Exactly, the idea that religion and politics should not mix was what led to several Christian massacres: Cristeiro War, French Revolution, Russian Revolution
May God make us Greeks worthy of retaking Constantinople and evangelize the whole world!!!!!! But we all know that spiritually, Constantinople belong to all of us Orthodox Christians of every ethnicity (yes,Jewish too) 😊 Just like Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, spiritually, it belongs to all of us Orthodox Christians! For it is the Mother of all Churches
Вы, греки, сначала разберитесь с екклесиологической ересью Константинопольского Патриархата, с претензиями Патриарха Варфоломея на главенство власти над другими Церквями. И как он принял в общение самосвятов ПЦУ. И как насчёт благословения однополых пар. И работа по подготовке унии с Ватиканом. И много чего ещё. А потом и думайте о Константинополе. Кстати, в 1453 году Константинополь пал именно из-за унии с Римом.
No, not Jewish. They are not in the Orthodox Church unless they renounce Judaism and come to the Orthodox Church. Russian missions have been evangelizing for a long time. Jerusalem belongs to the Orthodox spiritually. The Judaism after the New Covenant is not the same as Second Temple and before. The Orthodox Church is the continuation of the Church before; the spiritual Israel. The Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ. There are no churches outside of her.
Joint statement of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians The Filioque was discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in 2002. As a result of these contemporary discussions between both churches, it has been suggested that the orthodox could accept an "economic" filioque that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the Paraclete), but it would not be the official orthodox doctrine, but what the Fathers called a theologoumenon, a theological opinion. In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include: That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God. That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit. That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution. That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together. That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable. In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate. Source WKPDIA
What is it about the Franks or Charlemagne, in particular, that wanted to change the Creed? I'm assuming he was largely behind trying to set up a rival "Holy Roman Empire" as opposed to the real one as well as having his own rival and heretical church? I sense a very deep conspiracy.
Ok, so please someone help me understand this Issue precisely: The 879 Council is the Orthodox Ecumenical Council, when the split exactly HAPPENED, not 1054 when they excommunicated each other? That came second? The Catholics then had THEIR OWN "ecumenical council" without you? And now you have Pan-Orthodox councils since the 8 That are Officially Recognized by all? ( Trying to Understand. )
The problem started with 3rd Toledo Council (589). Filioque were introduced there (local council)... 158 years earlier 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) Prohibited with an Anathema anyone who adds a single word to the Nicene creed. - Rome accepted filioque as a practice and then formally added it to the liturgy and then to their official creed UNILATERALLY.
There was a Council in 869 which wrongly deposed Saint Photios. Later, in 879, there was another council which was recognized by everyone as the *eighth ecumenical council.* This anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome kept this recognition for 200 years - even after they had walked away from the Nicene creed with the addition of the Filioque in 1009…1014. They recognized the 869 robber council - instead of the eighth - after the schism, because they had adopted the heretical addition, and they wanted the canons from the council which were supportive of papal supremacy.
It depends whom you are asking. What some claims to be 8th, is not in canonical books designated as such because only 9th will have a power to recognize 8th as truly Ecumenical. What some call 9th or "pan" (Orthodox) can never be recognized as such because legates of less than 50% of worldwide Orthodoxy were present... but organizer likes to promote it as 9th or "pan". So.... having illegit 9th, neither 8th can be elevated to the level of Ecumenical. Not so complicated...
As an aside, Rome couldn't excommunicate Constantinople legally as the Pope had died before the Papal Bull got to Constantinople to declare the excommunication. Constantinople, however, was able to excommunicate Rome.
Although Maximus the Confessor declared that it was wrong to condemn the Latins for speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the addition of the Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was condemned as heretical by other saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, sometimes referred to as the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. However, the statement "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" can be understood in an orthodox sense if it is clear from the context that "procession from the Son" refers to the sending forth of the Spirit in time, not to an eternal, double procession within the Trinity itself which gives the Holy Spirit existence or being. Hence, in Eastern Orthodox thought, Maximus the Confessor justified the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and "defended [the Filioque] as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son". Saint Theophylact of Ohrid likewise maintained that the difference was linguistic in nature and not really theological, urging a spirit of conciliation on both sides over a matter of customs. ...it is said not that [the Holy Spirit] has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that [the Holy Spirit] 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. - Theodoret of Cyrus, On the Third Ecumenical Council Source WKPDIA
As with many historic disputes, the two parties may not be discussing the same thing." In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον ("who proceeds"), used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages. Metropolitan John Zizioulas, while maintaining the explicit Orthodox position of the Father as the single origin and source of the Holy Spirit, declared that PCPCU (1995) shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states: "Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a 'mediating' role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού), as Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?" Zizioulas continues: "The Vatican statement notes that this is 'the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox'. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the 'single cause' principle to which I have just referred." Zizioulas adds that this "constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the 'Filioque' problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible". Source WKPDIA
Some Orthodox reconsideration of the Filioque Russian theologian Boris Bolotov asserted in 1898 that the Filioque, like Photius's "from the Father alone", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion. Bolotov's thesis was supported by Orthodox theologians Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov and I. Voronov, but was rejected by Lossky.[185] In 1986, Theodore Stylianopoulos provided an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. Ware said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings. For some Orthodox, then, the Filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But 19th century Russian Slavophile theologian Aleksey Khomyakov considered the Filioque as an expression of formalism, rationalism, pride and lack of love for other Christians, and that it is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West. Romanides too, while personally opposing the Filioque, stated that Constantinople I was not ever interpreted "as a condemnation" of the doctrine "outside the Creed, since it did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This could not be added to the Creed where 'procession' means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit." Source WKPDIA
Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'." Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles wrote that the Eastern fathers were aware of the currency of the Filioque in the West and did not generally regard it as heretical: Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, "defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son". Pomazansky and Romanides hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit" and wrote a special treatise about this dogma. The Roman Catholic Church cites Maximus as in full accord with the teaching on the Filioque that it proposes for the whole Church as a dogma that is in harmony with the formula "from the Father through the Son", for he explained that, by ekporeusis, "the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit", but that, by proienai, the Greek verb corresponding to procedere (proceed) in Latin, the Spirit comes through the Son. Later again the Council of Florence, in 1438, declared that the Greek formula "from the Father through the Son" was equivalent to the Latin "from the Father and the Son", not contradictory, and that those who used the two formulas "were aiming at the same meaning in different words". Source WKPDIA
Starting in the latter half of the nineteenth century, ecumenical efforts have gradually developed more nuanced understandings of the issues underlying the Filioque controversy and worked to remove them as an obstruction to Christian unity. Lossky insists that the Filioque is so fundamentally incompatible with Orthodox Christianity as to be the central issue dividing the two churches. Western churches have arrived at the position that, although the Filioque is doctrinally sound, the way that it was inserted into the Nicene Creed has created an unnecessary obstacle to ecumenical dialogue. Thus, without abandoning the Filioque, some Western churches have come to accept that it could be omitted from the Creed without violating any core theological principles. This accommodation on the part of Western Churches has the objective of allowing both East and West to once again to share a common understanding of the Creed as the traditional and fundamental statement of the Christian faith. Source WKPDIA
@@orthodoxphronesis After this Council in 879-880 year, there was no Ecumenical Council that would have formally declared that council to be the Eighth Ecumenical, as this council did for the Second Nicaea Council, announcing it as the Seventh. Thus... to claim status to that Council "Ecumenical" is nothing but a wishful thinking. Orthodoxy does NOT work on a basis of wishes of some local church or several Bishops but works on a basis of acceptance by ALL local churches... meaning... until ALL Orthodox churches accept something, it has no significance in the Orthodoxy. I wish you progress in your understanding of the true mind of Orthodoxy. 🙏
@@david_porthouse (Proverbs 21:24 ESV) Scoffer is the name of the arrogant, haughty man who acts with arrogant pride. Unspoken one keeps attacking God's Church w/o stopping. Laughter is obvious sign as to who rules over the group of people you belong to rounded by the arch-heretic figure sitting in Rome.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic historic breakdown. Definitely saving this one.
Thank you for everything you do
thank you!
The modern idea that politics and religion are two separate things prevents so many Catholics/Protestants from learning about history of the church.
It is a centuries old lie whispered by Satan for this reason.
Exactly, the idea that religion and politics should not mix was what led to several Christian massacres: Cristeiro War, French Revolution, Russian Revolution
May God make us Greeks worthy of retaking Constantinople and evangelize the whole world!!!!!! But we all know that spiritually, Constantinople belong to all of us Orthodox Christians of every ethnicity (yes,Jewish too) 😊
Just like Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, spiritually, it belongs to all of us Orthodox Christians! For it is the Mother of all Churches
Вы, греки, сначала разберитесь с екклесиологической ересью Константинопольского Патриархата, с претензиями Патриарха Варфоломея на главенство власти над другими Церквями. И как он принял в общение самосвятов ПЦУ. И как насчёт благословения однополых пар. И работа по подготовке унии с Ватиканом. И много чего ещё. А потом и думайте о Константинополе. Кстати, в 1453 году Константинополь пал именно из-за унии с Римом.
@@АндрейВет-й7сHarsh, but true.
That Patriarch is a modernist. In the Pope's pocket.
@@АндрейВет-й7сI am a sinner, so I shouldn't judge. Lord Jesus Christ Son of God have Mercy on me a sinner ☦️
Jerusalem is the Christian's heritage. But it was betrayed into the hands of a Rothschild banker by the godless British.
No, not Jewish. They are not in the Orthodox Church unless they renounce Judaism and come to the Orthodox Church.
Russian missions have been evangelizing for a long time.
Jerusalem belongs to the Orthodox spiritually. The Judaism after the New Covenant is not the same as Second Temple and before. The Orthodox Church is the continuation of the Church before; the spiritual Israel.
The Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ. There are no churches outside of her.
Greek pride could be why they fell. Pride is Not Orthodox and Not of Christ.
Joint statement of Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians
The Filioque was discussed at the 62nd meeting of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, in 2002. As a result of these contemporary discussions between both churches, it has been suggested that the orthodox could accept an "economic" filioque that states that the Holy Spirit, who originates in the Father alone, was sent to the Church "through the Son" (as the Paraclete), but it would not be the official orthodox doctrine, but what the Fathers called a theologoumenon, a theological opinion.
In October 2003, the Consultation issued an agreed statement, The Filioque: a Church-dividing issue?, which provides an extensive review of Scripture, history, and theology. The recommendations include:
That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God.
That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
That Orthodox and Catholic theologians distinguish more clearly between the divinity and hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit (which is a received dogma of our Churches) and the manner of the Spirit's origin, which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution.
That those engaged in dialogue on this issue distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues of the origin of the Holy Spirit from the ecclesiological issues of primacy and doctrinal authority in the Church, even as we pursue both questions seriously, together.
That the theological dialogue between our Churches also give careful consideration to the status of later councils held in both our Churches after those seven generally received as ecumenical.
That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those "who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son" is no longer applicable.
In the judgment of the consultation, the question of the Filioque is no longer a "Church-dividing" issue, which would impede full reconciliation and full communion. It is for the bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to review this work and to make whatever decisions would be appropriate.
Source WKPDIA
What is it about the Franks or Charlemagne, in particular, that wanted to change the Creed? I'm assuming he was largely behind trying to set up a rival "Holy Roman Empire" as opposed to the real one as well as having his own rival and heretical church? I sense a very deep conspiracy.
Ok, so please someone help me understand this Issue precisely: The 879 Council is the Orthodox Ecumenical Council, when the split exactly HAPPENED, not 1054 when they excommunicated each other? That came second? The Catholics then had THEIR OWN "ecumenical council" without you? And now you have Pan-Orthodox councils since the 8 That are Officially Recognized by all? ( Trying to Understand. )
The problem started with 3rd Toledo Council (589). Filioque were introduced there (local council)... 158 years earlier 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) Prohibited with an Anathema anyone who adds a single word to the Nicene creed. - Rome accepted filioque as a practice and then formally added it to the liturgy and then to their official creed UNILATERALLY.
There was a Council in 869 which wrongly deposed Saint Photios. Later, in 879, there was another council which was recognized by everyone as the *eighth ecumenical council.* This anathematized anyone who would add to the Creed. Rome kept this recognition for 200 years - even after they had walked away from the Nicene creed with the addition of the Filioque in 1009…1014.
They recognized the 869 robber council - instead of the eighth - after the schism, because they had adopted the heretical addition, and they wanted the canons from the council which were supportive of papal supremacy.
It depends whom you are asking. What some claims to be 8th, is not in canonical books designated as such because only 9th will have a power to recognize 8th as truly Ecumenical. What some call 9th or "pan" (Orthodox) can never be recognized as such because legates of less than 50% of worldwide Orthodoxy were present... but organizer likes to promote it as 9th or "pan". So.... having illegit 9th, neither 8th can be elevated to the level of Ecumenical. Not so complicated...
As an aside, Rome couldn't excommunicate Constantinople legally as the Pope had died before the Papal Bull got to Constantinople to declare the excommunication. Constantinople, however, was able to excommunicate Rome.
Is the Ignatian council Constantinople III? Is this the "Eighth" ecumenical council that the Roman church accepts as the eighth to this day?
Have you listened to the lecture? You will hear the whole history.
@@pah9730 Yes, thank you! I just finished it. I asked too soon! Fascinating information, definitely re-watching with family and wife.
IC XC NIKA ☦️
Papal protestant is a good description. The vatican is as much Catholic as the baptists or others.
The one and only weakness of God is that he loves mankind as equally as He loves His own Will.
Not a weakness, but meekness; His power is under control.
God can have no weakness.
Although Maximus the Confessor declared that it was wrong to condemn the Latins for speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, the addition of the Filioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was condemned as heretical by other saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas and Mark of Ephesus, sometimes referred to as the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy. However, the statement "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" can be understood in an orthodox sense if it is clear from the context that "procession from the Son" refers to the sending forth of the Spirit in time, not to an eternal, double procession within the Trinity itself which gives the Holy Spirit existence or being. Hence, in Eastern Orthodox thought, Maximus the Confessor justified the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and "defended [the Filioque] as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son". Saint Theophylact of Ohrid likewise maintained that the difference was linguistic in nature and not really theological, urging a spirit of conciliation on both sides over a matter of customs.
...it is said not that [the Holy Spirit] has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that [the Holy Spirit] 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.
- Theodoret of Cyrus, On the Third Ecumenical Council
Source WKPDIA
As with many historic disputes, the two parties may not be discussing the same thing."
In 1995, the PCPCU pointed out an important difference in meaning between the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι and the Latin verb procedere, both of which are commonly translated as "proceed". It stated that the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι indicates that the Spirit "takes his origin from the Father ... in a principal, proper and immediate manner", while the Latin verb, which corresponds rather to the verb προϊέναι in Greek, can be applied to proceeding even from a mediate channel. Therefore, ἐκπορευόμενον ("who proceeds"), used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit, cannot be appropriately used in the Greek language with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in Latin and other languages.
Metropolitan John Zizioulas, while maintaining the explicit Orthodox position of the Father as the single origin and source of the Holy Spirit, declared that PCPCU (1995) shows positive signs of reconciliation. Zizioulas states: "Closely related to the question of the single cause is the problem of the exact meaning of the Son's involvement in the procession of the Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa explicitly admits a 'mediating' role of the Son in the procession of the Spirit from the Father. Is this role to be expressed with the help of the preposition δία (through) the Son (εκ Πατρός δι'Υιού), as Maximus and other Patristic sources seem to suggest?" Zizioulas continues: "The Vatican statement notes that this is 'the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox'. I would agree with this, adding that the discussion should take place in the light of the 'single cause' principle to which I have just referred." Zizioulas adds that this "constitutes an encouraging attempt to clarify the basic aspects of the 'Filioque' problem and show that a rapprochement between West and East on this matter is eventually possible".
Source WKPDIA
Some Orthodox reconsideration of the Filioque
Russian theologian Boris Bolotov asserted in 1898 that the Filioque, like Photius's "from the Father alone", was a permissible theological opinion (a theologoumenon, not a dogma) that cannot be an absolute impediment to reestablishment of communion. Bolotov's thesis was supported by Orthodox theologians Bulgakov, Paul Evdokimov and I. Voronov, but was rejected by Lossky.[185]
In 1986, Theodore Stylianopoulos provided an extensive, scholarly overview of the contemporary discussion. Ware said that he had changed his mind and had concluded that "the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences": "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone" and "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" may both have orthodox meanings if the words translated "proceeds" actually have different meanings. For some Orthodox, then, the Filioque, while still a matter of conflict, would not impede full communion of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches if other issues were resolved. But 19th century Russian Slavophile theologian Aleksey Khomyakov considered the Filioque as an expression of formalism, rationalism, pride and lack of love for other Christians, and that it is in flagrant contravention of the words of Christ in the Gospel, has been specifically condemned by the Orthodox Church, and remains a fundamental heretical teaching which divides East and West.
Romanides too, while personally opposing the Filioque, stated that Constantinople I was not ever interpreted "as a condemnation" of the doctrine "outside the Creed, since it did not teach that the Son is 'cause' or 'co-cause' of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This could not be added to the Creed where 'procession' means 'cause' of existence of the Holy Spirit."
Source WKPDIA
Holy Spirit that the document defines as 'signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father through and with the Son to the Holy Spirit'."
Roman Catholic theologian Avery Dulles wrote that the Eastern fathers were aware of the currency of the Filioque in the West and did not generally regard it as heretical: Some, such as Maximus the Confessor, "defended it as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son".
Pomazansky and Romanides hold that Maximus' position does not defend the actual way the Roman Catholic Church justifies and teaches the Filioque as dogma for the whole church. While accepting as a legitimate and complementary expression of the same faith and reality the teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, Maximus held strictly to the teaching of the Eastern Church that "the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit" and wrote a special treatise about this dogma. The Roman Catholic Church cites Maximus as in full accord with the teaching on the Filioque that it proposes for the whole Church as a dogma that is in harmony with the formula "from the Father through the Son", for he explained that, by ekporeusis, "the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the Spirit", but that, by proienai, the Greek verb corresponding to procedere (proceed) in Latin, the Spirit comes through the Son. Later again the Council of Florence, in 1438, declared that the Greek formula "from the Father through the Son" was equivalent to the Latin "from the Father and the Son", not contradictory, and that those who used the two formulas "were aiming at the same meaning in different words".
Source WKPDIA
Starting in the latter half of the nineteenth century, ecumenical efforts have gradually developed more nuanced understandings of the issues underlying the Filioque controversy and worked to remove them as an obstruction to Christian unity. Lossky insists that the Filioque is so fundamentally incompatible with Orthodox Christianity as to be the central issue dividing the two churches.
Western churches have arrived at the position that, although the Filioque is doctrinally sound, the way that it was inserted into the Nicene Creed has created an unnecessary obstacle to ecumenical dialogue. Thus, without abandoning the Filioque, some Western churches have come to accept that it could be omitted from the Creed without violating any core theological principles. This accommodation on the part of Western Churches has the objective of allowing both East and West to once again to share a common understanding of the Creed as the traditional and fundamental statement of the Christian faith.
Source WKPDIA
There is NO something like "8th Ecumenical Council"... Eastern Orthodox Church is The Church of SEVEN Ecumenical Councils.
There’s 9 ecumenical councils.
We have 8, and 1 more that is Pan-Orthodox.
Hi John,
This may come as a surprise to you but there’s actually 9. May your studies be blessed, friend 🙏🏻
@@orthodoxphronesis After this Council in 879-880 year, there was no Ecumenical Council that would have formally declared that council to be the Eighth Ecumenical, as this council did for the Second Nicaea Council, announcing it as the Seventh. Thus... to claim status to that Council "Ecumenical" is nothing but a wishful thinking. Orthodoxy does NOT work on a basis of wishes of some local church or several Bishops but works on a basis of acceptance by ALL local churches... meaning... until ALL Orthodox churches accept something, it has no significance in the Orthodoxy. I wish you progress in your understanding of the true mind of Orthodoxy. 🙏
@@david_porthouse (Proverbs 21:24 ESV) Scoffer is the name of the arrogant, haughty man who acts with arrogant pride.
Unspoken one keeps attacking God's Church w/o stopping. Laughter is obvious sign as to who rules over the group of people you belong to rounded by the arch-heretic figure sitting in Rome.