I forgot to mention this in the video but in psalms 51:7 there’s a verse that says “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me” This proves that where sinful from birth
@@okj9060 yes it does. The immaculate conception posits that mary was BORN sinless, this verse directly contradicts that. Roman catholocism is a false religion. Orthodoxy is the Truth.
Finally, someone among the Orthodox who has a sense of unity among all Christians. I am on my way to joining the Roman Catholic church but in its original definition, if you are right with the Lord in your heart, you are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic church.
Orthodox here I will attempt to clear up confusion with my limited knowledge: 1. The Filioque; Yes we do recognise that the nicea-constantinople creed is an updated version of the Nicean creed. But what differs is that the former is prohibited from any additions or subtractions as stated in the 7th canon of the third ecumenical council; (WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.) We believe in a distinction between hypostatic (origin) procession and energetic procession. The Father is sole cause and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him hypostatically as seen in John 15:26 where He is only mentioned proceeding from the Father (hypostatically) but is SENT by the son (energetic procession). 2. Original Sin; God is the author of the human soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Isaiah 42:5, Zechariah 12:1, Hebrews 12:9) sin is an ascpect of our soul. If God is the creator of our souls nature and sin is a part of our nature, then is God the author of sin? Of course not. Ezekial 18:20 ; "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. " We believe we inherit the consequences of sin, but not the guilt of sin. The consequences include death, pain, suffering, temptation, toil.... this we inherit because we are of one flesh with Adam. As for psalm 51:5 there is a wonderful video that explains what King David is refereing to when he says "In sin my mother bore me." by 'Pixels of Light' called "In Sin Did My Mother Conceive Me - Psalms 51:5 - Pixels of Light" link: th-cam.com/video/iLHjiTpnxaA/w-d-xo.html And again I have limited knowledge on these topics so I may have gotten a few things wrong, forgive me if this is the case. May God guide us in truth.
1. Ephesus did not prohibit additions to the creed because, ironically, that canon was referring to the FIRST Nicene Creed, NOT the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. In other words, your reading would invalidate your own position. Clearly, additions are licit as long as they are doctrinally orthodox and implemented by the correct authorities. Further, it is extremely anachronistic to even look at this as there being a "universal creed." Rome did not even recite the creed in her Liturgy until the 11th century (in other words, it *always* included the filioque after it was liturgically added in Rome), and there were already many creeds circulating (see JND Kelly's Early Christian Creeds). The idea of one, unchangeable creed is a direct result of eastern caeseropapism as the Emperor wanted one creed to ensure imperial unity. In the West, Spain, England, France, and Germany had already all adopted the filioque in their local Sunday liturgies before Rome added it to her liturgy, and the Athanasian Creed--which was a Latin document in its original and included the filioque--was already included in the Divine Office (which is also liturgical, meaning it had universal acceptance in the west), was used for catechesis of catechumens, and for episcopal ordinations. The Syriac, Latin, and Greek creeds already differed by the time of Ephesus, so your reading is further confirmed as false. Further, the 8th ecumenical council explicitly allowed creed additions as long as they are orthodox. I recommend Crean's book on the Filioque, Ybarra's, Dwong's filioque video series, and Militant Thomist's video specifically on the Ephesus argument you make here: th-cam.com/video/a-C3D48KShk/w-d-xo.html 2. You reject your own church's teaching on original sin. I do not mean this as a personal insult: your church as a whole has departed from its own teaching and there is widespread confusion on this, so you have been poorly served by your church authorities. I recommend you read the Council of Jerusalem 1672, specifically decree 16 (maybe 18, I am going off of memory) and St. Peter Moglia's Orthodox Catechism (which was universally accepted by the patriarchates). The modern Orthodox Church has abandoned its official historical teaching on this topic; there should be absolutely no debate. I have Moglia's Catechism next to me so I will quote it, in the edition I have this begins on page 207: "Ancestral, or Original, Sin is the transgression of that law of Go which was given to Adam, father of all men, in these words [he quotes Gen 2:17]. This ancestral sin spreads all over human anture; forasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. **Wherefore by one Adam sin has passed to us all.** **And we are conceived and born with this blemish,** as scripture teaches us [he quotes Romans 5:12, just as Catholics do]. This hereditary sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any repentance whatsoever, but only by the grace of God, through the work of redemption [explains it a bit more]. And this is done by the Sacrament of holy Baptism; and whosesoever is not a partaker thereof, such a one remains unabsolved from his sin, and continues in his guilt, and is liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath [this is consistent with US, not your take]: as it is said [he quotes John 3]." As the Orthodox convert to Catholicism and holy Martyr Vladimir Ghika who was brutally slaughtered for not reverting to Orthodoxy by the Satanic Communist regime famously quipped: "I became Catholic so I could be a better Orthodox." The filioque, original sin, permanence of marriage, the immaculate conception, the papacy: these are all holy doctrines the Orthodox ought to accept, and did accept at varying points, throughout history. Only in the Catholic Church are these doctrines still upheld. While the west needs the east for many things--especially in matters of liturgical reverence--the east desperately needs the dogmatic theology of the west for it to live up to its name ORTHODOX! The uniate churches who have already realized this welcome you with open arms if you so choose to investigate these topics yourself. I highly recommend Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Volumes IB (ecclesiology), IIA (trinity, filioque), and IIIA (mariology). Free here (drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JvisnJ4ZQOEd8JnokKg2vFiHOhhM-D0V?usp=sharing). I also recommend Pohle's manal on the trinity (archive.org/details/dogmatictheology02pohluoft), perhaps I would actually start with Pohle. The Catholic dogmatic manual tradition has replied to EVERY objection levied by EVERY opponent of Catholicism, you will be surprised what answers to your questions you will find in these volumes. They will refute objections you had but did not know you had.
Economy of the Trinity does not equal hypostatic procession. Christ was also incarnate from the Holy Spirit. Bravo for being interested in such topics at a young age though.
Kid, I absolutely love your channel. It warms my heart but at the same time I wish I was at your intellectual level at your age. Keep up the good work !!!
The argument against the Nicene Creed's 2nd edition is wrong, as an ecumenical council was called for the 2nd version, not the 3rd, and originally the Catholic Church didn't believe in the Filioque. For the original sin argument, I can understand where you are coming from but Orthodoxy believes we inherent the passion of sin, but not sin itself.
The argument is worse than that. It was condemned to add to the creed at Ephesus, which occurred in AD 431 after the first council of Constantinople in 381 which updated the creed. So when it was condemned to add to the creed they were already using the 2nd creed. So the 2nd creed is not an invalid update, but the 3rd is.
@@someoneelse7351You are wrong. Ephesus used the original Nicene Creed. So don’t ”add to the Creed” obviously means dont introduce a new faith or opposing creed, since people started using the more expanded one later. As an orthodog you need to repent and come into the original true Catholic Church before it is to late.
The Catholic Church has always believed in the Filioque. Orthodogs are very wrong and need to repent. You are also wrong on babies being guiltless. If they were they would go to heaven, yet you dont believe that. Also why do you baptize them for forgiveness of sin and do exorcisms on them?
@@Catholic-Christian No, you are wrong the Filioque was 1st considered as a heresy in 447. Also, babies being guiltless is not an argument I presented; babies have guilt of sin. I am not denying that, but they don't have sin itself. And we do believe babies who die before capability of sin go to heaven, I have no idea where you got that. Another thing is we don't do exorcisms on babies, who told you that? Another thing I want to say is about your profile picture. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher and doctor of the church who denied the belief of the Blessed Virgin Mary being born without original sin, now a doctrine of the Catholic Church, if that is true then they directly contradict each other meaning he is excommunicated, certainly not a doctor of the Church. My final argument is about the nowadays pope, Pope Francis is blessing homosexual marriages, which directly goes against Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28 and many more verses in the Bible. Thank you.
Dude knows what the Filioque is all the while when I was his age I was still learning that I shouldn't stick my toes in my mouth. Even though I'm not a Roman Catholic, I have zero doubts that The Good Lord is gonna do CRAZY stuff through you little bro. God Bless!
The argument against the Nicene Creed's 2nd edition is wrong,as an ecumenical council was called the 2nd version ,not the 3rd and the original Catholic church didn't believe in the Filoque
@@kais.1684 Because the Filioque hardly constitutes an impedimentum dirimens in the path of dogmatic reconciliation. It causes theological problems and essentially makes the Trinity "unbalanced." On the contrary, because that diversity, or (to speak more generally) the diversity of the Three Persons, is presented as something absolute, we refuse to admit a relation of origin which opposes the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, taken as a single principle. If this were admitted, personal diversity in the Trinity in effect would be relativized: Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is one hypostasis, the Holy Spirit only represents the unity of the two in their identical nature. Here the logical impossibility of any opposition between three terms intervenes, and the clarity of this triadological system shows itself to be extremely superficial. On these lines, we cannot reach a mode of distinguishing the three hypostases from each another without confounding them in one way or another with the essence. In fact, the absolute diversity of the Three cannot be based on their relations of opposition without admitting, implicitly or explicitly, the primacy of the essence over the hypostases, by assuming a relative (and therefore secondary) basis for personal diversity, in contrast to natural identity. This formula, while verbally it may seem novel, represents in its doctrinal tenor nothing more than a very plain affirmation of the traditional teaching about the "monarchy of the Father," unique source of the divine hypostases.Very often the Fathers simultaneously employ expressions referring to the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit and to the eternal manifestation of the divine nature in the Holy Spirit, even when defining His personal qualities or distinguishing His person from the other two. Nevertheless, they well distinguished between the two different modes of hypostatic subsistence and of manifestation. In evidence, we can cite this passage from St. Basil: > "From the Father proceeds the Son, through whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Spirit is ever inseparably known, for none can think of the Son without being enlightened by the Spirit. Thus on one hand the Holy Spirit, the source, of all good things distributed to created beings, is linked to the Son, with whom He is inseparably conceived; on the other hand His being is dependent on the Father, from whom He proceeds. Therefore the characteristic mark of His personal quality is to be manifested after the Son and with Him, and to subsist in proceeding from the Father."
As an Orthodox we believe in original sin but not in the way Catholics and Protestant does you must just read Counsil of Carthage (419) Scripture Catholics and Protestant believes that we bare the guilt of Adam and Eve but in orthodoxy we bare the sin of Adam and Eve
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” I’ll see y’a at a True Catholic (EO) parish in a decade
Refutation: 1. filioque was added to the creed, the updated second version was unanimously agreed upon, not thrust into an earlier document as the filioque was. "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised." Council of Chalcedon AD 451. The pope is not an ecumenial council and thus had no right to do this. 2. John, 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me" When Jesus was baptized the holy spirit descends from the father above Matt, 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him." 3. Orthodox also says that we bear the consequences of original sin, just not the guilt of the sin. I hope you reconsider Orthodoxy, but either way I am glad you are a follower of Christ.
1. The spirit is the spirit of the Son because the spirit proceeds economically/temporally from the son, not hypostatically as the Catholics do vainly confess 2. Orthodox believe in original sin just not original guilt. We inherit a proclivity towards sin and mortality from Adam, not his guilt
1. Totally false. You dont know your own Church Fathers. 2. That’s a lie and stupid nonsense. Why do you baptize babies and why do you do an exorcism on them? The stupidity of orthodogsy never ceases to amaze.
@@Catholic-Christian church fathers did not teach the filioque and rebuked anyone who would change the creed. secondly, orthodox baptize for the same reason catholics do, considering catholics dont believe in original guilt either.
@@guineapigclips5205 Then let me embarrass your ignorance. Hilary of Poitiers "Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is *from the Father and the Son, His SOURCES"* (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]). "In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is *from you THROUGH HIM"* (The Trinity., 12:56). Epiphanius of Salamis "The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes *from the Father and the Son"* (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]). “In the same way as no one knows the Father except the Son and no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27), so I dare to say that no one knows the Holy Spirit except the Father and the Son from whom he receives and *from whom He proceeds.”* On the Trinity Ambrose of Milan "Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, *the fount of the Holy Spirit.* For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]). "The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds *from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son"* (ibid., 1:2:120). Gregory of Nyssa ”the other who is *FROM THE RELATIVE and from the First”* Quod non sint tres dii (PG 45, 133 B-C) ”But the Holy Spirit, even as He is said to be from the Father, is also attested to be *FROM THE SON”* 3rd homily on the Lord’s prayer, Migne PG46:1109A-C St Basil ”the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father *through the one Son,* and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.” [on the Holy Spirit, XVIII] St Maximus The Confessor “By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father *through the Son who is begotten”* [PG 90, 672 C] Pope St. Gregory the Great “We can also understand His being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit[.] … The sending of the Spirit is that procession *by which He proceeds from the Father AND THE SON.* Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” Pope St. Leo the Great, “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and *He who PROCEEDED FROM BOTH yet another”* Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284 St Augustine "If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the *Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle"* (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). "From whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also *from the Son"* (ibid., 15:17:29). "Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from Him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit *proceeds also from Him"* (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]). Cyril of Alexandria "Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds *from the Father and Son,* it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). "The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ Himself and is *IN HIM AND FROM HIM"* Commentary on Joel “The Holy Spirit is *BY NATURE FROM THE SON* and is sent by him to the creature, to work the renewal of the Church and to be the term of the Holy Trinity.” Thesaurus “If this is so, then God, *FROM GOD THE SON is the Holy Spirit.”* IBID “As the arm and hand exist naturally from the body and prolong it, and as the finger extends naturally from the hand, so from God the Father, as his arm and hand, the Son naturally arises by generation, God from God, and *FROM THE SON* as from the natural hand of the Father God the Holy Spirit called finger is produced, *FLOWING FORTH NATURALLY.”* IBID St Fulgentius of Ruspe *"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least* that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit *NOT of the Father only, but of Father AND SON TOGETHER"* (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]). *"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least* that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, *proceeds from the Father AND THE SON"* (ibid., 54). St Athanasius “The Spirit has the same nature and *RELATIONSHIP TOWARD ME THE SON, SO AS TO BE GOD OF GOD, AS I HAVE TOWARD THE FATHER SO AS TO BE GOD OF GOD.”* IBID Neccesary for salvation: “In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; *unless they profess JUST AS WE PROFESS* that the Holy Spirit is God *NATURALLY EXISTING FROM GOD THE SON,* as the Son also is naturally God, begotten eternally and existing of God the Father, you are *NOT TO RECEIVE THEM.”* St Athanasius Letter to Serapion “It is *NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION TO CONFESS that the Holy Spirit exists *OF THE ESSENCE OF THE SON, AS EXISTING OF HIM BY NATURE.”* St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus. “You *cut yourself off from the grace of God* when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not *from the Father AND THE SON.”* St Epiphanius of Salamis, On the Trinity You are anathema. Orthodogs do believe in original sin, they just hate Catholicism too much to admit it. We do believe in original guilt. Everyone is born in a state of sin, weakness and blindness. If you reject original sin then tell me orthodog, why does your Church baptize infants and do exorcism on them.
@@thelonelysponge5029 Maybe you need to read up on your theology. The hypostatic procession is an eternal procession from a hypostasis (~subsistence). Temporal procession is the temporary procession via sending. The son sends the spirit temporally in the gospels. Orthodox do not deny this. The son is not a second cause of the spirit (αιτα). Original guilt is the western doctrine that man is guilty for the sins of Adam.
Well I mean us Catholics dont have to hold to the strict Augustinian view of original sin (that which is us being personally guilty of sin from birth) but to the view more in line with the EO in that original sin is a state not a personal sin
Then what is the necessity of the doctrine of the immaculate conception? Orthodox do not need this detailed doctrine because of our belief on ancestral sin
@@powerhouse8310 I don’t think you are the one that understands your own churches opinion: here is a copy and paste of exerts of the catechism of the Catholic Church “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace”, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC 491) “Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (CCC 493) "from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life” (CCC 508) “the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (CCC 966) “her complete adherence to the Father’s will” (CCC 967)” Why did she have to be kept pure from “the stain of original sin” if we believe the same? We don’t have to say that because we don’t believe in your version of original sin
The Roman church is a house of cards. If the papacy wasn't in the early church then Rome is false. Lastly, you have fallen into a equivocation fallacy.
Heya kid! Could we talk about the legitimacy of the Papal supremacy claim? We Orthodoxs believe that the Patriarch of Rome was "First among equals", which is why we refute Papal supremacy, because no Patriarch should rule over other Patriarchs due to the fact that we all are equal.
Bro just got out of pampers and is talking about the filioque 💀 not an insult I am proud of you for thinking of such things as a young man, wisdom is a gift of the holy spirit 👍
The Easterners will argue against your Filioque argument because it’s economic and not hypostatic, however, a better refutation should be John 15:26 + John 16:13-15, whatever The Father has the Son also (except Paternity). Since the Father Spirates and it’s not Paternity. The Son spirates. Also, you should read more books before you justify beliefs.
@@crimsoncatholic9766How many thrones there for all three ??? from the throne it says not from the father and Son in greek both all three are in one throne that is the meaning
The Filioque is considered heretical because it confuses the unique characteristics (hypostatic properties) of the Father, specifically His role as the ultimate cause, with those of the Son. This confusion leads to a theological error resembling Semi-Sabellianism. According to this view, if both the Father and the Son are considered causes of the Holy Spirit's existence (as distinct hypostases), but not the Spirit Himself, then, as Photios argues, there are two distinct principles within the Godhead. Alternatively, if the Father and the Son are seen as one cause, it leads to Semi-Sabellianism, equating the unique and incommunicable properties of the Father and the Son. If this cause (of the Spirit's existence) is identified with the essence rather than with the distinct persons (hypostases), then the Holy Spirit would be seen as a created being (or a creature). This idea parallels the teachings of the Eunomians, who argued that the essence of the Father is the cause of the Son's existence, thereby implying the Son is a creature. Similarly, if the essence of the Father and the Son is posited as the cause of the Spirit's existence, it would imply the Spirit is also a creature. Moreover, if the cause of the Spirit's procession is considered to be a shared energy between the Father and the Son, which the Spirit does not possess, then, according to Orthodox and Pneumatomachian arguments, this would suggest the Spirit is created. They argue that the absence of even one shared energy between the Father and the Son with the Spirit indicates a created nature for the Spirit. In summary, these perspectives lead to theological errors: Semi-Sabellianism by conflating the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son, and Eunomianism or Pneumatomachianism by suggesting that the Holy Spirit could be considered a creature due to the way His existence or procession is understood in relation to the Father and the Son.
I believe it would be beautiful to have a Catholic Church that is as beautiful as an Orthodox Church. But I think us Roman Catholics have beautiful churches too
@@lilgallito1062 Eastern Catholics keep the rite and style of the eastern churches whilst being in full communion with Rome. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
Wow. It took me 17 years of Christianity before I started taking my faith this serious. I am leaning Orthodox still, but this is very admirable. Keep it up.
The catechism of the the church says that we don’t have the guilt of Adam “405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.”
Back when I was Protestant, I got into an argument with an Orthodox man over the Filioque. Seriously, Jesus Himself said He would send the Holy Spirit and He did.
4 days ago, he thanked us for 100 subs. Now, he has nearly tripled it.! Keep it up, and may Our Lord and His mother guide your life to salvation! Viva Christo Rey! ✝️
@@jemperdiller they are not the most persuasive/polemical arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy. But they are the ones most backed up by airtight logic and scriptural/patristic evidence.
Number 1, mad respect for reasarching your faith. Number 2 tho, Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirt does not proceed from the son, but rather he descends from it.
The filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The problem with this is that It assumes that the property of being a cause is shared between persons, so if the Father and the Son share the personal property of being cause, for the Holy Spirit to not be less-than God, He would also have to have this property, which creates the even worse problem of the automatic existence of infinite persons in the Godhead, thus making the filioque a heresy. About scripture, we need to understand that all the verses talking about the Spirit proceeding from the Son don't talk about hypostatic procession, but rather about the Son sending the Spirit from the Father, which ironically is what John 15:26 talks about. So even Orthodox Christians believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of Him sending the Spirit, but certainly not in a hypostatic way. So in summary, Orthodoxy is truth.
let me debunk his points real quick. 1. filioque was added to the creed, the updated second version was unanimously agreed upon, not thrust into an earlier document as the filioque was. "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised." Council of Chalcedon AD 451. The pope is not an ecumenial council and thus had no right to do this. 2. John, 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me" When Jesus was baptized the holy spirit descends from the father above Matt, 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him." 3. Orthodox also says that we bear the consequences of original sin, just not the guilt of the sin.
He took the arguments from Redeemed zoomer when he made this video attacking Eastern Orthodoxy. Jay dyer already refuted that video 😂😂😂 So therefore his arguments are also debunked
Orthodoxy believe we all suffer from the consequences of Adam and Eve's fall, but do not participate in the guilt of it. The Orthodox Church does not believe that we can be guilty of the sins of another person; however, you can still feel the consequences of others sins. When Christ died and was resurrected, he defeated sin and death giving us the opportunity for salvation which allows us to be united with God. That's why we don't think the original sin is hereditary. I am against the filioque. Because •It was added without authority. The Roman church added it without an ecumenical council. •It undermines the status of the Holy Trinity. The Bible clearly states in John that it is from former. Filioque is a heresy and a blasphemy of the holy spirit. St Photios the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory palamas all refuted it. I respect your opinion and if you learn History christ's true church is Orthodox church. God bless you❤️
Fiducia Supplicans does not bless the unions but the person it comes from latin theology of horizontal blessing that do not support an action but seek to aid the struggling have you read the document
@@bradleyperry1735 , which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. Taken from paragraph 5
For revelation 22:1 this very well could be economic and not eternal procession. Let me explain myself, if you read one verse after revelation 22:1 it says, "2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.". So he sees the river, being the Holy Spirit but it's in a created place therefore we can assume revelation 22:1 is economic. Btw Orthodoxy teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son into creation but not the Holy Spirit having his origin in the Son.
We can use the 2nd version of the nicene creed and not the 3rd because the prohibition of new creeds was made in the same council that made the 2nd creed. which is canon 8 or 9 of constantinople I believe. also I dont believe that the most original creed didn't mention the trinity, only that it didn't include a part about the Holy spirit.
You were born into a Catholic family and it's hard to imagine you've actually come to this conclusion through either life experience, introversion or through study at such a young age. Any one who's born into in a religion hasn't reasoned their way into it (but it doesn't mean the view is incorrect) but rather absorbed their views from their family. Either way I enjoyed the video. God bless you kid.
Bro. I love how a child uses revelation and makes relys on his understanding. Not even the greatest fathers dare to explain that book. While Jesus clearly stated in John 15:26 "who proceeds from the Father"
Jesus also said ”He will receive of Me and show it to you” which can only mean by procession since anything else introduces dependancy and inferiority.
Matthew 11: 25 " At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." 😁
"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail" from the Gospel of Matthew? Which Peter is the First Pope?
@@Б.Сэцэр That was talking about Peter specifically. Peter was also bishop of Antioch. Why not have the bishop of Antioch be the greatest bishop? No man is infallible not even Peter. It's a denial of basic Christian teachings.
kiddo, keep studying and doing what you should do. when you grow older, you'll find truth when you realize that theology is not as simple as you make it edit: you gained yoruself a new sub, I'm looking forward to the content that you'll produce
Cain’s actions have nothing to do with original sin. Nobody is born with the guilt of anyone else. We inherited the consequence of Adam’s sin, separation from God. That’s why we needed Christ to become Man and die on the cross, descend into hades, conquer death, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven. He rescued us and opened the gates of heaven to us.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
I mean, even though he is not correct in many aspects, I can feel nothing but joy and gladness for the fact that kids in the internet are discussing the intricacies of Christian theology instead of the usual brainrot present here on youtube. Keep it at young man!
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 25 วันนี้!! "อเล็กซิส vs รีเกียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/suVr9a6BM2g/mqdefault.jpg)
I forgot to mention this in the video but in psalms 51:7 there’s a verse that says “Behold, I was born in guilt,
in sin my mother conceived me” This proves that where sinful from birth
Kid... that verse disproves the immaculate conception. Stay in school, you are too young to be talking about theology.
@@kardzYT it doesn’t disprove
@@okj9060 yes it does. The immaculate conception posits that mary was BORN sinless, this verse directly contradicts that. Roman catholocism is a false religion. Orthodoxy is the Truth.
@@kardzYTuse the same logic on Jesus then
@@kardzYT uhhhh... no it doesn't. that doesn't mean that God couldn't have formed Mary without sin.
Im Orthodox and while i dont see these as good arguments, im glad you are interested in your faith at such a young age, God Bless you
Too young for this, he should take his time and practice both patience and humility.
If Redeemed Zoomer had a kid: edit: nice 60+ likes thanks guys
😂
Nah he would be a mega cringe Calavnist
His child i think would be calvinist
Jay Dyer is heavily breathing while typing paragraphs in the comment section and demanding that this (amazing) kid debate him live.
Ubi Petrus and David Erhan are both malding rn
You spelled his name incorrectly, it's: Gay Liar, not Jay Dyer, got it?!
@@forgingicehole4750 What 💀
I'd actually like to see that happen lol.
@@forgingicehole4750 what
I am orthodox but so cool to see someone so young so interested. May God bless you my brother and friend
What dumb things you say filioque he believes is satanic blasphemy . Read what saint Gregory Palamas said
Finally, someone among the Orthodox who has a sense of unity among all Christians. I am on my way to joining the Roman Catholic church but in its original definition, if you are right with the Lord in your heart, you are part of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic church.
Orthodox here I will attempt to clear up confusion with my limited knowledge:
1. The Filioque; Yes we do recognise that the nicea-constantinople creed is an updated version of the Nicean creed. But what differs is that the former is prohibited from any additions or subtractions as stated in the 7th canon of the third ecumenical council;
(WHEN these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (eteran) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.)
We believe in a distinction between hypostatic (origin) procession and energetic procession. The Father is sole cause and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him hypostatically as seen in John 15:26 where He is only mentioned proceeding from the Father (hypostatically) but is SENT by the son (energetic procession).
2. Original Sin; God is the author of the human soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Isaiah 42:5, Zechariah 12:1, Hebrews 12:9) sin is an ascpect of our soul. If God is the creator of our souls nature and sin is a part of our nature, then is God the author of sin? Of course not. Ezekial 18:20 ;
"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. "
We believe we inherit the consequences of sin, but not the guilt of sin. The consequences include death, pain, suffering, temptation, toil.... this we inherit because we are of one flesh with Adam.
As for psalm 51:5 there is a wonderful video that explains what King David is refereing to when he says "In sin my mother bore me."
by 'Pixels of Light' called "In Sin Did My Mother Conceive Me - Psalms 51:5 - Pixels of Light"
link: th-cam.com/video/iLHjiTpnxaA/w-d-xo.html
And again I have limited knowledge on these topics so I may have gotten a few things wrong, forgive me if this is the case. May God guide us in truth.
This is very well articulated and I hope more people see this. Thanks brother.
Exactly
1. Ephesus did not prohibit additions to the creed because, ironically, that canon was referring to the FIRST Nicene Creed, NOT the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. In other words, your reading would invalidate your own position. Clearly, additions are licit as long as they are doctrinally orthodox and implemented by the correct authorities. Further, it is extremely anachronistic to even look at this as there being a "universal creed." Rome did not even recite the creed in her Liturgy until the 11th century (in other words, it *always* included the filioque after it was liturgically added in Rome), and there were already many creeds circulating (see JND Kelly's Early Christian Creeds). The idea of one, unchangeable creed is a direct result of eastern caeseropapism as the Emperor wanted one creed to ensure imperial unity. In the West, Spain, England, France, and Germany had already all adopted the filioque in their local Sunday liturgies before Rome added it to her liturgy, and the Athanasian Creed--which was a Latin document in its original and included the filioque--was already included in the Divine Office (which is also liturgical, meaning it had universal acceptance in the west), was used for catechesis of catechumens, and for episcopal ordinations. The Syriac, Latin, and Greek creeds already differed by the time of Ephesus, so your reading is further confirmed as false. Further, the 8th ecumenical council explicitly allowed creed additions as long as they are orthodox. I recommend Crean's book on the Filioque, Ybarra's, Dwong's filioque video series, and Militant Thomist's video specifically on the Ephesus argument you make here: th-cam.com/video/a-C3D48KShk/w-d-xo.html
2. You reject your own church's teaching on original sin. I do not mean this as a personal insult: your church as a whole has departed from its own teaching and there is widespread confusion on this, so you have been poorly served by your church authorities. I recommend you read the Council of Jerusalem 1672, specifically decree 16 (maybe 18, I am going off of memory) and St. Peter Moglia's Orthodox Catechism (which was universally accepted by the patriarchates). The modern Orthodox Church has abandoned its official historical teaching on this topic; there should be absolutely no debate. I have Moglia's Catechism next to me so I will quote it, in the edition I have this begins on page 207:
"Ancestral, or Original, Sin is the transgression of that law of Go which was given to Adam, father of all men, in these words [he quotes Gen 2:17].
This ancestral sin spreads all over human anture; forasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. **Wherefore by one Adam sin has passed to us all.**
**And we are conceived and born with this blemish,** as scripture teaches us [he quotes Romans 5:12, just as Catholics do].
This hereditary sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any repentance whatsoever, but only by the grace of God, through the work of redemption [explains it a bit more].
And this is done by the Sacrament of holy Baptism; and whosesoever is not a partaker thereof, such a one remains unabsolved from his sin, and continues in his guilt, and is liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath [this is consistent with US, not your take]: as it is said [he quotes John 3]."
As the Orthodox convert to Catholicism and holy Martyr Vladimir Ghika who was brutally slaughtered for not reverting to Orthodoxy by the Satanic Communist regime famously quipped: "I became Catholic so I could be a better Orthodox." The filioque, original sin, permanence of marriage, the immaculate conception, the papacy: these are all holy doctrines the Orthodox ought to accept, and did accept at varying points, throughout history. Only in the Catholic Church are these doctrines still upheld. While the west needs the east for many things--especially in matters of liturgical reverence--the east desperately needs the dogmatic theology of the west for it to live up to its name ORTHODOX! The uniate churches who have already realized this welcome you with open arms if you so choose to investigate these topics yourself.
I highly recommend Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Volumes IB (ecclesiology), IIA (trinity, filioque), and IIIA (mariology). Free here (drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JvisnJ4ZQOEd8JnokKg2vFiHOhhM-D0V?usp=sharing). I also recommend Pohle's manal on the trinity (archive.org/details/dogmatictheology02pohluoft), perhaps I would actually start with Pohle. The Catholic dogmatic manual tradition has replied to EVERY objection levied by EVERY opponent of Catholicism, you will be surprised what answers to your questions you will find in these volumes. They will refute objections you had but did not know you had.
I belive that we are all born naturally sinful Surah but not born sinners
Economy of the Trinity does not equal hypostatic procession. Christ was also incarnate from the Holy Spirit.
Bravo for being interested in such topics at a young age though.
Kid, I absolutely love your channel. It warms my heart but at the same time I wish I was at your intellectual level at your age. Keep up the good work !!!
The argument against the Nicene Creed's 2nd edition is wrong, as an ecumenical council was called for the 2nd version, not the 3rd, and originally the Catholic Church didn't believe in the Filioque. For the original sin argument, I can understand where you are coming from but Orthodoxy believes we inherent the passion of sin, but not sin itself.
The argument is worse than that. It was condemned to add to the creed at Ephesus, which occurred in AD 431 after the first council of Constantinople in 381 which updated the creed. So when it was condemned to add to the creed they were already using the 2nd creed. So the 2nd creed is not an invalid update, but the 3rd is.
@@someoneelse7351 Exactly what I am saying
@@someoneelse7351You are wrong. Ephesus used the original Nicene Creed. So don’t ”add to the Creed” obviously means dont introduce a new faith or opposing creed, since people started using the more expanded one later. As an orthodog you need to repent and come into the original true Catholic Church before it is to late.
The Catholic Church has always believed in the Filioque. Orthodogs are very wrong and need to repent. You are also wrong on babies being guiltless. If they were they would go to heaven, yet you dont believe that. Also why do you baptize them for forgiveness of sin and do exorcisms on them?
@@Catholic-Christian No, you are wrong the Filioque was 1st considered as a heresy in 447. Also, babies being guiltless is not an argument I presented; babies have guilt of sin. I am not denying that, but they don't have sin itself. And we do believe babies who die before capability of sin go to heaven, I have no idea where you got that. Another thing is we don't do exorcisms on babies, who told you that? Another thing I want to say is about your profile picture. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher and doctor of the church who denied the belief of the Blessed Virgin Mary being born without original sin, now a doctrine of the Catholic Church, if that is true then they directly contradict each other meaning he is excommunicated, certainly not a doctor of the Church. My final argument is about the nowadays pope, Pope Francis is blessing homosexual marriages, which directly goes against Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-28 and many more verses in the Bible. Thank you.
Keep going legend!!!!!
Dude knows what the Filioque is all the while when I was his age I was still learning that I shouldn't stick my toes in my mouth.
Even though I'm not a Roman Catholic, I have zero doubts that The Good Lord is gonna do CRAZY stuff through you little bro. God Bless!
The argument against the Nicene Creed's 2nd edition is wrong,as an ecumenical council was called the 2nd version ,not the 3rd and the original Catholic church didn't believe in the Filoque
u didn’t understand, the orthos use the updated creed from the council of Constantinople, while catholics use an updated version of the updated creed
Wrong. The council that changed the creed was local. It was later elevated to ecumenical status.
@@kais.1684 Because the Filioque hardly constitutes an impedimentum dirimens in the path of dogmatic reconciliation. It causes theological problems and essentially makes the Trinity "unbalanced." On the contrary, because that diversity, or (to speak more generally) the diversity of the Three Persons, is presented as something absolute, we refuse to admit a relation of origin which opposes the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, taken as a single principle. If this were admitted, personal diversity in the Trinity in effect would be relativized: Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is one hypostasis, the Holy Spirit only represents the unity of the two in their identical nature. Here the logical impossibility of any opposition between three terms intervenes, and the clarity of this triadological system shows itself to be extremely superficial. On these lines, we cannot reach a mode of distinguishing the three hypostases from each another without confounding them in one way or another with the essence. In fact, the absolute diversity of the Three cannot be based on their relations of opposition without admitting, implicitly or explicitly, the primacy of the essence over the hypostases, by assuming a relative (and therefore secondary) basis for personal diversity, in contrast to natural identity. This formula, while verbally it may seem novel, represents in its doctrinal tenor nothing more than a very plain affirmation of the traditional teaching about the "monarchy of the Father," unique source of the divine hypostases.Very often the Fathers simultaneously employ expressions referring to the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit and to the eternal manifestation of the divine nature in the Holy Spirit, even when defining His personal qualities or distinguishing His person from the other two. Nevertheless, they well distinguished between the two different modes of hypostatic subsistence and of manifestation. In evidence, we can cite this passage from St. Basil:
> "From the Father proceeds the Son, through whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Spirit is ever inseparably known, for none can think of the Son without being enlightened by the Spirit. Thus on one hand the Holy Spirit, the source, of all good things distributed to created beings, is linked to the Son, with whom He is inseparably conceived; on the other hand His being is dependent on the Father, from whom He proceeds. Therefore the characteristic mark of His personal quality is to be manifested after the Son and with Him, and to subsist in proceeding from the Father."
God Bless this kid for upholding the fullness of the faith
ORTHODOXY COOKED
BEST CATHOLIC TH-camR??
These are old arguments that has been debunked by many Orthodox people
not in the slightest
wow you really seem to care about unity in the churches
Off topic but I do not like that you are pro Nick Fuentes. He is not a good Catholic.
He's the hero we didn't know we needed.
I am Ortodox ☦️✝️❤️, God bless you brother maybe we are different version of Christianaty but! We belive in the same savior Amen!
Bro cooking 🗣️🔥🔥
Bro cooked nothing
As an Orthodox we believe in original sin but not in the way Catholics and Protestant does you must just read Counsil of Carthage (419) Scripture
Catholics and Protestant believes that we bare the guilt of Adam and Eve but in orthodoxy we bare the sin of Adam and Eve
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
I’ll see y’a at a True Catholic (EO) parish in a decade
Glad you're so faithful. Although most of these arguments are weak. Keep finding the truth! but don't be blind and close hearted. God bless ☦🙏
Refutation:
1. filioque was added to the creed, the updated second version was unanimously agreed upon, not thrust into an earlier document as the filioque was. "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised." Council of Chalcedon AD 451. The pope is not an ecumenial council and thus had no right to do this.
2. John, 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me" When Jesus was baptized the holy spirit descends from the father above Matt, 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him."
3. Orthodox also says that we bear the consequences of original sin, just not the guilt of the sin.
I hope you reconsider Orthodoxy, but either way I am glad you are a follower of Christ.
1. The spirit is the spirit of the Son because the spirit proceeds economically/temporally from the son, not hypostatically as the Catholics do vainly confess
2. Orthodox believe in original sin just not original guilt. We inherit a proclivity towards sin and mortality from Adam, not his guilt
1. Totally false. You dont know your own Church Fathers.
2. That’s a lie and stupid nonsense. Why do you baptize babies and why do you do an exorcism on them? The stupidity of orthodogsy never ceases to amaze.
@@Catholic-Christian church fathers did not teach the filioque and rebuked anyone who would change the creed. secondly, orthodox baptize for the same reason catholics do, considering catholics dont believe in original guilt either.
@@guineapigclips5205 Then let me embarrass your ignorance.
Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is *from the Father and the Son, His SOURCES"* (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is *from you THROUGH HIM"* (The Trinity., 12:56).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes *from the Father and the Son"* (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
“In the same way as no one knows the Father except the Son and no one knows the Son except the Father (Matt. 11:27), so I dare to say that no one knows the Holy Spirit except the Father and the Son from whom he receives and *from whom He proceeds.”* On the Trinity
Ambrose of Milan
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, *the fount of the Holy Spirit.* For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds *from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son"* (ibid., 1:2:120).
Gregory of Nyssa
”the other who is *FROM THE RELATIVE and from the First”* Quod non sint tres dii (PG 45, 133 B-C)
”But the Holy Spirit, even as He is said to be from the Father, is also attested to be *FROM THE SON”* 3rd homily on the Lord’s prayer, Migne PG46:1109A-C
St Basil
”the Holy Spirit, and we speak of Him singly, conjoined as He is to the one Father *through the one Son,* and through Himself completing the adorable and blessed Trinity.” [on the Holy Spirit, XVIII]
St Maximus The Confessor
“By nature the Holy Spirit in His being takes substantially His origin from the Father *through the Son who is begotten”* [PG 90, 672 C]
Pope St. Gregory the Great
“We can also understand His being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit[.] … The sending of the Spirit is that procession *by which He proceeds from the Father AND THE SON.* Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten”
Pope St. Leo the Great, “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and *He who PROCEEDED FROM BOTH yet another”* Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284
St Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the *Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle"* (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
"From whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also *from the Son"* (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from Him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit *proceeds also from Him"* (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds *from the Father and Son,* it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
"The Holy Spirit belongs to Christ Himself and is *IN HIM AND FROM HIM"* Commentary on Joel
“The Holy Spirit is *BY NATURE FROM THE SON* and is sent by him to the creature, to work the renewal of the Church and to be the term of the Holy Trinity.” Thesaurus
“If this is so, then God, *FROM GOD THE SON is the Holy Spirit.”* IBID
“As the arm and hand exist naturally from the body and prolong it, and as the finger extends naturally from the hand, so from God the Father, as his arm and hand, the Son naturally arises by generation, God from God, and *FROM THE SON* as from the natural hand of the Father God the Holy Spirit called finger is produced, *FLOWING FORTH NATURALLY.”* IBID
St Fulgentius of Ruspe
*"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least* that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit *NOT of the Father only, but of Father AND SON TOGETHER"* (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).
*"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least* that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, *proceeds from the Father AND THE SON"* (ibid., 54).
St Athanasius “The Spirit has the same nature and *RELATIONSHIP TOWARD ME THE SON, SO AS TO BE GOD OF GOD, AS I HAVE TOWARD THE FATHER SO AS TO BE GOD OF GOD.”* IBID
Neccesary for salvation:
“In accord with the command of the Apostle (Tit. 3:10): After a first and second correction avoid a heretic, even those you might see flying through the air with Elijah or walking dryshod on the water like Peter and Moses; *unless they profess JUST AS WE PROFESS* that the Holy Spirit is God *NATURALLY EXISTING FROM GOD THE SON,* as the Son also is naturally God, begotten eternally and existing of God the Father, you are *NOT TO RECEIVE THEM.”* St Athanasius Letter to Serapion
“It is *NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION TO CONFESS that the Holy Spirit exists *OF THE ESSENCE OF THE SON, AS EXISTING OF HIM BY NATURE.”* St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus.
“You *cut yourself off from the grace of God* when you do not admit the Son to be from the Father or say that the Holy Spirit is not *from the Father AND THE SON.”* St Epiphanius of Salamis, On the Trinity
You are anathema.
Orthodogs do believe in original sin, they just hate Catholicism too much to admit it. We do believe in original guilt. Everyone is born in a state of sin, weakness and blindness. If you reject original sin then tell me orthodog, why does your Church baptize infants and do exorcism on them.
1. Doesn’t make sense. Bible is clear.
2. What’s original guilt?
@@thelonelysponge5029 Maybe you need to read up on your theology.
The hypostatic procession is an eternal procession from a hypostasis (~subsistence). Temporal procession is the temporary procession via sending. The son sends the spirit temporally in the gospels. Orthodox do not deny this. The son is not a second cause of the spirit (αιτα).
Original guilt is the western doctrine that man is guilty for the sins of Adam.
The kids are alright
Well I mean us Catholics dont have to hold to the strict Augustinian view of original sin (that which is us being personally guilty of sin from birth) but to the view more in line with the EO in that original sin is a state not a personal sin
Then what is the necessity of the doctrine of the immaculate conception? Orthodox do not need this detailed doctrine because of our belief on ancestral sin
@@___-_____-The more I see you Orthodux talk about the IC the more I realize ya’ll don’t even know what the IC is.
@@powerhouse8310 Could Mary have chosen to sin or not? I mean did she have the ability to do so?
@@___-_____- Yes she could have chosen to just as anyone could.
@@powerhouse8310 I don’t think you are the one that understands your own churches opinion: here is a copy and paste of exerts of the catechism of the Catholic Church
“Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace”, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: ‘The Most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (CCC 491)
“Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (CCC 493)
"from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life” (CCC 508)
“the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (CCC 966)
“her complete adherence to the Father’s will” (CCC 967)”
Why did she have to be kept pure from “the stain of original sin” if we believe the same? We don’t have to say that because we don’t believe in your version of original sin
Good job, don’t get discouraged or worry over losing subs, we can disagree respectfully with one another. Keep making content it’s good to see.
The Roman church is a house of cards. If the papacy wasn't in the early church then Rome is false. Lastly, you have fallen into a equivocation fallacy.
@@Link25 Do you even know what the word fallacy means?
@@Link25 God bless
Heya kid! Could we talk about the legitimacy of the Papal supremacy claim? We Orthodoxs believe that the Patriarch of Rome was "First among equals", which is why we refute Papal supremacy, because no Patriarch should rule over other Patriarchs due to the fact that we all are equal.
Bro just got out of pampers and is talking about the filioque 💀 not an insult I am proud of you for thinking of such things as a young man, wisdom is a gift of the holy spirit 👍
The Easterners will argue against your Filioque argument because it’s economic and not hypostatic, however, a better refutation should be John 15:26 + John 16:13-15, whatever The Father has the Son also (except Paternity). Since the Father Spirates and it’s not Paternity. The Son spirates. Also, you should read more books before you justify beliefs.
Rev. 22:1 isn’t economic. They can say whatever they want, but that won’t make it true. This kid knows his stuff.
@@crimsoncatholic9766the kid watched redeemed zoomer he needs to read
@@crimsoncatholic9766😢 can you read the greek text for rev22.1???
@@crimsoncatholic9766How many thrones there for all three ??? from the throne it says not from the father and Son in greek both all three are in one throne that is the meaning
The Filioque is considered heretical because it confuses the unique characteristics (hypostatic properties) of the Father, specifically His role as the ultimate cause, with those of the Son. This confusion leads to a theological error resembling Semi-Sabellianism. According to this view, if both the Father and the Son are considered causes of the Holy Spirit's existence (as distinct hypostases), but not the Spirit Himself, then, as Photios argues, there are two distinct principles within the Godhead. Alternatively, if the Father and the Son are seen as one cause, it leads to Semi-Sabellianism, equating the unique and incommunicable properties of the Father and the Son. If this cause (of the Spirit's existence) is identified with the essence rather than with the distinct persons (hypostases), then the Holy Spirit would be seen as a created being (or a creature). This idea parallels the teachings of the Eunomians, who argued that the essence of the Father is the cause of the Son's existence, thereby implying the Son is a creature. Similarly, if the essence of the Father and the Son is posited as the cause of the Spirit's existence, it would imply the Spirit is also a creature. Moreover, if the cause of the Spirit's procession is considered to be a shared energy between the Father and the Son, which the Spirit does not possess, then, according to Orthodox and Pneumatomachian arguments, this would suggest the Spirit is created. They argue that the absence of even one shared energy between the Father and the Son with the Spirit indicates a created nature for the Spirit. In summary, these perspectives lead to theological errors: Semi-Sabellianism by conflating the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father and the Son, and Eunomianism or Pneumatomachianism by suggesting that the Holy Spirit could be considered a creature due to the way His existence or procession is understood in relation to the Father and the Son.
I lean more towards Orthodoxy, but you are doing well, you are a well learned kid. May you continue to grow in the faith.
Nice video! What's your opinion on Byzantine Rite Catholicism? (churches that are aesthetically orthodox and theologically catholic)
I believe it would be beautiful to have a Catholic Church that is as beautiful as an Orthodox Church. But I think us Roman Catholics have beautiful churches too
@@lilgallito1062 Eastern Catholics keep the rite and style of the eastern churches whilst being in full communion with Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
We get baptized to enter the AMAZING Orthodox Church
Not the Catholic
The Filoque was first considered a heresy in the year 447
All good, you have plenty of time to keep learning and to explore these subjects in greater depth. Took me a long time before I settled on Orthodoxy.
Time for the Jay Dyer debate, I’ve seen enough.
Wow. It took me 17 years of Christianity before I started taking my faith this serious. I am leaning Orthodox still, but this is very admirable. Keep it up.
I’d say EO and Catholic view on original sin is virtually the same actually. But you’re going down the right road kid 👍
The catechism of the the church says that we don’t have the guilt of Adam “405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called
concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.”
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
I love the Filioque ❤
Back when I was Protestant, I got into an argument with an Orthodox man over the Filioque. Seriously, Jesus Himself said He would send the Holy Spirit and He did.
peace be with you
4 days ago, he thanked us for 100 subs. Now, he has nearly tripled it.! Keep it up, and may Our Lord and His mother guide your life to salvation! Viva Christo Rey! ✝️
Unironically, the two best arguments. No Original Sin and No Filioque???? Simple as that
they are not good arguments, but this kid is adorable, smart, and has discipline to know his faith. commendable.
@@jemperdillerThey are good arguments. Anything that proves orthodogsy false is good enough.
@@jemperdiller they are not the most persuasive/polemical arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy. But they are the ones most backed up by airtight logic and scriptural/patristic evidence.
@@Catholic-Christian ok papist
John 15:26
Number 1, mad respect for reasarching your faith.
Number 2 tho, Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirt does not proceed from the son, but rather he descends from it.
Bros like 20 years ahead on the theology learning .... KEEP COOKING LIL GALLITO
Keep up the good work! I enjoy these videos
yo bro this is a w video and im also catholic so nice
No reason to fight about the belief in our Father, I hope the rest of the people in the comments keep this in mind. Amen brother!
The filioque states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The problem with this is that It assumes that the property of being a cause is shared between persons, so if the Father and the Son share the personal property of being cause, for the Holy Spirit to not be less-than God, He would also have to have this property, which creates the even worse problem of the automatic existence of infinite persons in the Godhead, thus making the filioque a heresy. About scripture, we need to understand that all the verses talking about the Spirit proceeding from the Son don't talk about hypostatic procession, but rather about the Son sending the Spirit from the Father, which ironically is what John 15:26 talks about. So even Orthodox Christians believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense of Him sending the Spirit, but certainly not in a hypostatic way. So in summary, Orthodoxy is truth.
Keep up the good work bro! God bless you 🎉
This is fire lil bro, keep it up
To all the orthos: how is a kid smarter than you?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
let me debunk his points real quick.
1. filioque was added to the creed, the updated second version was unanimously agreed upon, not thrust into an earlier document as the filioque was. "Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised." Council of Chalcedon AD 451. The pope is not an ecumenial council and thus had no right to do this.
2. John, 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me" When Jesus was baptized the holy spirit descends from the father above Matt, 3:16 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him."
3. Orthodox also says that we bear the consequences of original sin, just not the guilt of the sin.
He took the arguments from Redeemed zoomer when he made this video attacking Eastern Orthodoxy. Jay dyer already refuted that video 😂😂😂 So therefore his arguments are also debunked
@@OrthodoxKatana *Whispers Saint Maximus the Confessor was a proud supporter of the Papacy*
@@Б.Сэцэр ??? What are you even trying to say 😂 Ur trying to go off topic now?? 🤣💀
When you're an Orthodox apologist, but your opponent is LGG: Cooked
Roman Catholic Church is the true Church
Where is the supremacy of the bishop of Rome in the early Church?
The issue about the addition of the filioque is that the council of Ephesus says you cant change the Nicene-Constantinople creed again.
God bless brother
Orthodoxy believe we all suffer from the consequences of Adam and Eve's fall, but do not participate in the guilt of it. The Orthodox Church does not believe that we can be guilty of the sins of another person; however, you can still feel the consequences of others sins. When Christ died and was resurrected, he defeated sin and death giving us the opportunity for salvation which allows us to be united with God. That's why we don't think the original sin is hereditary. I am against the filioque. Because •It was added without authority. The Roman church added it without an ecumenical council. •It undermines the status of the Holy Trinity. The Bible clearly states in John that it is from former. Filioque is a heresy and a blasphemy of the holy spirit. St Photios the Great, Mark of Ephesus, and Gregory palamas all refuted it. I respect your opinion and if you learn History christ's true church is Orthodox church. God bless you❤️
Pope seems to be cool with blessing gay civil unions. Blessing a SIN.....but go on lil guy
Fiducia Supplicans does not bless the unions but the person it comes from latin theology of horizontal blessing that do not support an action but seek to aid the struggling have you read the document
@@nyxhighlander9894The blessing is for the couple. Explicitly.
@@bradleyperry1735 , which states that the Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex. Taken from paragraph 5
@@nyxhighlander9894 Doesn’t bless the union, but blesses the couple. Distinction without difference. We’ll see where we are in a decade.
@@bradleyperry1735what does the word "couple" mean? Literally.
Good job
bro nah this is so cute
As an Orthodox, I disagree, but I respect you, God bless man!
Unapologetic catholic! Keep the faith young one!
For revelation 22:1 this very well could be economic and not eternal procession. Let me explain myself, if you read one verse after revelation 22:1 it says, "2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.". So he sees the river, being the Holy Spirit but it's in a created place therefore we can assume revelation 22:1 is economic. Btw Orthodoxy teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son into creation but not the Holy Spirit having his origin in the Son.
We can use the 2nd version of the nicene creed and not the 3rd because the prohibition of new creeds was made in the same council that made the 2nd creed. which is canon 8 or 9 of constantinople I believe.
also I dont believe that the most original creed didn't mention the trinity, only that it didn't include a part about the Holy spirit.
good job little bro
Oriental Orthodoxy next?
BRO'S COOKING REALL HARD
this kid is honestly based
Dont let kyle see this bro
You were born into a Catholic family and it's hard to imagine you've actually come to this conclusion through either life experience, introversion or through study at such a young age.
Any one who's born into in a religion hasn't reasoned their way into it (but it doesn't mean the view is incorrect) but rather absorbed their views from their family. Either way I enjoyed the video. God bless you kid.
So true king KEK
Chat is this real ????
If Trent Horn had a kid 😂
Change the "games" in your channel name to something like "theology" or "apologetics" or something
The reason why I have games in my name is because I did gaming for most of my channel history
Bro. I love how a child uses revelation and makes relys on his understanding. Not even the greatest fathers dare to explain that book. While Jesus clearly stated in John 15:26 "who proceeds from the Father"
Jesus also said ”He will receive of Me and show it to you” which can only mean by procession since anything else introduces dependancy and inferiority.
Matthew 11: 25 " At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." 😁
You also believe the pope is infallible 😂 and the head of the church. Nowhere in the bible or the holy tradition is this mentioned
Let's see how long you last. What's your denomination?
"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail" from the Gospel of Matthew? Which Peter is the First Pope?
@@Б.Сэцэр That was talking about Peter specifically. Peter was also bishop of Antioch. Why not have the bishop of Antioch be the greatest bishop? No man is infallible not even Peter. It's a denial of basic Christian teachings.
@@waseemhermiz7565 Orthodoxy
@@scottishlion9428Peter was infallible. ”I have prayed for you that your faith fails NOT”. Peter died at Rome, not Antioch.
kiddo, keep studying and doing what you should do.
when you grow older, you'll find truth when you realize that theology is not as simple as you make it
edit: you gained yoruself a new sub, I'm looking forward to the content that you'll produce
Gen Alpha isn't going to make it 💀
Congrats lil bro
King
I take my hat off to you.
Buddy. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.EXPLAIN THIS
at what point are you guys just worshipping the denomination instead of christ
redeemed alpha
"World war 3 in my comment section" 🤣
Does your parents know you're on here?
Where did you got inspiration from
Redeemed Zoomer
Based chad
Cain’s actions have nothing to do with original sin.
Nobody is born with the guilt of anyone else. We inherited the consequence of Adam’s sin, separation from God. That’s why we needed Christ to become Man and die on the cross, descend into hades, conquer death, rise from the dead, and ascend into heaven. He rescued us and opened the gates of heaven to us.
Based
Post more vids like this
Dude go be a kid, enjoy your childhood fr not getting caught up in this nonsense
Cool
CUTEEEE
Already better than anything Orthodox Kyle has ever done.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
W
I mean, even though he is not correct in many aspects, I can feel nothing but joy and gladness for the fact that kids in the internet are discussing the intricacies of Christian theology instead of the usual brainrot present here on youtube. Keep it at young man!
Great video! I hope u enter heaven! (oh wait purgatory mb mb enjoy dud)!
Zoomers winning