As far as actual patriarchs go, only Constantinople and Alexandria signed onto Florence and that was months after the delegation returned to Constantinopole and a new Ecumenical Patriarch was elected to replace the deceased Joseph. As far as representatives, each patriarchate was assigned two representatives and as was customary at councils, those representatives would sign on behalf of the absent patriarchs who would then ratify the signatures later. In other words, the representatives' signatures were rainchecks. Although St. Mark of Ephesus was initially one of the reps for Alexandria, the Emperor continually rearranged them so that by the day of signing, St. Mark was instead one of two reps for Antioch and he refused to sign while his co-representative did sign. The reason there were two representatives for each see probably being that then, no one could claim it was the decision of one person, but when one of the two would not sign, this would nullify the decision of the other. It should be noted another bishop, Isaias of Stavropolis, also refused to sign but was not a representative of a patriarchate. Further, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem refused to ratify their representatives' signatures when they heard of the agreement - a representative's signature is simply a raincheck until the synod ratifies it. If that is not the case, then Emperor St. Marcian would not have been so insistent on Pope St. Leo ratifying the acts and decrees of Chalcedon. It also means Rome would have had to accept the Council of Constantinople in 863 exonarating St. Photius because its reps did (but Pope Nicholas negated their signatures and punished the them). Finally, Serbia and Georgia did not sign it because Serbia never showed up and the Georgians left shortly after arriving and long before signatures were being collected.
@Username You're forgetting about Bishop Isaias of Stavropolis, who also refused to sign but was not a representative of a patriarchate, as Ubi Petrus pointed out above.
Didn't know the Church was a democracy. The Churches in the East didn't accept the outcome of the council so it was rejected. So much for the authority of the Church.
In addition to St. Mark of Ephesus not signing the Union, noone from the Patriarchate of Serbia was present at the gathering. This historical detail is usually omitted in discussions on this topic.
Only Ephesus didn’t sign it, but either way it was still an ecumenical council, all councils had people who didn’t sign but it was still ecumenical, and they agreed the filioque, but then betrayed their word when they got home…. "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara" well they sure got what they asked for. Not to mention Constantinople fell on the fest of PENTECOST, a clear sign from God that the Catholics were right and the East wrong.
Constantinople fell due to the sins of the Romans. Their city fell because they signed a blasphemous pact with the Vaticanists, of this there is not doubt. Thank you for commenting!
It was the Arabs, centuries before, not the Turks, who had raided Switzerland as part of the original Moslem Arab conquest wave (in the 8th century AD). Their advance was decisively stopped by their defeat by Charles Martel at the battle of Poitiers in France.
Very nice to see people with differing spiritual beliefs discuss such issues with a level of respect and humility we should all strive for. I know by watching these are kind and just men and like most Christians are sincere in their acceptance of Christ and hope they are doing all they can to know, love and serve God. Forgiveness is more powerful than pride yet hard sometimes harder to manifest. I truly believe both east and west have at times been led by men who put pride before Christ and I pray we can cab reunite soon.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV I tried on my phone and it's good, I can hear it. But on PC either on chrome or edge, there is no sound. On every other video there is no problem, I hear well, so I don't think it has anything to do with settings. I don't understand it. But thank you for your response. I will watch it on my phone.
Holy Orthodoxy wasn't sold. The schismatics started their own "church". The Church still exists and is united and "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against her.
The Filioque is an organic development of understanding from sorts of “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]). by Council of Nicaea II and others like it.
For during the Divine Liturgy, the priest stands in the person of Christ. When the minister, visibly acting for Christ, state the same words of Christ, it is his breath but Christ in reality that commands the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood.
The filioque is a heresy long condemned by the Fathers implicitly and explicitly in their writings. Saint Augustine never taught the filioque. St. Augustine in his De fide et Symbolo, teaches that Father is the sole source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and what Holy Spirit is, He owes only to the Father, says st. Augustine: "Holy Spirit is not born from the Father, as Son is, because Christ is the only Son, nor Holy Spirit is born of the Son, as grandson of the highest Father, but, what Holy Spirit is, he owes to no one, but to the Father from Whom is everything, so we do not introduce two sources (non duo principia sine principio), which would be a complete lie and complete absurdness, and such teaching is not part of the Catholic faith, but the error of some heretics." Latin original: "non genitum Spiritum Sanctum tamquam Filium de Patre praedicent; unicus enim est Christus: neque de Filio tamquam nepotem summi Patris: nec tamen id quod est, nulli debere, sed Patri, ex quo omnia; ne duo constituamus principia sine principio, quod falsissimum est et absurdissimum, et non catholicae fidei, sed quorumdam haereticorum errori proprium." There is no reason to believe in the filioque
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese The Eastern and Western Church Fathers used the Filioque and it is in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43). Tertullian “I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]). Origen “We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]). St. Maximus the Confessor “By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]). St. Gregory the Wonderworker “[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]). St. Hilary of Poitiers “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]). “In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56). St. Didymus the Blind “As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]). St. Epiphanius of Salamis “The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]). St. Basil The Great “Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]). “[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47). St. Ambrose of Milan “Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]). “The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).
So the Orthodox leaders told the sheep to be in communion with the latins and the disobeying sheep didn't? How is this not ground for mass excommunication?
Of course! If any bishop, bishops, or council preaches another Gospel the people are obligated to leave those bishops. This has always been the Orthodox tradition and way, and it is this tradition that has kept the Church teaching pure.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV But this wasn't another Gospel this was council of all the leaders in the church. This is the equivalent of a group of Arians denying the council of nicea and the creeds. How are you not ashamed of this abandonment of the church and this rebellion against the apostolic succession of the disciples?
There are numerous examples of a sole holdout, or a small group of holdouts that maintained the Orthodox position at a council. For example, the Orthodox position at Florence was upheld by only one single bishop, St Mark of Ephesus. Ultimately the majority of the people and clergy sided with the great Saint Mark. Florence was rejected as heresy, and Ortrhodoxy triumphed, as she always did, and always will. We feel no shame in that. It is you, and your Papist friends, who hold that popularity is more important than is Truth, are wherein the shame lies.
This is all about western (masonic/talmudic) hegemony. Imagine wanting to join with Rome and split with other Eastern Orthodox at the same time and thinking it's anything other than geopolitics. Follow the $.
The Patriarch Joseph was very old and ill and died within 2 months on 10 June 1439. His death caused much grief to all present at the Council, as he was a fervent supporter of union between the Churches. This was known even before the Council so to insinuate that he was pressured by the Latins to write his testament in which he accepted all that the Roman Catholic Church confessed is misleading at least.
It was also known that he was vacillating on whether to sign or not. It was also known as well that he was not willing to sign an act of Union on terms unacceptable to the Catholic Church. He was pro Union, but he was not willing to sign on to all the heresies of the Franko-Latin Papists. He was certainly no St. Mark of Ephesus, the Great Champion of the Catholic Church, but he certainly did not easily betray the Romans. He needed to have his arm twisted by the Franks, with the threat of the Turk awaiting the Romans back in the lands surrounding Constantinople.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Stop calling us names such as Franko-Latin Papists. Have some Christian charity, would you? Nobody is calling you Turko-Greek schismatics, at least for now. I'm trying to have a respectful, fraternal conversation with you, an alleged Christian.
We understand your point, but the so-called Orthodox Church is in fact the Roman Catholic Church. The capital City of the Roman Empire was Constantinople, not Rome, from AD 325 up until the fall of the City. The Church of the Romans is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. In order to differentiate between the area of the Ecumene that was conquered by the Franks, and the church founded by them and their allies, from the Roman Catholic Church we use the historically accurate term "Franco-Latin" or "Papists", etc. We are not trying to be insulting, nor uncharitable. This is history, and it is the heritage of the western half of Europe. We do not intend to be uncharitable. However, your calling us "alleged Christians" does seem to have something less than a charitable motive behind it.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Me neither. I apologize to you if you think I was uncharitable, but I said "alleged" because I find names such as "Franco-Latins" and "Papists" to be offensive. Maybe your intention was not to be uncharitable, but neither was mine.
Yes indeed! The fact of the matter is, the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. The institution headed by Jorge Bergoglio, the fake pope, is not Roman nor Catholic. In fact, at this point they’ve just become another liberal Protestant sect with trappings of their Franco-Latin past. @@GreekOrthodoxTV
Actually several people slipped away, including the Georgian delegation. But, Mark of Ephesus was the only opponent of the false union who was part of an official delegation with a negotiating and voting role, who stayed to the end to actively oppose the union with theological arguments (such as his writings against Romanist errors (Purgatory, the errors condemned by Gregory Palamas (created versus uncreated energy, the Filioque, the Azymes (aka unleavened bread or, more popularly "wafers"). The Ecumenical Patriarch who died during the Council is buried in a Romanist pseudo-church in Florence, attached to a Romanist convent there where his tomb is clearly marked, in Latin and Greek.
Because that Council did not require the Papist heretics to renounce their heresies, but rather it required the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church representatives to deny the True Faith.
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument. My question is: Why, when it met all the criteria for acceptance as an ecumenical council, did the east not accept it? I ask because the Orthodox Church deems ecumenical councils to be God-breathed and authoritative, so why was Florence not deemed a legitimate ecumenical council. It was represented by all five patriarchates, the emperor as well as many clergy and laity. So what makes it unauthoritative?
Christ called for Christians to remain united as One, as he and the Father are one. All of the Bishops except for Mark Ephesus signed one , only for "Democracy" back home to dismantle the valid ecumenical council of Florence. The spirit of Schism is NOT the Spirit of God, who called on Christians to remained united, and not divided.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Heretics and Schismatics ARE causing division, and St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. John, and Jesus himself warned about false prophets who would lead the many astray. 2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV The Bible says MANY false prophets and False Christ's shall arise, even among YOU (the Church) and lead the MANY astray. That leading astray is Christians being lead away from the True Faith, to False Doctrines. When a Bishop like Arius, or Nestorius took large portions of Christians away from the unity of the Church, they sowed division between the Body.
Since I see that you have no idea about this council I will let you know. There is Mark Ephesus who did not sign this but there is one mroe person who did not come on this council. And that was Serbian patriarch because Serbian ruler at that time called Djuradj Brankovic said to him that he will be hanged if he goes there. So he didnt. After they signed this and went back home, russian "knez" put their patriarch in the jail for two years and he took all his titles ... Within the next 10 years 21 signing out of 35 were canceled. And that was it. Vatican never forgot this to Serbia and therefore they are trying to destroy Serbia since than.
Did not every council come from some type of turmoil ? It’s ironic seeing westerners talk about orthodoxy whilst I am a Greek. A little bit of over compensating!
Better the Turks than Latins. The Latins were the only reason that empire fell apart and the Turks were able to make some gains after the 13th century. Before that after Basil II and Emperor Alexius, the Empire was resurgent until the Latins shattered the Empire in the 13th century. The Empire was even allied with some of the Turks against other Turks and Latins. Ultimately, Orthodoxy was saved from ecumenism early on by the loss of Constantinople and the replacement of the patriarch. We like to bring up the Turks, but we forget that the Empire was longer besieged by "orthodox" Bulgarians in league with the pope, Norman papists, other assorted westerners, and even Khazar Jews.
Basically you’ll support a Muslim who denies Christ’s divinity the gospel and Christianity in general over a Christian brethren Oops are you guys secretly Jews ?
Basically, you cannot find anything in our program that supports your assertion. We invite you to do so. And regarding your comment asking if we are secret Jews: Oy vey.
YOU WOULD LITERALLY TAKE THE TURKS OVER YOUR WEATERN BROTHERS in CHRIST? Your forefathers before the schism would be ashamed to hear what you say. The Turks raped and humiliated our Nuns/priests in the east.
Before you present a program on history please get all the facts straight and be impartial , your presentation was not professional. We have a duty to protect the Orthodox Church as our fathers have throughout the ages and to educate the faithful.ps please remove the word Greek from your title the nationalism of my own people has hurt many converts. With love in our Lord Jesus Christ his most blessed mother the Theotokos and all the Saints .
We would love to address your issues with our program. However, we would need to understand better what exactly your complaint is. It is easy to make general complaints such as "not professional", without backing up such an assertion. We would also like to invite you to explain where, and how any single one of our programs promulgates "nationalism". But while we appreciate our viewers opinions on the aesthetic qualities of our programs what we really desire is for them to comment on the CONTENT of the programs in a specific manner, i.e. "at 14.36 your program states...". We look forward to hearing from you, David! God be with us!
Only Ephesus didn’t sign it, but either way it was still an ecumenical council, all councils had people who didn’t sign but it was still ecumenical, and they agreed the filioque, but then betrayed their word when they got home…. "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara" well they sure got what they asked for. Not to mention Constantinople fell on the fest of PENTECOST, a clear sign from God that the Catholics were right and the East wrong.
Thank God the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not ruled by a tyrannical cult leader. The Vatican fell into heresy becuase where the "Pope" goes, the rest of the cult goes. In the Catholic Church the Truth was preserved because the Holy Spirit worked through St Mark of Ephesus and the grassroots of the Faithful. We pray for you, Vntihero, that you leave the cult of Popery, and join yourself to the Catholic Church.
As far as actual patriarchs go, only Constantinople and Alexandria signed onto Florence and that was months after the delegation returned to Constantinopole and a new Ecumenical Patriarch was elected to replace the deceased Joseph.
As far as representatives, each patriarchate was assigned two representatives and as was customary at councils, those representatives would sign on behalf of the absent patriarchs who would then ratify the signatures later. In other words, the representatives' signatures were rainchecks.
Although St. Mark of Ephesus was initially one of the reps for Alexandria, the Emperor continually rearranged them so that by the day of signing, St. Mark was instead one of two reps for Antioch and he refused to sign while his co-representative did sign. The reason there were two representatives for each see probably being that then, no one could claim it was the decision of one person, but when one of the two would not sign, this would nullify the decision of the other.
It should be noted another bishop, Isaias of Stavropolis, also refused to sign but was not a representative of a patriarchate.
Further, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem refused to ratify their representatives' signatures when they heard of the agreement - a representative's signature is simply a raincheck until the synod ratifies it. If that is not the case, then Emperor St. Marcian would not have been so insistent on Pope St. Leo ratifying the acts and decrees of Chalcedon. It also means Rome would have had to accept the Council of Constantinople in 863 exonarating St. Photius because its reps did (but Pope Nicholas negated their signatures and punished the them).
Finally, Serbia and Georgia did not sign it because Serbia never showed up and the Georgians left shortly after arriving and long before signatures were being collected.
Thank you!
@Username You're forgetting about Bishop Isaias of Stavropolis, who also refused to sign but was not a representative of a patriarchate, as Ubi Petrus pointed out above.
Didn't know the Church was a democracy. The Churches in the East didn't accept the outcome of the council so it was rejected. So much for the authority of the Church.
@@markrome9702
The Church operates Synodally. As described in Scripture.
The acts of individual Bishops do not bind the whole Synod.
A very interesting time in history .
Your videos are great ! Keep these going ! Best !
+Ari Magoo We thank you...
In addition to St. Mark of Ephesus not signing the Union, noone from the Patriarchate of Serbia was present at the gathering. This historical detail is usually omitted in discussions on this topic.
Our Despot Djuradj Brankovic threatened to hang oatriarch if he decide to participate tgere,with that action despot of serbia has defended orthodoxy
Only Ephesus didn’t sign it, but either way it was still an ecumenical council, all councils had people who didn’t sign but it was still ecumenical, and they agreed the filioque, but then betrayed their word when they got home…. "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara" well they sure got what they asked for.
Not to mention Constantinople fell on the fest of PENTECOST, a clear sign from God that the Catholics were right and the East wrong.
Do you think Constantinople fell due to Bishops accepting Florence? Ive heard Catholics say it fell because it diidnt enforce the Union.
Constantinople fell due to the sins of the Romans. Their city fell because they signed a blasphemous pact with the Vaticanists, of this there is not doubt. Thank you for commenting!
This feels like reading a dialogue between an Apulian peasant and a priest lmao
It was the Arabs, centuries before, not the Turks, who had raided Switzerland as part of the original Moslem Arab conquest wave (in the 8th century AD). Their advance was decisively stopped by their defeat by Charles Martel at the battle of Poitiers in France.
What did the latin west think of St Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm during that council. Was there any discussion about it?
Good question. We will research it. Remind us in a week or so.
Very nice to see people with differing spiritual beliefs discuss such issues with a level of respect and humility we should all strive for. I know by watching these are kind and just men and like most Christians are sincere in their acceptance of Christ and hope they are doing all they can to know, love and serve God. Forgiveness is more powerful than pride yet hard sometimes harder to manifest. I truly believe both east and west have at times been led by men who put pride before Christ and I pray we can cab reunite soon.
We thank you for taking the time to comment.
I don't hear anything, there is no sound! Can you fix it pls?
We don't see any problem with the sound. Please check your settings.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV I tried on my phone and it's good, I can hear it. But on PC either on chrome or edge, there is no sound. On every other video there is no problem, I hear well, so I don't think it has anything to do with settings. I don't understand it. But thank you for your response. I will watch it on my phone.
The hell with ecumenism. Anathema upon the heretics who sold holy orthodoxy!
Holy Orthodoxy wasn't sold. The schismatics started their own "church". The Church still exists and is united and "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against her.
Thank you! Please "like" and share.
TO HELL TO THOSE WHO WISH THEY TO BE SEPARATED.
The Filioque is an organic development of understanding from sorts of “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]). by Council of Nicaea II and others like it.
For during the Divine Liturgy, the priest stands in the person of Christ. When the minister, visibly acting for Christ, state the same words of Christ, it is his breath but Christ in reality that commands the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood.
www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/852/western-saints-filioque/
The filioque is a heresy long condemned by the Fathers implicitly and explicitly in their writings. Saint Augustine never taught the filioque.
St. Augustine in his De fide et Symbolo, teaches that Father is the sole source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and what Holy Spirit is, He owes only to the Father, says st. Augustine: "Holy Spirit is not born from the Father, as Son is, because Christ is the only Son, nor Holy Spirit is born of the Son, as grandson of the highest Father, but, what Holy Spirit is, he owes to no one, but to the Father from Whom is everything, so we do not introduce two sources (non duo principia sine principio), which would be a complete lie and complete absurdness, and such teaching is not part of the Catholic faith, but the error of some heretics." Latin original: "non genitum Spiritum Sanctum tamquam Filium de Patre praedicent; unicus enim est Christus: neque de Filio tamquam nepotem summi Patris: nec tamen id quod est, nulli debere, sed Patri, ex quo omnia; ne duo constituamus principia sine principio, quod falsissimum est et absurdissimum, et non catholicae fidei, sed quorumdam haereticorum errori proprium."
There is no reason to believe in the filioque
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese what about St Isidore of Seville’s view on the Filioque?
@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese The Eastern and Western Church Fathers used the Filioque and it is in the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II.
Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
Tertullian
“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Origen
“We believe, however, that there are three persons: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and we believe none to be unbegotten except the Father. We admit, as more pious and true, that all things were produced through the Word, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was produced by the Father through Christ” (Commentaries on John 2:6 [A.D. 229]).
St. Maximus the Confessor
“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
St. Gregory the Wonderworker
“[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged” (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
St. Hilary of Poitiers
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
“In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him” (ibid., 12:56).
St. Didymus the Blind
“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son” (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
“The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son” (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
St. Basil The Great
“Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy” (ibid., 18:47).
St. Ambrose of Milan
“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
“The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).
So the Orthodox leaders told the sheep to be in communion with the latins and the disobeying sheep didn't? How is this not ground for mass excommunication?
The Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (Orthodox) Church doesn’t work the way the Franco-Latin Papacy works.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV so your allowed to go against the leaders of the church? And councils ?
Of course! If any bishop, bishops, or council preaches another Gospel the people are obligated to leave those bishops. This has always been the Orthodox tradition and way, and it is this tradition that has kept the Church teaching pure.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV But this wasn't another Gospel this was council of all the leaders in the church. This is the equivalent of a group of Arians denying the council of nicea and the creeds. How are you not ashamed of this abandonment of the church and this rebellion against the apostolic succession of the disciples?
There are numerous examples of a sole holdout, or a small group of holdouts that maintained the Orthodox position at a council. For example, the Orthodox position at Florence was upheld by only one single bishop, St Mark of Ephesus. Ultimately the majority of the people and clergy sided with the great Saint Mark. Florence was rejected as heresy, and Ortrhodoxy triumphed, as she always did, and always will. We feel no shame in that. It is you, and your Papist friends, who hold that popularity is more important than is Truth, are wherein the shame lies.
This is all about western (masonic/talmudic) hegemony. Imagine wanting to join with Rome and split with other Eastern Orthodox at the same time and thinking it's anything other than geopolitics. Follow the $.
The Patriarch Joseph was very old and ill and died within 2 months on 10 June 1439. His death caused much grief to all present at the Council, as he was a fervent supporter of union between the Churches. This was known even before the Council so to insinuate that he was pressured by the Latins to write his testament in which he accepted all that the Roman Catholic Church confessed is misleading at least.
It was also known that he was vacillating on whether to sign or not. It was also known as well that he was not willing to sign an act of Union on terms unacceptable to the Catholic Church. He was pro Union, but he was not willing to sign on to all the heresies of the Franko-Latin Papists. He was certainly no St. Mark of Ephesus, the Great Champion of the Catholic Church, but he certainly did not easily betray the Romans. He needed to have his arm twisted by the Franks, with the threat of the Turk awaiting the Romans back in the lands surrounding Constantinople.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Stop calling us names such as Franko-Latin Papists. Have some Christian charity, would you? Nobody is calling you Turko-Greek schismatics, at least for now. I'm trying to have a respectful, fraternal conversation with you, an alleged Christian.
We understand your point, but the so-called Orthodox Church is in fact the Roman Catholic Church. The capital City of the Roman Empire was Constantinople, not Rome, from AD 325 up until the fall of the City. The Church of the Romans is Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. In order to differentiate between the area of the Ecumene that was conquered by the Franks, and the church founded by them and their allies, from the Roman Catholic Church we use the historically accurate term "Franco-Latin" or "Papists", etc. We are not trying to be insulting, nor uncharitable. This is history, and it is the heritage of the western half of Europe. We do not intend to be uncharitable. However, your calling us "alleged Christians" does seem to have something less than a charitable motive behind it.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Me neither. I apologize to you if you think I was uncharitable, but I said "alleged" because I find names such as "Franco-Latins" and "Papists" to be offensive. Maybe your intention was not to be uncharitable, but neither was mine.
Yes indeed! The fact of the matter is, the Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church. The institution headed by Jorge Bergoglio, the fake pope, is not Roman nor Catholic. In fact, at this point they’ve just become another liberal Protestant sect with trappings of their Franco-Latin past. @@GreekOrthodoxTV
Actually several people slipped away, including the Georgian delegation. But, Mark of Ephesus was the only opponent of the false union who was part of an official delegation with a negotiating and voting role, who stayed to the end to actively oppose the union with theological arguments (such as his writings against Romanist errors (Purgatory, the errors condemned by Gregory Palamas (created versus uncreated energy, the Filioque, the Azymes (aka unleavened bread or, more popularly "wafers"). The Ecumenical Patriarch who died during the Council is buried in a Romanist pseudo-church in Florence, attached to a Romanist convent there where his tomb is clearly marked, in Latin and Greek.
I don't understand why the Orthodox don't accept Ferrera-Florence as an ecumenical council... it met all the criteria.
Because that Council did not require the Papist heretics to renounce their heresies, but rather it required the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church representatives to deny the True Faith.
I'm sorry, but that's not an argument. My question is: Why, when it met all the criteria for acceptance as an ecumenical council, did the east not accept it? I ask because the Orthodox Church deems ecumenical councils to be God-breathed and authoritative, so why was Florence not deemed a legitimate ecumenical council. It was represented by all five patriarchates, the emperor as well as many clergy and laity. So what makes it unauthoritative?
Heresy is determined, in part, by the outcome of ecumenical councils.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV😂😂😂 cope. Just admit there is no unity in orthodoxy.
it only met Latin criteria for what makes an ecumenical council, Orthodox criteria is much more than just papal ratification
Christ called for Christians to remain united as One, as he and the Father are one. All of the Bishops except for Mark Ephesus signed one , only for "Democracy" back home to dismantle the valid ecumenical council of Florence. The spirit of Schism is NOT the Spirit of God, who called on Christians to remained united, and not divided.
The Church has never been divided. The Church is the Body of Christ. To say that the Body of Christ can be divided is to spew blasphemy.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Heretics and Schismatics ARE causing division, and St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. John, and Jesus himself warned about false prophets who would lead the many astray.
2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV so are you saying the schism of 1054 the Church was not divided??
The Church has never been divided. The Church is the Body of Christ. To say that the Body of Christ can be divided is to spew blasphemy.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV The Bible says MANY false prophets and False Christ's shall arise, even among YOU (the Church) and lead the MANY astray. That leading astray is Christians being lead away from the True Faith, to False Doctrines. When a Bishop like Arius, or Nestorius took large portions of Christians away from the unity of the Church, they sowed division between the Body.
Since I see that you have no idea about this council I will let you know. There is Mark Ephesus who did not sign this but there is one mroe person who did not come on this council. And that was Serbian patriarch because Serbian ruler at that time called Djuradj Brankovic said to him that he will be hanged if he goes there. So he didnt. After they signed this and went back home, russian "knez" put their patriarch in the jail for two years and he took all his titles ... Within the next 10 years 21 signing out of 35 were canceled. And that was it.
Vatican never forgot this to Serbia and therefore they are trying to destroy Serbia since than.
Nobody is trying to destroy Serbia
Why would the Vatican want to destroy Serbia? It’s the Turks that wanted too..
@@richlopez5896 WW2 - Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia - wannable saint Aloysius Stepinac was found guilty of forced conversion.
Did not every council come from some type of turmoil ? It’s ironic seeing westerners talk about orthodoxy whilst I am a Greek. A little bit of over compensating!
We aren't sure what you mean.
Better the Turks than Latins. The Latins were the only reason that empire fell apart and the Turks were able to make some gains after the 13th century. Before that after Basil II and Emperor Alexius, the Empire was resurgent until the Latins shattered the Empire in the 13th century. The Empire was even allied with some of the Turks against other Turks and Latins. Ultimately, Orthodoxy was saved from ecumenism early on by the loss of Constantinople and the replacement of the patriarch. We like to bring up the Turks, but we forget that the Empire was longer besieged by "orthodox" Bulgarians in league with the pope, Norman papists, other assorted westerners, and even Khazar Jews.
:-)
Indeed.
Basically you’ll support a Muslim who denies Christ’s divinity the gospel and Christianity in general over a Christian brethren
Oops are you guys secretly Jews ?
Basically, you cannot find anything in our program that supports your assertion. We invite you to do so. And regarding your comment asking if we are secret Jews: Oy vey.
YOU WOULD LITERALLY TAKE THE TURKS OVER YOUR WEATERN BROTHERS in CHRIST?
Your forefathers before the schism would be ashamed to hear what you say. The Turks raped and humiliated our Nuns/priests in the east.
The filioque is in the Apocalypsis 22:1
We appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts. Please share our program, and click the "like" tab.
Jorge, can you come up with patristic commentary to support that interpretation? St. Jerome says the river in Rev 22:1 is grace.
Before you present a program on history please get all the facts straight and be impartial , your presentation was not professional. We have a duty to protect the Orthodox Church as our fathers have throughout the ages and to educate the faithful.ps please remove the word Greek from your title the nationalism of my own people has hurt many converts. With love in our Lord Jesus Christ his most blessed mother the Theotokos and all the Saints .
We would love to address your issues with our program. However, we would need to understand better what exactly your complaint is. It is easy to make general complaints such as "not professional", without backing up such an assertion. We would also like to invite you to explain where, and how any single one of our programs promulgates "nationalism". But while we appreciate our viewers opinions on the aesthetic qualities of our programs what we really desire is for them to comment on the CONTENT of the programs in a specific manner, i.e. "at 14.36 your program states...". We look forward to hearing from you, David! God be with us!
Only Ephesus didn’t sign it, but either way it was still an ecumenical council, all councils had people who didn’t sign but it was still ecumenical, and they agreed the filioque, but then betrayed their word when they got home…. "Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara" well they sure got what they asked for.
Not to mention Constantinople fell on the fest of PENTECOST, a clear sign from God that the Catholics were right and the East wrong.
Thank God the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not ruled by a tyrannical cult leader. The Vatican fell into heresy becuase where the "Pope" goes, the rest of the cult goes. In the Catholic Church the Truth was preserved because the Holy Spirit worked through St Mark of Ephesus and the grassroots of the Faithful. We pray for you, Vntihero, that you leave the cult of Popery, and join yourself to the Catholic Church.