วีดีโอ

In almost all theology manuals - Pohle-Preuss, Franzelin, Petavius, Lonergan, Sacrae Theologie Summa, Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, there are sections clearly showing the economy-theology distinction. We do not collapse the two rather we recognize that action manifests being and the divine economy reveals theology by the doctrine of the Divine Sendings and by Appropriations. This is such a strawman.

@@CatholicDwong on the filioque you confuse the theology with the economia. Εκπορεύεται and πεμπεται in greek are two different words when translated in latin where said as one word .so confusion started in the west

@@CatholicDwong no economia does not reveal theology as you said .actually the theophanies reveal theology.

@@CatholicDwong theology has nothing to do with scholasticism .Theology comes only from the divine experience of theosis .to view and get in union with God in his divine majestic uncreated Glory

LOL💀😭

just look up Alexei Trupp, and Catherine Schneider you guys literally venerate an Lutheran saint

​@@SolarSiegelol 😂 let's see his reaction

wow I guess the orthodox need to admit they were in communion with heretics if your asserting that the catholic church is heretical

@@SolarSiegewhat are your thoughts about Eastern Catholics reciting the creed without the addition and still being in communion with Rome? As well as venerating Eastern Saints like Palamas who is quoted as saying “the Latins follow after Satan in their filioque”.

Sorry Roman Catholism is heritical

@@OrthodoxStudy-wd5nk It’s not. I was born 'orthodox' and loved it….until I researched history which proved catholicism.

@Catholic1337 well totally the opposite here was born raise and love and lived the Roman Catholic faith and it through lots of studies amd debates this is why I left Roman Catholism and became orthodox

@Catholic1337 I will add to my previous comment to you. It's because of reashering why the orthodx were schismatic etc, this is what opened my eyes to tithe truth

@@OrthodoxStudy-wd5nk What studies? Tell me why you think orthodoxy is true.

salam guardian

@@eventhorizon6171 waalaykum assalam Giovanni

What have you decided, brother?

you again

@@Jhostly well i say what the greek speaking fathers say ,no one ever said about filioque

thank you!

@@chasingfoxes5791 Please, copy into description

@@chasingfoxes5791 carholics have to explain themselves.How they say the Byzantine Catholic Eucharist is the one true Eucharist of the church participate in it ,but that EUCHARIST has in it Greogory Palamas as a saint. Saint Gregory Palamas says about the latin they are actually following satan blindly and obeying him .

The filioque is heretical to Saint Augustine. There's no reason to hold to the doctrine of the filioque taught at Florence. St. Augustine in his De fide et Symbolo, teaches that Father is the sole source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and what Holy Spirit is, He owes only to the Father, says st. Augustine: "Holy Spirit is not born from the Father, as Son is, because Christ is the only Son, nor Holy Spirit is born of the Son, as grandson of the highest Father, but, what Holy Spirit is, he owes to no one, but to the Father from Whom is everything, so we do not introduce two sources (non duo principia sine principio), which would be a complete lie and complete absurdness, and such teaching is not part of the Catholic faith, but the error of some heretics." Latin original: "non genitum Spiritum Sanctum tamquam Filium de Patre praedicent; unicus enim est Christus: neque de Filio tamquam nepotem summi Patris: nec tamen id quod est, nulli debere, sed Patri, ex quo omnia; ne duo constituamus principia sine principio, quod falsissimum est et absurdissimum, et non catholicae fidei, sed quorumdam

​ @JL-CptAtom Unfortunately, you have gravely misread St. Augustine. In De Fide et Symbolo, he clearly states the Catholic dogma that the Holy Spirit is indeed "not born" ("not begotten," or "not generated." "Non genitum," in the Latin, as you noted). Dr. Edward Siecienski also presents the translation as "not begotten." It is indeed heretical to say any of these about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds, He is not born/begotten/generated. The Son alone is born/begotten/generated. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed says that the Son is "born of the Father before all ages," and the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." However, with regard to your translation saying: "what Holy Spirit is, he owes to no one, but to the Father from Whom is everything," Dr. Siecienski provides the following translation, which is slightly different: "[T]he Holy Spirit owes his existence to the Father, from whom everything comes." Now, the Holy Spirit proceeding also from the Son would not be a problem for St. Augustine here, since we do not deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that there are not two principles of the Holy Spirit but one Principle. St. Augustine explicitly teaches that the Father and the Son are one Principle of the Holy Spirit, since the Son has the spirative power from the Father and spirates the Holy Spirit with the Father via one notional act of spiration. Nor would the phrase "he owes to no one, but to the Father" necessarily even negate the Catholic doctrine, since, as St. Augustine himself says, the Holy Spirit principally proceeds from the Father (not to the exclusion of the Son), since the Father has given to the Son that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. Likewise, where there is no relation of opposition in God, everything is one, so this phrase would also not necessarily negate the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son also, like how 1 Cor 2:11 does not negate the Father and the Son from "knowing the mind of God," and John 17:3 does not negate the Son and the Holy Spirit from being "the only true God," etc. As the Fathers teach, the Father being from no other Person is His hypostatic property, so, in any case, the Son would also spirate the Holy Spirit here, since no relation of opposition would prevent this. St. Augustine explicitly teaches the Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit in an innumerable number of places. In a few, he says: "...the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son..." - St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Book 15, c. 27 "Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time... when, just as generation from the Father, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, without beginning of time; so procession from both, without any changeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence without beginning of time? ...we do not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten..." - St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Book 15, c. 26 "it must be admitted that the Father and the Son are a Principle of the Holy Spirit, not two Principles; but as the Father and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relatively to the creature, so are they one Principle relatively to the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one Principle in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and one God.” - St. Augustine, De Trinitate, Book 5, c. 13-14 Also, Photius said that St. Augustine did indeed teach this, but out of ignorance or negligence (Mystagogy, 68). You would be dissenting from one of your "pillars of Orthodoxy" in this regard if you disagreed with him (even though in theory you could). He was obviously wrong that St. Augustine was ignorant or negligent though. With St. Augustine, we also reject the idea of the Holy Spirit being from two principles. The Father and the Son are one Principle of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Florence says: "...the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one Principle and a single spiration." (Session 6, Definition, Laetentur Caeli: Bulla Unionis Graecorum)

@@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese I don't know how this relates to what I said, but thanks.

Whatsup man. It's Nectarios. Good question.

He got wrecked when he admitted beggeting and procession are the same proving you're modalist

@@shiningdiamond5046 I am not a modalist I admit a real distinction between the Persons so no modalism here. I recommend you watch my videos showing the Church Fathers believe in the Filioque and explaining the theology of the divine processions. Where did he say that begetting and procession are not different? If he said that there is both an orthodox and heretical interpretation of his statement. But before I can explain further we have to make some distinctions: when you name a divine procession there are three manners of signifying it: 1) the divine procession actively considered alone - signifying the producing Person, 2) the divine procession passively considered alone - signifying the produced Person, 3) the divine procession as the foundation or res of both the relations. So the orthodox interpretation of what Xavier hypothetically said is that there is no real distinction between active paternity and active spiration (as both relations constitute the Father and there is no relative opposition.) So he would be signifying begetting under the analysis of point 1, and procession under the analysis of point 2, which is totally orthodox. Likewise another orthodox interpretation is that there is no real distinction between active spiration and passive generation (since there is no relative opposition. So he would be signifying begetting under the analysis of point 2 and procession under the analysis of point 2. Which is totally orthodox as well. But if he said active generation had no real distinction between passive generation - so begetting under analysis 1 and procession under analysis 2, he would be saying something heretical. And if he said passive generation was not really distinct from passive spiration - which is begetting under analysis 2 and active spiration under analysis 2 he would also be heretical. Now if he said it with regarding interpretation 3, with any combination we would have to subdistinguish if he’s talking about either: A) the divine processions qua the formal mode of the principle Or B) the divine processions qua their relations simultaneously considered If he said it with regards to B) then he would be a heretic since the persons are really distinct qua relations. But if he said it with regards A) he would be orthodox since the formal modes of the divine processions (grounded in the two spiritual operations) are virtually distinct qua formal modes. So idk where Xavier said what you claimed, but even if he said it - there is an orthodox interpretation. If you want to learn more watch my videos

@@CatholicDwong I've seen some of your trash and it's not very convincing ans mumk would be more than happy to debate you on that. Also regarding the passive and active begetting at 1:30:00 Xavier said that the property of being begotten and the procession of the holy spirit has no real difference and is the same as eachother so in this debate he faulted on himself and said that basically the son and spirit aren't actually distinct from the father and you don't actually beleive that regardless of whatever escape hatch you give from your lips

@@CatholicDwong Also for the son to have activity in the spirits generation and since you claim that the Son give essence to the spirit you now have 2 members of the trinity who have a se properties but one member being denied any form of a se. So you would then have to say the spirit has a se causality from eternity which makes the filioque absolute nonsense and borderlands sabellian

​@@shiningdiamond5046 Alright, can you tell me which part of my video you disagreed with? I am totally open to being wrong about some aspect of my video, but I would first like you to rehash what my argument was in the part of the video that you disagreed with to show that you properly understood my argument before asserting it was wrong. And if you can restate my argument, and give me a reason why it is wrong, then I am more than open to accepting the criticism and determining if what I said was wrong. Thank you in advance brother.

M’kat gubyyyyeeee gubyyyeeee

@@davids11131113😂🤣😂 What drug is that?

@@anthonyharty1732 as Gary says he’s ’stuck on stupid’