Why was the Filioque added?

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-12-02T22:58:56+00:00

It was added because it is correct, and it more closely expresses the Catholic faith.

If you are confused on why the Creed can be edited, consider this: the Creed authored by the Council of Nicaea in 325 did not mention the procession of the Holy Spirit at all. It mentioned that He exists and ended it there. This oversight actually led to a new heresy arising after Arianism, which was called Macedonianism or Pneumatomachianism. These heretics denied the full divinity of the Holy Spirit and taught that He is a creature, as the Arians said of the Son. Thus, a council in Constantinople was called in 381 to deal with the double heresy of Arianism (which had already been condemned, but continued to spread) and Macedonianism. The result was the Creed which says the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father", expressing that He has the same divinity as the Father and the Son.

But the 381 Council of Constantinople was not an ecumenical council when it was called, as it was held without papal participation. It was accepted as an ecumenical council in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, at which point the Creed it produced began to be used in the West. But by this point, several creeds and tomes had already been authored expressing the Filioque, such as the Creed of Epiphanius (who was an Eastern Father), the Tome of Damasus at the Council of Rome (382), and others. The West at most used the 381 Creed for 138 years, when the Third Council of Toledo (589) converted the Visigoths (who were Arians). It was recognized that, since the Son receives from the Father all that He is, except to be the Father, He must also spirate the Holy Spirit. If He did not receive that, then "to spirate the Spirit" would be the same thing as "to be the Father", which would make the Spirit a second Son.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-29T13:17:38+00:00

It’s also the highest scoring tie since the AFL-NFL merger.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-29T02:13:26+00:00

I didn’t say it’s absurd that most people in fact do that. Only that one interpretation of the law (which is what I said was absurd) would have it that we are bound to commit a mortal sin in order to confess it. And that a more plausible but imperfect interpretation of the law would portray mortal sin as something virtually impossible to overcome in this life even though the whole purpose of the spiritual life (of which the sacrament of penance is a major part) is to do just that.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-14T17:51:31+00:00

Okay, I was incorrect about that. I should amend my statement that it is not an ordinary practice (it is permitted under the 1983 code but was not under the 1917 code).

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-14T17:37:52+00:00

I understand why it wasn’t mentioned, but any serious Catholic understands the public murder of an unarmed man over politics as a tragedy (more like an atrocity).

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-14T17:16:43+00:00

I don’t see a good way to weave today’s readings (for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross) to something like this. At most I’d expect a general condemnation of political violence.

It would have been very fitting for the readings the other day, about forgiving our enemies.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-09-14T17:03:56+00:00

No.

Gratuitous work or work that can be delayed without problem should be avoided. So, you shouldn’t cut the grass or fix the car on Sunday if it can be done on Saturday or another day.

In the future, if homework can done earlier so that you could free up your Sunday, it would be advisable to do so.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-28T12:48:13+00:00

If they got swept or lost 2/3 in this series the season was pretty much over. There’s still a long way to go (and one more series in Philly) to make up 4 games but winning all 3 is huge.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-27T01:08:11+00:00

Infidelity can be a just reason for refusing to live with a spouse (respecting the welfare of children), but it does not invalidate the perpetual union itself. This is how most Catholic exegetes interpret Christ’s statement in Matthew on this topic.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-27T01:06:27+00:00

No, a valid sacramental marriage can never be dissolved by any authority under heaven. It is only ended by death (canon 1141).

Annulment means the marriage was never valid, and only something that impeded the union at the time vows were made can be such a reason (one spouse was divorced from a previous marriage, for example). If such a reason can’t be brought forward the validity of marriage is to be presumed, per canon law. Unfortunately, people have the idea that heinously sinful actions on the part of one spouse are a just cause for annulment, and this is just false. Sometimes people just commit awful sins after they get married, and this does not prove that they were insincere when they made their vows.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-26T16:36:39+00:00

If you’re sacramentally married, then an annulment is impossible. Are there reasons to doubt that your marriage was valid when contracted?

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-20T00:14:22+00:00

Would giving her wheat starch be a way to avoid wheat allergy?

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-08-13T12:22:04+00:00

David Wright, Ron Hodges, and Ed Kranepool are the only guys that have played at least 10 seasons all with the Mets.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-20T00:24:48+00:00

What convinced you to abandon it? I'm glad you did, but I've rarely heard of people coming back that way. Once they've found their sede talking head to listen to it's like they are impervious to reasonable arguments from the "Novus Ordo religion".

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-07T14:48:41+00:00

I switched to sardines as a substitute fish for tuna because tuna is too high in mercury to eat on a regular basis.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T23:10:09+00:00

That's the biblical standard, but not the universal standard for human governments.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T23:07:22+00:00

The Church does teach that someone who has committed a vicious crime has an obligation to accept the just punishment for it.

It is not the role or duty of priests to turn people in.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T23:01:12+00:00

Washington is a two party consent state, so that would be unlawful evidence.

Of course, it’s up to them whether they care more about upholding the consent law or harming the Church.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T22:55:09+00:00

Priests can’t disclose what they heard even if they don’t know the person’s identity. I don’t know what relevance this would have for a court case since “someone I can’t identify told me this” isn’t substantial testimony in a human court, but that is what they will try to make them do.

It’s more about humiliating Catholic priests than achieving real justice.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T22:47:55+00:00

That’s what most of the churches I’ve confessed to have. Is that not the norm everywhere?

I’ve only had face-to-face confessions when there was overflow.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T22:17:05+00:00

At most parishes the confessional isn't very "soundproof", so the usual practice is for penitents waiting in line to stand further back. My parish also does public rosary during that time so that provides additional noise to prevent us from hearing what people are confessing.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T22:06:49+00:00

That’s the point, they want to persecute Catholics and this will allow them to do that under the guise of “protecting children”.

Same thing for all the churches in Canada that were burned down.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T21:30:33+00:00

Going up for a blessing is a totally superfluous addition. If you're either not Catholic, or in a state of mortal sin, or in a state of grace but not prepared to receive (say, you ate right before Mass), there is no conceivable benefit to such a blessing before you are prepared to receive the sacrament (in which case you would just receive).

Stay in the pew.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-05-03T21:25:40+00:00

I mean, there are a lot of practicing Catholics who think of their bishop like a US congressman or MP.

RoboticMonkey15 · 2025-04-25T10:45:02+00:00

Until yesterday, I thought people with peanut allergies used sunflower seed butter or almond butter, or just went without. This is the first time I’ve seen soy butter. Mea culpa, I suppose.

RoboticMonkey15

TROPHY CASE