be rejected by every christian.
No. It was definitely a schism. All the fathers say it is. But it is in this sense. Every branch in me that bears not Fruit HE TAKES AWAY. They did not abide so they were taken away from the trunk, Christ. The dead branches were pruned, split of it. Schisms DO occur in the church. Read 1 corinthians 1. We ourselves can personally be in schism, as well. Thus we are exhorted endeavor to keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace. Ephesians4.3 we are seeing a schism now potentially in the churches, as well.
@@FrMoody read carefully father, Isaiah said our sinfull rightousness is like the dirty cloth. And you should know that the Spirit of the Lord (one fold of the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11 : 1 - 2)), is the Spirit of Jesus/ the Spirit Christ/ the Spirit of His Son (Gal 4: 6), just like in II Cor 3 : 17. Hope you'll understand, father. Gby
The scripture does not teach your reformed penal substitution. I would challenge anyone scripturally and I think you should be able to read it in the Septuagint which Christ used. Do you use His Bible?
You misunderstand the scripture. You MUST walk in the Spirit to be in Christ. Do you believe the scripture? The spirit of His Son in your heart must be obeyed. The inspired scripture which you seem to misquote says “if ye live after the flesh YE SHALL DIE” You must be joined to the Lord for His righteousness to inhere and to LIVE. Let us be joined to Him and walking in the light. “If we walk in darkness we do not have fellowship, a share in the eternal life according to the holy scripture.
Father, you talk like begetting and spirating are essentially the same thing to you (just the names are different). Why? And maybe Catholics agree with you on this, I don't know, but I have never heard (or noticed) this way of talking before and I don't think it is at all obvious. On the contrary, the opposite I find to be obvious. And related to this, I find it obvious that the Father is the Father in relationship with (with respect to) the Son, and He would not be called "father" in respect to the Spirit, like you seem to do. That is, when we say the Father begets the Son, we use "Father" both as a name for a person of the Trinity and as the role which that person plays in the begetting relationship. However when we say the Father spirates the Holy Spirit, we use "Father" just to identify the person, not to describe the role. This is what seems obvious to me and consistent with other descriptions of the Trinity that I have heard. And if begetting and spirating are different things, then if the Holy Spirit spirates/procedes from the Father and the Son, this does not make the Son the Father (or a father. It makes them both spirators.) *** Also, you say that if the Father and the Son generate the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit is separated from what is common and he is not sharing in the divine nature. But you are mixing properties of person and properties of nature big time here. Spiration is a property of person and can be lacking in a particular person. Nature is not affected by the filioque.
Father, you talk like begetting and spirating are essentially the same thing to you (just the names are different). Why? NO. YOU MISS THE POINT OF BEGETTING AND SPIRATION. IT IS THE BESTOWAL OF EXISTENCE. THE MANNER OF THE BEGETTING AND SPIRATION IS SAID BY THE FATHERS TO BE INEFFABLE. And maybe Catholics agree with you on this, I don't know, but I have never heard (or noticed) THIS WAS, KEY TERM, WAS STANDARD TEACHING. this way of talking before and I don't think it is at all obvious. On the contrary, the opposite I find to be obvious. IT IS OBVIOUS. PROVE IT WRONG. LOGIC REFUTES THE FILIOQUE. TO BE FATHER MEANS TO BE THE SOURCE THE CAUSE. TO BE THROUGH THE SON IS ADMITTED BY CATHOLICS TO BE A SECOND CAUSE. THEIR OWN WORDS! A CAUSE IS NOT THE EFFECT. THE SON , THE EFFECT, CANNOT CAUSE THE SPIRIT! HOW IS THIS NOT CLEAR? And related to this, I find it obvious that the Father is the Father in relationship with (with respect to) the Son, and He would not be called "father" in respect to the Spirit, like you seem to do. AGAIN YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT OF WHAT IT NEANS BY FATHER. IT MEANS TO BE THE CAUSE. THE SPIRIT AND SON ARE SAID BY THE FATHERS TO BE EFFECTS OF HIS PERSON. That is, when we say the Father begets the Son, we use "Father" both as a name for a person of the Trinity and as the role which that person plays in the begetting relationship. However when we say the Father spirates the Holy Spirit, we use "Father" just to identify the person, not to describe the role. This is what seems obvious to me and consistent with other descriptions of the Trinity that I have heard. NO. THE CREEDAL DEFINITION IS ACCORDING TO ST JN DAMASCENE . THE FATHER IS SOURCE. SOURCE OF THE SON AND SPRIT. IF THE SON IS A SOURCE LOGICALLY HE WOULD BE A FATHER AND NOT A SON. THE FATHER IS DESCRIBED BY ALL AS THE CAUSE. THAT IS WHAT FATHER MEANS. THE CAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE. ERGO AS ALL THE SAINTS REALIZE IF YOU SAY THE SON IS A CAUSE YOU MAKE HIM TO BE THE FATHER. And if begetting and spirating are different things, then if the Holy Spirit spirates/procedes from the Father and the Son, this does not make the Son the Father (or a father. It makes them both spirators.) *YOU MISS THW LOGIC. THE SPIRIT WOULD NOT TO GENERATE A SPIRIT, AS WELL IF CAUSING DIVINITY IS COMMON. YOU ARE CONFLATING HYPOSTATIC AND ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES. IE CONFUSING NATURE AND PERSON. Also, you say that if the Father and the Son generate the Holy Spirit, then the Spirit is separated from what is common and he is not sharing in the divine nature. But you are mixing WRONG. YOU ARE PREDICATING WHAT IS HYPOSTATIC TO THE NATURE. TO BE THE CAUSE IS TO BE THE FATHER. HE ALONE IS AGENNITOS, UNBEGOTTEN, IE HE ALONE IS THE FOUNT. YOU ARE WRONGLY PREDICATING.
Secondly, based on Augustines idea you are attempting to locate the difference , diafora, in Greek, between spiration and begetting. According to the Father's we cannot know the manner of begetting and manner of spiration. We commit the sin of col.2.19. We intrude into things angels cannot see. These are the words of the Fathers and not mine.
The father's like Athanasius,Cyril of Alexandria,epiphanuis of Cyrus all said spirit proceed from father and son, and in new testament spirit is called spirit of wisdom, spirit of son ,spirit of jesus christ and popes venerated by east also thought the procession from both father and son,and also maximus the confessor, we do not say there are two causes of spirit but one the father,and spirit processes from father through son ,by denying holy spirit is spirit of jesus one deny Trinity,we have not anything to niceene creed but only use apostolic creed as liturgical creed,the niceene creed is still valid.
ok so you are conflating councils. The first council of Nicea WAS attended by the pope's legate, Hosius of Cordoba. Hosius of Cordoba PRESIDED over the council. The synods of 1341-1351 were not ecumenical councils. The Patriarch of Constantinople and all those who heald to orthodoxy were excommunicated by the Hesakites who introduced a hitherto unknown heresy. In fact, no other apostolic church accepts this peculiar heresy found in Eastern Orthodoxy.
No, I did not conflate. Secondly as you are probably Roman, your ecclesiology is in error and not apostolic or even biblical . We don’t need a pope for a council. Yes they are binding. That is why the council synodikon is read every Lent. The proof of hesychasm (the correct spelling) is experience. Do you practice it? PRAY WITHOUT CEASING. Hmmmm how is that unbiblical? I thin st Paul said that...Hmmmm acquire the energy of the Holy Spirit ...hmmm I think I read that in the Scriptures....
The only ones who reject hesychasm are those who have never experienced the uncreated grace of God. So I fear for people who reject the teaching. There is only ONE WAY to know God.
@@FrMoody The Uncreated Grace (Gratia Increata) is G-d Himsel, undistinguished from His essence which is His existence. This is how He communicated Himself. Graces, as bestowed upon man, are gratia creata or created grace. However, the gift being communicated by the create grace can be an uncreated grace such as the beatific vision. G-d is the only uncreated being and is the cause for existence to exist. The essence of G-d is existence itself. Therefore He is the simplest of beings with an essence which is His existence. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is communicated through a created grace which is one is sanctified and is an internal sanctifying grace. The hesychastic theology is a new invention and unheard of theology which is not orthodox, apostolic and not even biblical unless you seek to distort and reinterpret the writings of the Church Fathers. I am not a Roman, I am correctly a Latin or Western.
@@deusimperator it is satanic to say that the grace of God is at some forms or time created. Actually paul shows the energies of God as uncreated, distinct from the persons of the Trinity
@DonnyBlips that say of your is what we in orthodox theology see as a satanic heresy. The grace of God operated on the creation or not is allways Uncreated.
The filioque seems totally biblical to me the church should’ve never been separated, is a shame they used this excuse to do so. As a consequence Constantinople fell and ALL of us Christians lost a huge part of our inheritance to the Muslim Turks. What a shame! [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. [14] He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. [15] All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. [John 16:13-15]
"better the turk turban than the papal tiara" oh well they got what they wanted, sadly like the kingdom of samaria they remain obstinate and pernicious in their false theology. gregory palamas holds that "all "energies" are uncreated, but not all are without beginning" this is blatantly illogical, anything that has a beginning is created, it imputes change in the Godhead.
@@nyktal That’s a great quote that the Orthodox always hate to hear; Their disobedience was punished by God. The great schism was possibly the biggest mistake in Christian history.
Do you want to know why pope invented filioque? They think that by saying Holy Spirit originates from the Son too they exalt the Son (as if the Son needs exaltation...). Why they need to exalt the Son? to glorify Him? No. They wanted to exalt Peter. They think Jesus built His church on Peter but in reality, He built His church on the CONFESSION OF FAITH Peter made, that Jesus is the Messiah. But why they need to exalt Apostole Peter? to honor him? Nope, they need to exalt Peter because they want to exalt the Pope. They think Pope is the successor of Christ and successor of Peter. This heretical dogma (among others) done for pope to gain administrative power. Christ doesn't have successors because He is alive. Orthodox Church has representative not successors. If we say that Holy Spirit originates from the Son too then we have 2 sources. We have 1 source and it's God the Father. Now i say that not even satan could think such distortion.
The filioque is a distortion and the result of a long period of Theological confusion. As I explain as in elsewhere, there were good intentions, ie prove Jesus is God, but the logic is flawed. God bless.
