[giraffe_lady]

Yeah but most lay people from either branch couldn't tell you the practical consequences of this. It's widely known & considered important because it's a remaining theological justification for the schism, not the other way around.

[throw0101c]

An interesting take on the dilemma between the two 'sides':

> You see the problem. If you include the filioque, you fight the Arians in the West while inadvertently supporting the Sabellians in the East. But if you exclude it, you fight the Sabellians while inadvertently supporting the Arians. At its heart, the filioque is really a linguistic debate, not a theological one.

* https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/68hb00/eli5_th...

(I don't know about the intricacies/subtleties enough to know how 'technically accurate' the above assessment is.)

[giraffe_lady]

I don't know either. To me (an orthodox christian) the filioque seems like a post hoc justification for a schism that was already well underway if not inevitable. By 1054 what became the two churches had already clearly differentiated religious traditions, local saints, and liturgical practices with very little interchange between them, not to mention language, governance, and secular culture.

I have heard some fairly convincing (to a lay person) discussion between orthodox and catholic scholars that the filioque is potentially resolvable as a linguistic problem yes. But it's not worth really pursuing without a solution for the bigger issue of papal primacy. I don't know anyone who claims to have a viable path to reconciliation there. Plus, you know, the thousand years of mutual distrust and enmity.

[NemoNobody]

Ok - I'm not saying that I believe Jesus was born of a virgin and placed within the womb by an angel, I mean maybe, but very very likely Jesus was a man, Joseph was his father or his Mother for away with the biggest lie ever to cover her adultery - obviously either of those things that actually have and do happen are more likely than something that never has, save this one time... maybe.

Jesus said he was the Son of God bc WE - HUMANITY is in fact that. It's not an actual parent child relationship but 2500 years ago Jesus had nothing in his pocket to explain better than the family analogy.

The actual OG basis of almost all religious teachings in almost every religion is that WE are in fact God, living as human, experiencing his creation first hand, as US.

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and didn't lie even if not true the way we believe it to be. It was also prolly a great way to get attention as he had a Father, ppl must have spoke of that.

[lambdaphagy]

Consider the analogy: the difference between two programs is one line of source, and most end users couldn’t tell you the practical consequences of that change.

The Orthodox allege that the Filioque amounts to a demotion of the Holy Spirit. Comparing the liturgies, disciplines and general character of the two churches, it’s difficult to feel totally confident that they don’t have a point.