What is the Filioque? | An Intro and Argument

In this video, @dwong9289 and I will explain and defend the Filioque in Scripture, Tradition, and Theological Reasoning.

___________________________________________________________________________
SOURCES

_________________________________________
MY SOCIALS/ SUPPORT

___________________________________________________________________________

[dwong]

It was great collabing with you Sanctus!

Check the description for the Script and sources for the quotes!

[ultraninja]

I was getting scared that he would not post because its been a long time but the goat is back brother also God Bless Anyone Who is Reading This Jesus Loves You

[Theonewhoknocks]

I love videos about the trinity, it’s so fascinating. You’ve quickly become my favourite Christian YouTuber.

[DC-zzfm]

It is so beautiful to see knowledgeable young Catholic defending the Church. God Bless you guys and your work. I think a cool video might be about the harmonization of the Filioque with the Monarchical model of the Trinity.

[OVOFloyd]

I have been teetering between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism for a year now. Please pray for my capacity to discern!

[timothyjordan]

If only one single Church Father taught the Filioque. that would be reason enough for the separated brethren to take it seriously. When they condemn the Filioque, they are condemning all these Church Fathers. I could not live with such a contradiction. That is why I am and will remain Catholic.

[Idishrkdmd]

the greatest Filioque video for the average person amazing work.

[CriticalThomist]

Very good video Sanctus, doing the Thomists out here a favour ❤

[MuttonBiryani]

That Jerome quote at the end is awesome. Thanks.

[thisis_chavez]

I learn a lot from this page.
God bless the admin/admins of this page

[BinBakuti]

I just found your account bro and bro I like the calmness✝️☦️

[nock_]

Love the content man. Seems like this video took a lot of research!

One small thing... the audio was very quiet. I like to listen to you on my commute, but I had to turn the volume up so loud that my GPS screams at me.

Keep up the good work!

[jaredtheelite]

This video was so good, it convinced to subscribe and turn on notifications, hope your future videos are just as good if not better than this one

[AlbanianChristianity]

Thanks for the document, I shared it with someone. Good job.

[johnbryant]

Thank you for this video, you have cleared this up for me better than anyone I have seen, and after checking out the sources, I find it hard not to agree with the Catholic church. This issue and the role of the papacy have been the the two hardest issues to over come on deciding on rather to join the Orthodox, or the Catholic church. Thank you, so much!

[nukeplatine]

The Son is immediately begotten. The Spirit proceeds mediatedly.
If the Father gave the Son everything, except fatherhood, then this everything includes the ability to expire the Spirit.

[achilles]

I like what the Orthodox are getting at and I appreciate that they are so careful to not offend the Lord.

For them, to have the Son as a necessity in the hypostatic existence of the Spirit suggests that there is something the Father lacks with respect to communicating the divine substance, which is why you’ll see concessions to the patristics whereby you’ll see things the Orthodox say like Eternal Manifestation or Energetic Procession. Because to them, these do not prevent the Son having *something to do with the Spirit’s procession but at the same time it allows the Father to be the sole cause in the trinity and to communicate the divine substance “in fee simple” in a legal sense, if anyone knows what I mean.

From our Catholic perspective, we look through the lens of idiosyncratic hypostatic properties, and the unity of the divine substance as something which provides firm grounding for understanding the Filioque, given the Father being named Father suggests a notionally prior existence of Son to Spirit and that the Father’s property is properly called “paternity” and not just “cause.”

Which, maybe that’s a point we can hash out to start: Is the Father’s hypostatic property “cause” or is it “paternity?” At least, in the positive sense. In the negative sense, both Catholic and Orthodox agree that the Father is “unbegotten.”

What does everyone else think? If I am wrong I am open to correction. God bless.

[richardruiz]

I believe that the Filioque on my Cross is my true passion and my truth of Procession of the Word Spoken by the One God.

[CurrentResident-dhqt]

Well the first part is, It's True!

[pegasusu]

As a Catholic, I've always wondered if the Filioque debate is caused by Human Error due to Language. Of Course the Infallibility of the Greek Nicene Creed means there is no error, but translations are human. I've been wondering if the section of the Filioque within Greek is not translatable to it's full meaning. Vice versa Filioque Latin to Greek. To the Greeks the Literal definition of Filioque seems like Blasphemy, but if made into the same definition of the one in Greek then it's technically solved? (As is the case that whenever Greek Creed is said in Eastern Catholic Churches aka they Remove/disregard Filioque cause it doesn't make sense whenever the original Greek is present).

Well this is one of the ways the East and West have tried to reconcile

TLDR: I think the Best way to reconcile the Filioque, is to use it for all other Languages, and to remove it in Greek (using the original word instead) or another option is using "Through the Son" as it seems to be the closest we can get in English to the Essence of the meaning of the original word in Greek.

Shorter TLDR: Procedere in Latin is a generic term when translated to Greek, while Greek has very specific translations to different tyles of procedere. ἐκπορεύεσθαι has no equivalent in Latin and English to properly convey its meaning.