Manage Account

To support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

[NEW] Counsel of Trent merch: https://shop.catholic.com/apologists-alley/trent-horn-resources/

Be sure to keep up with our socials!
https://www.tiktok.com/@counseloftrent
https://www.twitter.com/counseloftrent
https://www.instagram.com/counseloftrentpodcast

Some moral truths just don’t fit in a godless universe.

Does neuroscience, or any science, pose a challenge to believing human beings have free will? Trent Horn joins us for a discussion of today&#8217;s fashionable denial of the fact of free will.

Atheist Objections to Free Will

<div class="page" title="Page 211">
<div class="section">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
DAY 201
</div>
<div class="column">
CHALLENGE
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
“I can’t imagine being happy for all eternity in heaven. Sitting on a cloud playing a harp sounds boring.”
DEFENSE
The reality of heaven transcends human imagination, and popular images of it are only pointers.
The depiction of robed saints sittting on clouds and playing harps is a modern one. It is found in art and on greeting cards, but it mashes images together in a way not found in the Bible.
Scripture uses many images for heaven. The most fundamental is the sky. John Paul II explained: “In biblical language ‘heaven,’ when it is joined to the ‘earth,’ indicates part of the universe. Scripture says about creation: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ (Gen. 1:1)” (General Audience, July 21, 1999).
The sky, in turn, was used as an image of where God dwells: “Metaphorically speaking, heaven is understood as the dwelling-place of God, who is thus distinguished from human beings (cf. Ps. 104:2–3; 115:16; Isa. 66:1). He sees and judges from the heights of heaven (cf. Ps. 113:4–9) and comes down when he is called upon (cf. Ps. 18:9, 10; 144:5). However, the biblical metaphor makes it clear that God does not identify himself with heaven, nor can he be contained in it (cf. 1 Kings 8:27)” (ibid.).
Scripture uses other images of heaven, though we need to be sensitive to their limitations too. The Catechism explains: “This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: ‘no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him’ (1 Cor. 2:9)” (CCC 1027).
We thus shouldn’t be confused by modern images depicting saints sitting on clouds with harps. “In the context of revelation, we know that the ‘heaven’ or ‘happiness’ in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit” (John Paul II, op. cit.).
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Will Heaven Be Boring?

Some are surprised that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption was not defined until 1950, using little biblical support. Pope Pius XII decreed that all Catholics must hold and believe as divinely revealed “that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, completing the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus 44). Yet Tim Perry, an evangelical Protestant, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Evangelicals-Toward-Understanding-Mother/dp/083082569X">reminds us</a> of the “doctrine’s ancient roots” (239-240).
Although the Bible says nothing directly about the Assumption, it also says nothing about Mary’s life after Pentecost or her death, just as it doesn’t say anything about St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s deaths. But Protestant evangelical Scot McKnight <a href="https://archive.org/details/realmarywhyevang0000mckn">notes</a> that God has the power to assume a person into heaven, and although
<blockquote>we find nothing about Mary’s death or her assumption in the Bible, [does] that mean Mary wasn’t “assumed” into heaven? Obviously not. None of us believes that everything was recorded in the Bible, so we are left to examine the evidence (133).</blockquote>
Jesus addressed similar issues, too—for example, the resurrection from the dead. This was a highly debated topic in his day, especially for the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection from the dead, and the Sadducees, who did not (see Matt. 22:22). When Jesus addressed their disagreement, he used the Bible, but in an indirect way:
<blockquote>“As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching (Matt. 22:31-33).</blockquote>
Notice how Jesus used the books of the Bible that the Sadducees accepted—the Torah—and made an inference from them to clarify the question . . . and all were “astonished.”
Later, when Jesus rose from the dead, as the disciples “did not [yet] know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20:9), he appeared to them to explain Scripture to them. He did it first with the disciples traveling to Emmaus:
<blockquote>“O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:25-27, 31-32).</blockquote>
He had to do it with the apostles, too, to open “their minds to understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45). But he seems to quote not just one or two passages to them, but “all the scriptures” “beginning with Moses and all the prophets.”
This is how the ancient Church approached Mary’s assumption—not looking for a proof text, but looking to discern whether this teaching was consistent with all the scriptures and with other Christian beliefs. And why wasn’t this teaching “defined” by the Church until the twentieth century? Perhaps the Holy Spirit had waited to counteract the materialistic and mechanistic view propagated by some in the name of science. Mary’s assumption reaffirms the Christian hope in bodily resurrection, attesting to man having a spiritual dimension that endures unto eternity (see also <a href="https://archive.org/details/TheWorldsFirstLove">here</a>, at 130-141, and paragraph 974 of the Catechism), which modern science finds absurd. As St. Paul writes,
<blockquote>the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. . . . Then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor. 15:52-55, quoting Isa. 25:8 and Hos. 13:14).</blockquote>
This certainly applied to some Old Testament saints who were assumed into heaven: Enoch (Gen. 5:22-24, Sir. 49:14, Heb. 11:5-6), Moses (Jude 8-10, Deut. 34:5-6, 10-12), and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-13). If any woman or man ought to be taken into heaven, body and soul, it would be Mary, the holy Mother of God.
Examining the evidence, prefigured in the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to conclude that Mary—the mother of the Messiah, the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev. 11:19-12:5)—is a woman in heaven, clothed with the sun’s glory, crowned with twelve stars, and with the moon under her feet. This means she is certainly alive, body and soul, in heaven. As Pius XII says:
<blockquote>The revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ . . . immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences . . . [was granted] that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb (Munificentissimus Deus 40).</blockquote>
Twice I have been on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where we were able to visit many of the places where events of our Lord’s life and of his blessed mother’s life took place. One special one was the Cenacle and alongside it the Church of the Dormition.
We know that St. John the Apostle took care of Mary, the Mother of God, after our Lord’s ascension. John remained in Jerusalem with Mary until Herod’s persecution, detailed in Acts 12:1-3. Then John took the Virgin Mary with him to Ephesus. The two returned to Jerusalem after the death of Herod and supported the Church as she grew in number and extension. Likely she was back there with John at the Council of Jerusalem in the year 50, described in Acts 15.
In Jerusalem, Mary often would do the Way of the Cross and pray in front of the Holy Sepulcher as a way of uniting herself to her son. This reinforced her desire to be like him in dying for love. The Eastern churches celebrate the feast of Mary’s dormition, describing the fulfillment of her desire to die with Christ more like falling asleep than as dying.
Church Fathers and sacred writers, beginning in the second century with Bishop St. Melito of Sardis (who died around A.D. 200), give us details of Our Lady’s dormition and assumption. These traditions tell us that Mary, knowing she was about to leave this world, called together the apostles, except St. James, who had been martyred.
All the apostles (except for St. Thomas, who had yet to arrive from distant India) gathered around Mary while she lay on her bed. As she gave them encouragement in their apostolic endeavors, Jesus appeared to her. She looked up and said his name. Then she closed her eyes, entrusted her soul to her son, and breathed her last.
Large crowds of faithful gathered around Mary’s body as the apostles carried the funeral bier in solemn procession from the house of the Dormition on Mount Zion to the tomb just a stone’s throw north of Gethsemane. As they carried her bier up the Kidron Valley (Valley of Josaphat), a Jewish priest named Athonios was filled with anger and jealousy and tried to topple the bier with the body of the Mother of God. When Athonios touched the bier with his two hands, an angel cut off both hands instantaneously. Repenting of his misdeed and declaring the greatness of God and of Mary, he was healed.
They arrived at the tomb near the Garden of Gethsemane, in the same plot where her parents Joachim and Anna were buried. Upon sealing the tomb, many of the Christian faithful remained outside praying. Some described hearing the sound of angels singing, which is associated with Mary’s assumption and the source of her title “St. Mary of the Angels.”
Tradition has it that St. Thomas arrived to Jerusalem from India three days later and was quite disappointed that he had not been able to accompany Mary in her last moments. So the apostles took Thomas to Mary’s tomb, where he prostrated himself. Opening the tomb for him, they found it empty except for the burial clothes that had wrapped Our Lady’s body. Again, celestial music could be heard.
Mary’s assumption reaffirms our faith in the resurrection of the body, giving us hope in eternal life with Christ, and with our heavenly Mother, in heaven.

Must We Prove the Assumption from the Bible?

I saw the headline this morning: “Processed Food Linked to Depression.” Then <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/09/20/ultra-processed-food-especially-artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-depression-study-finds/?sh=5801117418c5">this study</a>:
<blockquote>There were 2,122 cases of depression under the strict definition and the top fifth of consumers—nine or more servings of ultra-processed food a day—had around a 50% higher risk of depression compared with women who are the lowest amount of four servings or fewer a day, the researchers found (it was around a third higher for the broader category).</blockquote>
For <a href="https://slang.net/meaning/crunchy">crunchy</a> people like me&#8230;well&#8230;

But even if you don’t spend your free time railing against seed oils and defending <a href="http://www.drbrewerpregnancydiet.com/">salt</a> and <a href="https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat">fat</a>, it shouldn’t seem outlandish to Catholics that faker food makes for sadder people.
It’s true that the human spirit is exalted over the body (Rom. 8), but that doesn’t mean we say (literally) “to hell with the body.” We’re not <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-get-a-godly-bod">Manicheans</a>. On the contrary, the body is the Lord’s temple. In a corporeal way, we house the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:13,19) and receive Jesus in the Eucharist (11:28-30). The physical body of Our Lady housed the Second Person of the Trinity and was <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-defend-the-immaculate-conception">specially made</a> to be worthy of him.
So our bodies, unstained by sin and in their ideal state, contain and reflect the glory of God. I think our food can do that, too. The Fall corrupted everything, so I wouldn’t say rotten or poisoned food is good to eat, or that <a href="https://time.com/5104225/tide-pod-challenge/">Tide Pods</a> bring good health because God made the molecules in them. But I still think there’s a terrestrial ideal, a “foodness” to aspire to here on earth. And the food is best when it’s un-“stained” by the “corruption” of&#8230;well&#8230;monosodium glutamate.
It’s easy for our fallenness to wreck good things. Try the virtues: fortitude can become abuse of the weak, and prudence can become cowardice or indifference. Food, too: someone discovers that the calcium in milk is good for you—and then isolates the calcium, infuses it by <a href="https://www.aaps.ca/blog/the-food-technology-behind-fortified-cereals#:~:text=To%20fortify%20cereals%3A%201%20Before%20the%20dough%20is,toasting%2C%20nutrients%20can%20be%20added%20via%20a%20spray">arcane mechanical processes</a> into sugar-laced <a href="https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/article/2515/extrusion-of-cereals/">extruded</a> wheat puffs shaped like chocolate chip cookies, and insists that conditioning your kids to want chocolate chip cookies for breakfast makes for a “good source of calcium.”
All this to say it’s better to stick with the milk. It’s more natural. It’s closer to what God gives us. You don’t have to tweak it, and you won’t improve it.
Nor, for the lactose-intolerant, do we want for variety. Our Lord signed off on at least three foods—bread (Matt. 24:26), wine, and fish (Luke 24:42-43)—in his earthly life. God gave Adam and Eve plants (Gen. 1:30, 2:16) and Noah meat (3:3). He’s pro-cows and pro-bees (Lev. 20:24). He authorized cooking, baking, and fermentation. So we have a lot to work with before seed oils and ultra-pasteurization and certain <a href="https://www.eatthis.com/fake-foods/">sad imitations of nourishment</a> must factor. If I’m going to follow Jesus’ example in all things, I want that to include eating the way he ate.
Strictly speaking, there’s no succeeding: an apple beats Apple Jacks, but there’s still no telling what the grocery store <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/why-fruit-has-a-fake-wax-coating/524619/">did to it</a>. Even your own apple tree meets man’s fallen nature <a href="https://blairsupplyusa.com/how-does-a-municipal-water-and-sewer-system-work/">in some way</a>. We can’t be food <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/pelagianism-old-heresy-still-attractive">Pelagians</a>; we can’t do it on our own. But we search for the ideal, understanding that the search fortifies us for the life to come. Call it a sort of theosis, from Cookie Crisp to a home-baked cookie to just the butter and eggs.
“Are you trying to say I’m mortally sinning every time I eat a chocolate bar?” No—if that were the case, I’d be in the confessional <a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-scruples-of-luther-and-therese">more often</a> than pre-Protestant Martin Luther. It’s not (<a href="https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-do-i-know-if-its-a-mortal-sin">necessarily</a>) a sin to eat poorly, but I think how we eat does reflect our respect for the temple that is our body.
And so I’ll mangle <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+5%3A16&amp;version=RSVCE">St. James</a> and suggest that every body reflects the glory of God, but a well-nourished body, eating authentic God-given food, reflecteth much. Thus hints science, at least.

Why Junk Food Is Less Holy

What’s The Truth About Trans Saints?

Fr. David Michael Moses discusses the &#8220;cartoonish&#8221; masculinity presented by social media today and how he wishes to combat it with a Christ modeled masculinity for his viewers.
Transcript:
I think one thing that gets kind of lost today is this idea of greatness. Sometimes it gets sort of framed as the kind of the Andrew Tate worldly, have the cars and the mansions as greatness. But really greatness is knowing the person of Jesus Christ. And that&#8217;s where the joy comes from ultimately. And that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re searching for.
So, you know, I heard it quote recently, &#8220;the magic that you&#8217;re looking for is in the things that you&#8217;re avoiding&#8221;. And I think the world so often puts out there, the pleasure and the status and the comfort and all those things. And that&#8217;s not really what we&#8217;re looking for. Like that&#8217;s not really what we want. The magic we&#8217;re looking for, not magic in the world, it&#8217;s not magic, but magic, like the meaning and the peace and the joy and the purpose. The magic is usually in the things that we&#8217;re avoiding, which is suffering, self-denial, taking up the cross. These are the things that actually give purpose to our lives. And so I think it is about with young people, especially saying, No sacrifice and suffering or not the worst evil to be avoided, which is what the world says. It&#8217;s actually like pushing through these things on the other side of some of that sacrifice is really going to be everything that you actually long for in life. And what is that actually you&#8217;re going to find there is the person of Jesus Christ.
I&#8217;m interested in what you said there about Andrew Tate because there is a kind of, there&#8217;s all this talk about masculinity for the last, I don&#8217;t know, 15 or 20 years. And it&#8217;s clear to me as an old man that the reason we have all this talk about masculinity is that fathers abandon their children. They left the home that we have millions and millions of people who grew up without their father in their home. So nobody knows what a man is supposed to be because nobody had that. Now that&#8217;s obvious to me, it may not be obvious to you, but it may be you disagree with it. But this obsession with masculinity because of the missing father is a deep wound. And a lot of young men are being seduced into a really cartoonish image of masculinity.
And so is, do you, I mean, the masculinity that you&#8217;re proposing and that you&#8217;re living out and that you&#8217;re showing is a masculinity of service ,of noble service, of loving, which is to me. I mean, Jesus is the most perfect man. He&#8217;s the image of manhood. How does he live? He lives a life of, I mean, he&#8217;s tough. He doesn&#8217;t, he&#8217;s not intimidated by anybody. He says the most dangerous things you can say. He&#8217;s not afraid, but none of it is in service of showing, making a great clip for a video. It&#8217;s all in service of the poor, the suffering.
I just want you to say something about that. Are you self-conscious about that? Are you intentionally trying to present a different view of manhood?
I think that&#8217;s very, very well said on your part that, you know, I did ministry in a juvenile detention center as part of my time in seminary. And so a lot of men, you know, young men, 11 to 18, who have gone, you know, committed some kind of crime. And I don&#8217;t think I met a single guy whose father was present in his life.
And it was just so clear the correlation between not having a father and ending up completely lost. You know, and now he was incarcerated. And so I think you&#8217;re very right that there&#8217;s this struggle to find masculinity because we haven&#8217;t had the right examples.
And just how beautiful right, in the church that we have. One we call God father, right? Like God is trying to provide for us that fatherhood. And the church is trying to provide priests in every parish that we call father. Like in some ways, I think God anticipated that need that void. And it&#8217;s trying to provide good fathers for his people.
And just as you said, that example absolutely is Christ, who is, you know, Jesus on the cross is not a weak man. Right? The fact that he could endure that it was a very strong man. And that&#8217;s what exactly. That&#8217;s what true masculinity, true greatness actually looks like. Is that kind of laying down your life for the bride, for the church, for the one that you love.
Well, I partly asked you that because I saw a wonderful response video you did to Mark Driscoll, a Protestant pastor who. I won&#8217;t use polite words if I try to describe how he described manhood, but just awful pathetic view of manhood. And then you responded to it.
The modern world has invented this new thing called the response video. And I want to know what first of all, if anybody doesn&#8217;t know what the response video is, explain it and then tell us what role it plays in your work.
Yeah, so I would just say always with social media, again, it&#8217;s a language, it&#8217;s a culture that you have to learn to speak. For me, it&#8217;s always about just presenting the gospel, but some things connect better than others in terms of trying to connect the people with the gospel.
So for me with like Instagram and short form videos, what I found is like humor seems to connect very well. It&#8217;s a very universal language, especially with younger generation. So I said, okay, I didn&#8217;t set out to try to make funny videos at all. I just set out to connect the gospel and it looked like humor was a extremely effective way of doing it.
And with longer form videos like YouTube and stuff that you&#8217;re kind of referring to, that the reaction videos, you could just post a nice reflection from today&#8217;s readings, right? You could definitely do that. That would be good and true and beautiful, but people may not watch it. It might kind of get lost a lot of different things.
I think the value of like the reaction video is you take something current in the culture. You kind of present that as a point of engagement, like a common subject with the listener. And then you are able to attach onto that something very tried and true about the gospel or about the sacraments and sort about the faith.
And I think even Jesus kind of does this when he preaches, he says, you&#8217;ve heard it said, but I say to you, there&#8217;s something deeply theological there. But he&#8217;s basically offering a reaction to something that the listener has already heard that they know that the people are not going to be able to do that. And he&#8217;s heard that they know that kind of peaks their interest and then he kind of is able to flesh out that with something good and something beautiful on the tail end. So I think the reaction video is kind of simple. You guys have heard about this new story, right? And I say to you, there&#8217;s some this and this and what as well.
So I think at face value it can look like, or we just, you know, we just, you know, spurting out the news here, but really the deeper message that I think comes across really effectively is that this is a vehicle for teaching the faith.
So what are the maybe limits like you&#8217;re a priest, you know, you&#8217;re not going to make a video where you&#8217;re like, look at what this clown had to say, you know, and really, you know, tear into somebody even though I know on some of them that&#8217;s what you wanted to say. Well, all right, maybe I&#8217;m projecting, but so I mean, how does a priest approach these kind of reactions, but it is well, in some cases you&#8217;re correcting what someone has said in some cases you&#8217;re pointing out, you know, flaws in the reasoning in order to make the point.
Yeah, so I think we always want to be respectful of the person right, we always want to be respectful of the dignity that they have. So obviously trying to avoid any kind of personal attacks. But I think it&#8217;s a good father is going to help make distinctions for their children. So I think it&#8217;s spiritual fathers. It&#8217;s worth talking about some of these things in the culture and drawing distinctions about what the truth is about what&#8217;s right, you know, charity is clarity as we say. I think clarity for God&#8217;s people and some of these things is not just okay, but actually very, very appropriate from a father. Not everybody&#8217;s called to make videos right at all, but I think for some, you know, who are called to that, it makes a lot of sense as a father figure.

A Catholic Response to “Toxic Masculinity” | Fr. Michael Moses

Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer joins Cy Kellett to tackle a thought-provoking question about the filioque controversy and its implications for the Creed and Church ecclesiology. Joe dives into the historical complexities surrounding the addition of &#8220;and the Son,&#8221; clarifying how early adaptations of the Nicene Creed reflect a richer context than many realize.
Transcript:
Cy: Paul, welcome. Why aren&#8217;t you Catholic?
Caller: Well, because I&#8217;m Orthodox, so it&#8217;s the second Orthodox-related call. What I see as a problem is the Filioque, okay. And the way it was added to the Creed after a previous Pope said he could not add it to the Creed because a council had given the Creed, and the Creed could only be changed by a council. So it affects not only the belief in the Holy Spirit&#8217;s procession, but also the ecclesiology of the Church.
Joe: Okay, so there&#8217;s two. Yeah, I think you&#8217;ve identified the two reasons one might object. One is the Filioque; even if it&#8217;s true, it shouldn&#8217;t have been added to the Creed unilaterally. This is actually a little bit more of a complicated history than I think most people realize, because the Nicene Creed is not actually given to us by the First Council of Nicaea. There is a baptismal formula used seemingly in or around Nicaea that becomes very influential. But you see several early adaptations. And so it&#8217;s actually the First Council of Constantinople that gives a modified form of the Nicene Creed.
So there&#8217;s good historical evidence from my recollection, and this is not an issue. I remember all of the history on that. Local churches were doing something like the Filioque before First Constantinople based on variations of the Nicene Creed that you&#8217;ll. In other words, it&#8217;s not as if the Pope just said, like I&#8217;m gonna add &#8220;and the Son&#8221;; rather, there were various forms of the Creed being used before Constantinople, and some of them continued to be used. I mean, we find other creeds being used.
So is the argument that we&#8217;re not allowed to use a Creed not given by the Council?
Caller: Well, I guess my main question would be, what do the Catholics mean by the Filioque? What do they mean? Do they mean there are two sources of the Holy Spirit?
Joe: No, absolutely not. I&#8217;m glad you asked that, because that&#8217;s really important. There is an important reunion called the Union of Brest, where this issue is clarified. What we mean is that the origin of, as it were, the Holy Spirit is the Father alone, but that the Father spirates or breathes the Spirit through the Son. So you don&#8217;t have two principles of origin, but there is a much clearer Trinitarian relationship from Father, Son to Spirit.
And it&#8217;s much clearer why we say the Second Person and the Third Person of the Trinity, whereas if you&#8217;re lacking a conception of that, then the relationship between the Son and the Spirit is ambiguous because all you can say is one proceeds by begetting and one proceeds by spiration. But since those terms mean very little, I think, to the ordinary Christian, why is one of them the second person and another is the third person of the Trinity? It feels arbitrary. It&#8217;s clear why the Father is the first person. He&#8217;s the origin of the Trinity. But it becomes less clear second versus third person.
So whether it was prudent or not to add the Filioque, I think Christians can reasonably disagree on that. There&#8217;s nothing heretical about praying the Creed without the Filioque. Even popes have done this in the past. And if you go to Eastern Catholic churches, you&#8217;ll find it prayed without the Filioque. But what the Filioque is expressing is both true and actually an important bit of Trinitarian theology that should be. I mean, maybe a council should do it to smooth everything over, but it should be something Christians recognize that there is this relation when Jesus breathes on the apostles. This is a reflection of something in the inner life of God that the Spirit proceeds through the Son.
Caller: Yes, I believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Even Seraphim of Sarov, a Russian monk, is quoted as saying that.
Joe: So the text of the Union of Brest says this: that when the Ruthenians come back to the Catholic Church, they should remain with what was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from two sources and not by double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son.
So I think in reality sound Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theologians agree it&#8217;s just a terminological dispute. And there is, you know, a lot of this was misunderstanding, especially as it got translated from Latin into Greek. And it sounded like it was saying that there were two origins or a double procession, and the Church clarified, &#8220;No, no, that&#8217;s not what we mean by that.&#8221;
Caller: Well, wasn&#8217;t it Thomas Aquinas that said the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the love shared between the two is the Holy Spirit?
Joe: Well, the fruit is, it&#8217;s the fruit of the Father&#8217;s love then being given back to the Father through the Son, and the love is not itself the fruit of the love from the Father to the Son. So, understand, I mean, there&#8217;s different formulations, but what the Church at a magisterial level has said is that what we mean by the Filioque is the Father breathing the Spirit through the Son. And so if that&#8217;s something that you agree with, which it sounds like it is, well, then hopefully that won&#8217;t be an obstacle to your becoming Catholic.
Caller: Well, I think the Church should change the Creed to where it reads, &#8220;and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father through the Son,&#8221; not &#8220;from the Father and the Son.&#8221;
Joe: I&#8217;d be fine with that. I wonder if that would smooth feathers over or if it would ruffle feathers more by the fact that we&#8217;d be changing the Creed.
Caller: Well, I don&#8217;t know if everybody could get together and agree on it, but I think that&#8217;s a change that could be made in the problem.
Joe: Yeah, I mean, this is. If you read the canons of the Council of Florence, this was something where the Eastern Orthodox delegates, once they understood what Catholics meant by the Filioque, accepted it. And later they kind of changed that because of the influence of Mark of Ephesus. But originally, the delegates there, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the emperor, everybody virtually who went, agreed that, yeah, these terms are fine, we can accept this.
Cy: The music&#8217;s playing, Paul. That means we got to take a quick break. Thank you very much for the call. We have a book, if you&#8217;d like it. I think it lays out the Catholic side of many of the arguments.

The Filioque Is Why I’m Not Catholic…

Get the JOE NOTES, sources for this episode, and more Shameless Popery on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/ShamelessPopery

Listen to Shameless Popery on Catholic.com:
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp