Some People Will Cultivate Very Irritating Conditions Around Me, then Observe Me, then Spread the Observation to Pretend I'm Easily Angered

One person did exactly that. In this thread.

No, not cultivate the irritating conditions, not observe me when angry, but spread.

Catholic vs. Orthodox: The Filioque Explained
Journey to Holiness | 12 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ0ddYPPy4

0:16 Catechism ... one more item against it, the fact is, we don't have any 381 manuscript of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

GranMaese

@GranMaese

Neither of 50-90 manuscripts of the Gospels, or Paul's letters, so what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GranMaese My point is, when we get manuscripts later, the Latin and the Greek versions are already different.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Different how? Because by all means and purposes, they aren't. The Vulgate is a very faithful translation. There may be even better modern translations, fair enough, but it is still a very good translation.

Furthermore, how would you even know they are "different" if you claim we don't have any original manuscript to check? (about the creed).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese Presence vs absence of filioque.

I mean in the first actual manuscripts with the Constantinopolitan Creed.

From the second council itself, the Creed is lacking from the manuscripts.

GranMaese

@hglundahl That's not the question, though, my friend, for you said :"we don't have any 381 manuscript" But now it seems to be you say you do, that's a contradiction.

Now, perhaps you wanted to say, that the Filioque is not in the original Creed?

In the end, what does the Catechism has anything to do with it and how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history? How is this "one more item against it", exactly?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese I'm sorry, were you bad at logic?

In 381, we have copies of the canons of the council, but not of the Creed. It's Creed only exists in later copies.

"the Filioque is not in the original Creed?"

We don't have the original Creed.

Filioque is not in the earliest Greek copy, but it is in the earliest Latin copy of it.

"how it is guilty of clarifying and being truthful to history?"

It's not being truthful to history and it's swallowing an accusation from the Orthodox which we have a right to rebut.

One more item, for instance along § 283, which completely destroys the traditional view of creation.

GranMaese

@hglundahl Nice projection, brother, people who get angry so easily and proceeds to offend out of the blue, unprovoked, are always far from God, but you do you.

But I digress. You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?

Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with? The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't, given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that.

Don't [g]et me wrong, we definitively are right to rebut and affirm "from the Son", but not by blind fanatism nor historical conspiracies or however we can classify your position, dear brother.

God bless, may He grant you discernment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@GranMaese You may or may NOT consider Michael II as "schismatic" ...

You may very certainly NOT consider everything I know or say as having come exclusively from him, I had a pretty motley past before adhering to his predecessor.

Including researching Filioque as a revert from Orthodoxy.

Now, "you get angry out of the blue"... I wasn't angry before you got this psychologising idiocy about me.

"You say: "which completely destroys the traditional view of creation." According to who, though? You?"

Trent. Session V. St. Thomas. On your side one Ratzinger who said one could not get back to the Syllabus, as I recall having heard. His "reading of the Bible in the Church" includes both calumny of Protestant Fundamentalists and an overall distance from Fundamentalism, which overall is the historic reading in the Catholic Church.

"Also, if we don't have the "original creed's manuscripts" how can you even know and be so sure it was there (or not) to begin with?"

It so happens to be called Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Meaning it was formulated in fine then, and not later ... except for the side that fiddled with Filioque, whether as to adding or as to subtracting.

"The Church, who has the authority, not you nor you schismatic group, certainly seem to recognize it wasn't,"

Where do I begin? Did Jesus promise His Church infallibility over minute historic facts?

"given the earliest Latin is around 8th century (if memory serves me right), while the greek is older than that."

The Third Council of Toledo, in 589, recited the Creed, in Latin, with the Filioque. Orthos often get this wrong and pretend the Third Council of Toledo added it. No, it was there when they opened the Synod. They recited it as they had received it.

The possibility that the Filioque was added on the Latin side is not impossible, if so that was in Toledo a conflation with another Creed from the First Synod of Toledo, in 400, or ending that year. It had the Filioque, but in another overall creed, and the text is preserved.

As to the Greek version, I think the oldest manuscript is in the Greek manuscript of Chalcedon in 451. 130 years earlier than the Third Council of Toledo, which, given the scarce source material from Early Middle Ages / Late Antiquity is not overly substantial.