Can anyone give me a rundown of the filioque and its implications?
Also, tangentially related, where did all of this discourse around Orthodox Christianity come from? I actually don’t trust YouTubers like Jay Dyer (does he have a thread yet?).
The filioque, meaning (and from the Son in Latin), appears in most western versions of the Nicene Creed. It was not a part of the original version of the Creed formulated in the First Ecumenical Council, instead it just began cropping up in various Roman churches. Over time, various popes held different opinions on the filioque, with some ambivalent and others vehemently against it. Eventually, the consensus was first “it’s an acceptable difference”, then around 1000 AD, it was proclaimed doctrine, and not including it was fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the Trinity. This was such an overstepping of boundaries (as a doctrinal issue of this caliber needed an ecumenical council to be validated), that it was added to the list of offenses from the Orthodox Churches against the Roman Churches.
The Filioque was not the main reason why they split; there was a multitude of reasons mainly political for why. Hell, both churches recognize and venerate St. Maximos, who thought the whole split was dumb. Why is the Filioque bad? Double procession and the minimizing of the Holy Spirit as a Person of the Trinity. It implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds originally also from the Son, and is this subservient to Him. As far as I am aware, even the Catholic Church does not take this point. They argue that the original point is from the Father, and it proceeds through the Son. This is not a new development, as it had been said several times in previous Catholic Councils, and it is encouraged to drop it if you’re using Greek. The argument is that the Greek word used to describe procession is a difficult to translate word, and to fully imply the correct doctrine that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” Filioque is a best fit.
This means it’s just a translation issue. I’d go as far to say it’s the same reason why the Coptics split from the church; primarily political issues using a valid theological issue of translation that COULD lead to heresy. That’s a whole other can of worms.
As for Online Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy in America has always had an online element. There are jokes about Online Orthodox dating back to the early 2000’s! I’d say a lot of it owes to the counter cultural approach that took hold in certain communities from California in the 60’s and 70’s, mainly from the life and works of Fr. Seraphim Rose. Over time, many former punks and metal heads started converting and started up Death to the World, of which I have some mixed feelings on personally. Plenty of early internet guys got together and formed forums, and they followed the general vibe of online interactions since.
My advice; avoid Dyer, avoid Roosh, and avoid Fr. Peter Heers. Those three tend to be the most difficult of online orthodox, less Roosh but especially Heers, as he is allegedly a valid priest but has presented no genuine evidence of who he operates under. Seriously, no bishop or church claims him, and he only vaguely alludes to his validity.
