8 Comments
User's avatar
PJ's avatar

As a protestant seriously inquiring into orthodoxy, the filioque has been one of the biggest reasons I cannot in good conscience continue to affirm western theology. Anyone who reads Gregory the Theologian or any of the Cappadocians for that matter, and thinks they affirm double hypostatic procession is just being dishonest. It's so painfully obvious that the eastern fathers constantly affirm the monarchy of the father as single cause is just so obvious that trying to argue otherwise is just gaslighting lol. I seriously wish more RCs and Prots would read the actual primary sources for themselves, and not just accept the word of apologists peddling their own narrative.

Expand full comment
The Uncreated Light's avatar

Exactly, I agree. The quote-mining into infinity is tiring and boring.

Expand full comment
Principality of Spirit's avatar

The question of "Which of these contradictory Popes is saying the actually infallible statement?" is the most significant and, based on my own conversations with Catholics, apparently irrefutable flaw of the Catholic doctrines of Papal infallibility and supremacy. The defeat of the Conciliarist movement (that is, Catholics who still believed that Ecumenical Councils should affirm Christian dogma and theology) made the Papacy incomprehensible.

Expand full comment
The Uncreated Light's avatar

Well said my friend. I see many Catholics denouncing the conciliar model and forget this was the model of the Church and it’s the same model they use to depose a Pope.

Expand full comment
Thaddeus Patrick's avatar

Excellent argumentation and a respectful tone. Thank you for this solid resource.

Expand full comment
The Uncreated Light's avatar

Thank you for the support my friend!

Expand full comment