ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ก.ค. 2024
- 0:00 Intro
0:55 Council of Blachernae
3:03 Summary of the Argument
3:56 Athanasian Creed Introduction
5:12 Substance of Athanasian Creed
6:32 Athanasian Creed proving the Filioque
11:25 Florentine Teaching and the Athanasian Creed
12:07 Objection: Eternal Manifestation
13:37 Why the Athanasian Creed is devastating for EO position
15:09 St. Caesarius of Arles
17:05 St. Venantius Fortunatus
18:52 Fourth Council of Toledo 663 and St. Isidore of Seville
20:26 Council of Autun 670 and St. Leodegar
21:19 Clerics and Athanasian Creed
22:05 Athanasian Creed and Filioque Argumentation
22:27 Athanasian Creed and Divine Office
23:03 St. Hincmar
23:35 St. Ansgar
24:35 St. Abbo of Fleury
26:00 Ancient Testimonies to Athanasian Creed
26:13 Objection: Greek Version of the Creed lacks the Filioque
26:35 Reply to objection
31:53 Catechism of Peter Mogila uses corrupt Athanasian Creed
33:34 Summary of the Athanasian Creed Argument
34:03 St. Gregory of Tours
34:57 St. Avitus of Vienne
35:29 St. Ildephonsus of Toledo
36:06 St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
36:42 St. Eucherius of Lyon
37:24 St. Ephrem the Syrian
37:54 St. Leo the Great
39:41 Local Council of Hatfield 680, St. Theodore of Tarsus, Venerable Bede, Pope St. Agatho
41:57 St. Faustus of Riez
42:33 St. Paulinus of Nola
43:02 St. Boethius
44:34 Pope St. Gregory the Great
45:23 St. Isidore of Seville (again)
46:21 St. Prosper of Aquitaine
47:23 St. Augustine
50:18 St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius
51:37 In Conclusion
52:10 St. Maximus the Confessor
53:14 Become Catholic
Correction: I used the term "interpretation" besides "interpolation" multiple times.
I also accidentally reference page 76 when I meant 36 at 16min 26 sec .
The editing isn't that good because I did this on my laptop, I am waiting to get my PC shipped back.
I remade this video for it to be more accurate about the Catholic Church's view of Eastern Orthodoxy - เกม
0:00 Intro
0:55 Council of Blachernae
3:03 Summary of the Argument
3:56 Athanasian Creed Introduction
5:12 Substance of Athanasian Creed
6:32 Athanasian Creed proving the Filioque
11:25 Florentine Teaching and the Athanasian Creed
12:07 Objection: Eternal Manifestation
13:37 Why the Athanasian Creed is devastating for EO position
15:09 St. Caesarius of Arles
17:05 St. Venantius Fortunatus
18:52 Fourth Council of Toledo 663 and St. Isidore of Seville
20:26 Council of Autun 670 and St. Leodegar
21:19 Clerics and Athanasian Creed
22:05 Athanasian Creed and Filioque Argumentation
22:27 Athanasian Creed and Divine Office
23:03 St. Hincmar
23:35 St. Ansgar
24:35 St. Abbo of Fleury
26:00 Ancient Testimonies to Athanasian Creed
26:13 Objection: Greek Version of the Creed lacks the Filioque
26:35 Reply to objection
31:53 Catechism of Peter Mogila uses corrupt Athanasian Creed
33:34 Summary of the Athanasian Creed Argument
34:03 St. Gregory of Tours
34:57 St. Avitus of Vienne
35:29 St. Ildephonsus of Toledo
36:06 St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
36:42 St. Eucherius of Lyon
37:24 St. Ephrem the Syrian
37:54 St. Leo the Great
39:41 Local Council of Hatfield 680, St. Theodore of Tarsus, Venerable Bede, Pope St. Agatho
41:57 St. Faustus of Riez
42:33 St. Paulinus of Nola
43:02 St. Boethius
44:34 Pope St. Gregory the Great
45:23 St. Isidore of Seville (again)
46:21 St. Prosper of Aquitaine
47:23 St. Augustine
50:18 St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Athanasius
51:37 In Conclusion
52:10 St. Maximus the Confessor
53:14 Become Catholic
Correction: I used the term "interpretation" besides "interpolation" multiple times.
I also accidentally reference page 76 when I meant 36 .
The editing isn't that good because I did this on my laptop, I am waiting to get my PC shipped back.
I remade this video for it to be more accurate about the Catholic Church's view of Eastern Orthodoxy
I was very confused about Catholicism as an Eastern Orthodox and now I will convert to Catholicism after seeing this
May God bless you through the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary
What convinced you specifically?
@@gethelp6271 The Papacy and the denial of the Filioque which is taught in the Bible and was in the early Church among many father’s and their writings. There is more of course but these are the most important. Another example is that I find Aquinas Summa to be very strong in supporting Catholicism and Christianity in general. God bless!
Have you checked out your local Catholic parish?
Amen!
I was an Eastern Orthodox catechumen who struggled with a lot of these patristic texts showing the papacy and the filioque. And when seeing the amount of mental gymnastics Eastern Orthodox apologists do to get around the clear reading of the patristic texts it reminded me of unitarians trying to wiggle themselves out of the clear readings that shows the deity of Christ. This was one of major reasons that got me to put Orthodoxy aside and become Catholic. Great video btw! 🙏
Awesome that you came to the Truth. God bless you brother. Always great seeing a comment from you
Can be really disheartening to see them take a text which clearly asserts the Catholic position, and then provide "context" for why it doesn't mean exactly what it says. God Bless you
@@lukebartels9689 it’s difficult when the Catholic Church admits that those same text that support people infallibility were indeed forgeries. I really know how you make sense of that. Regardless, all glory to God.
Glory to God indeed. I was really talking about the Filioque since its clearly taught by the Western Fathers. Yet many either say that all were heretics or that the Roman Church simply doesn't properly understand what the Fathers taught - which is nonsense. With papal infallibility you still have to deal with Scripture, Ecumenical councils, and the Fathers (such as St. Maximus the Confessor) all teaching it. No forgeries are required to make the Catholic case at all. There's ample positive evidence which Catholics and Orthodox share in common. It simply just needs to be thoroughly looked into honestly. God Bless@@xxFairestxx
If no forgeries are required to make the catholic case, then why do they exist in the first place? And why are there so many of them. Why would you NEED to make so many forgeries proving something everyone already knows is the case.
Thanks for such a great video!
I was struggling with Catholicism and was looking to move towards Orthodoxy.
I grew up a Catholic and went to Catholic school in Europe.
This clarified a lot and confirmed my intuition to be devoted to Catholicism!
Great to hear!
feels great to have some fellow ex-atheist catholic like me preaching the truth
The Christians under the geographically and demographically vastly larger Roman Patriarchate were verifiably professing the Filioque for five (5) centuries before the anti-Patriarch Photios used it as an excuse for disobedience to Rome in his politically motivated "Mystagogia" in 869 A.D.. That's five (5) centuries of commemorating and professing obedience to a See which allowed "heresy" (according to the schismatic and heretical "Orthodox" Churches). Photios referred to the Filioque as a "blasphemy" which means he condemns innumerable Church Fathers. I did my Honours Thesis on this matter 40 years ago. I wanted to resolve the matter for myself. The Catholics are right and since then, I have never had occasion to doubt it.
Filioque is not in the Nicea-Constantinople Creed. It contradicts scripture. It "demotes" the Holy Spirit. How has Rome got this right?
@@physiocrat7143 There is an hierarchy within the Holy Trinity. The Filioque in no way "demotes" the Holy Spirit anymore than when Jesus says "The Father is greater than I" "demotes" the Son.
@@timothyjordan5731
"Filioque" makes the Holy Sprit Number Three. But He does not take it lying down and so we get pentecostalism and the charismatic movement. We do not get them in the Orthodox because the Orthodox Church is Charismatic and Pentecostal.
@@physiocrat7143 Yes. The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. I have no use for charismania.
The Filioque controversy is over. It was resolved at Florence once and for all.. It is sinful to continue to reject it and those who do, are not inspired by the same Holy Spirit but by the evil spirit.
Thank you for this defense of the Faith, dwong. Exactly what I was looking for! I will pray for you, brother.
Happy to see these videos being posted again. God bless
Dude this is sick! I hope to see more content from you in the near future!
Thank you!
Great Video!
Very well made video, thanks for sharing
You're welcome :)
I hated the catholic church with passion. but i care more about the truth than beein right. so i embraced the church with full heart. God bless you for your wonderful work.
Great video
Yay, he's back with the good material!
Excellent work!
cant wait to listen
Another SOLID video.
Glad to see you back, brother.
Keep your content up, stay charitable and God bless you, you’re making an amazing job.
Have you noticed that heretics and schismatics really like to add the word "alone" and "only" to Sacred Scripture where it's not there?
The sound like Muslim, who say the father alone and only is the ture God
Thank you for your videos. My wife and I were Catholic, converted to Orthodoxy in search of the real “tradition”, and within the last month due to a series of events, have finally come back to Rome after about 5 years in Orthodoxy. It feels incredible to be out from under that yoke and the many problematic things happening in Orthodoxy. Your videos are helping us both solidify our decision and help defend the True Church! God bless you, brother, and may He continue to bless your work 🕊️ ✝️
God bless you brother. It is a blessing to have you back home in the Catholic Church. If you ever need help with something about the Filioque, feel free to reach out to @CatholicDwong on Twitter or Dwong23 on Discord.
Thanks for reposting this video 🙏🏻
This is phenomenal history and argumentation.
Thank you!
Here's a link to the PDF of the PowerPoint used in the video
drive.google.com/file/d/1WZ_w6nlmXhNmY7IZYCN5Lx6IWfDwP3VO/view?usp=sharing
For me it says that the file no longer exists, so I cannot open :(
thank you so much for this video.. God bless you.
❤️
Dwong these are great videos and very informative.
Thank you Halley! Much appreciated
Share this video on Discord and to your Orthodox friends!
God bless you.
Words can't describe how much I love this channel
Your videos are very well made and clear! Perfect for debunking orthodox claims etc. Thank you!
Thank you for your refutations, refutation of eastern “Orthodoxy” is so hard to find. I almost fell for there lies. Thank you 🙏
You’re welcome, thank the Blessed Virgin Mary instead!
👍👍👍
Very good video. But please, can you put back your old videos on the Orthodox (the one on the Filioque according to the Church Fathers, the Filioque in general, the "argument 4" and Revelation 22) ?
He will put back but you have to wait
Another Common Rome W
God bless you and your family dwong, you helped me get out of the Eastern Orthodox church 🙏🙏🙏
I’ve studied a lot on Eastern Orthodox claims (I mean A LOT). Not even close to the best of you guys on this area (like you, Erick Ybarra, Michael Lofton, William Albrecht, etc) but I can humbly say I’ve done my homework. And I’ve studied enough even on the history of the Roman Empire of the East (= Byzantine Empire), besides some Greek post-schism theology and Greek patristics. So I tend to affirm shallowness with bits of the usual anti-Catholicism to be found on the Anglophone Internet, plus a sort of political reactionarism, that’s the recipe favoring EO position to get a lot of traction online (mostly among very immature male “enragé” adults). The pursuit of truth won’t lead that way though. I’ve been personally attacked so many times by those mobs online - here on TH-cam, not on Reddit or elsewhere - that it actually made me go deep enough to challenge whomever comes with stones from those paths, and I always did - at least I’m sure that’s what was in my heart - as St Peter says about being ready to give the reasons vindicated in our hope, knowing to explain our faith with solidity. With that being said, the more one studies EO claims, the more one gets convinced of the absolute trueness of the Catholic faith. “And you will know truth, and truth will set you free” (John 8, 32). It’s invariable, I should honestly say.
Thanks for your work, Dwong.
Christ the Redeemer, have mercy on us! From 🇧🇷 Brazil.
Thank you! But I would not put my name up there with Erick Ybarra, Michael Lofton, and William Albrecht. All are much more qualified and well-studied than I.
Caramba, cara. Eu estou em conversão ao cristianismo e a dúvida entre catolicismo romano e ortodoxo é o que mais me prejudica entre então. Por enquanto estou lendo o catecismo da Igreja Católica. Teria alguma recomendação do que fazer?
@@entusiasta7270 Rezar o Terço e ir à Adoração Eucarística
@@entusiasta7270
_"Rome and the Eastern Churches",_ by Aidan Nichols (OP);
_”Church History”,_ by John Laux (MA);
_”The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451”,_ by Adrian Fortescue;
_”One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic”,_ by Kenneth Whitehead;
_”The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church”,_ by James Likoudis;
_”A Manual of the History of Dogmas”,_ by Bernard Otten (SJ).
For a more complete study of Church history:
Daniel-Rops _”Histoire de l’Église du Christ”_ (7 volumes) - ‘The History of the Church of Christ’, written by a secular academic awarded by the “Académie française”, who was born a Catholic, became agnostic in the 1920s during his academic career and converted back to the Catholic faith in the 1930s as an intellectual and historian.
Fr. Alfredo Saenz (SJ) _”La nave de Pedro y las tempestades de la historia"_ (12 volumes) - ‘Peter’s barque and the storms of the history’.
Those are great sources, my friend.
Deus te abençoe, irmão!!!
If you can't understand EO, don't think that everyone is like you. The more I study EO claims, the more sense they make to me.
Thanks for great work and all references! Do another one about Eastern Orthodox Church rejecting the concept of immaculate conception please
"Declaring as dogma the immaculate conception of the Panagia, they [Roman Catholics] do not understand that with this they separate her from the human race, a fact which has soteriological consequences for humanity: if the Virgin possessed a different nature, then the Lord taking on human nature from her divinized some other nature and not the nature common to all men."- Elder George of Grigoriou ‘Catholicism - In Light of Orthodoxy'
@@MaximusOrthodox thanks for your contribution! what do you think about points made in this video on filioque? please share your thoughts
@@rossmanmagnus I have posted a comment responding to the video representing Orthodoxy.
Amazing video, I hope that the information you presented is true and reliable, because I am putting my faith on it.
Anyways, do you think you could make more videos like this on more Catholic X Orthodox disputes?
Yes it’s reliable you can check the sources I listed in the PowerPoint slides. I’m currently writing a book on the Filioque
@@dwong9289 Is there like a way I could find this information online? + how do you find good books on such topics?
Just wondering as I am enquiring into the catholic faith right now, but how would you respond to the objection of catholics making things up like Mary's assumption later on etc. Thank you for the video btw
You are welcome. I would reject the idea that it was made up later. I think there are good typological arguments for the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption in the Bible. Mary as Ark of the New Covenant was assumed into heaven just like the Ark of the Old Covenant.
Here is a good short video by DefenseOfSanity on Marian Dogmas th-cam.com/video/_sXZuThUlY8/w-d-xo.html
Here is a long in depth video on Marian Doctrines and Protestant Objections refuted th-cam.com/users/live0wzjAEHyizk?feature=share
The teaching of the assumption of Mary predates the nicean creed.
It wasn't dogmatically defined until relatively recently, because the church has always taught that silence is a virtue and therefore she ought only speak on what is necessary.
In recent centuries, speaking on Mary became necessary. It had not prevented so since the council of Ephesus
Thank you brother, learning how to explained the trinity the catholic way has been a wonderful blessing 🙏🙏🙏
Please re-upload your first video demonstrating the Fathers believed the Filioque. Thank you.
I have a book entitled "The Church Teaches". It is a collection of Credal statements and doctrinal pronouncements. It contains the Athanasian Creed.
nice!
There are few doctrines that are more easily verified by Sacred Scripture than the Filioque.
Can you make a video on the council of Florence?
Dziękuję
You’re welcome!
I'm perplexed as to why you took down your first video on the Filioque and the Church Fathers? I recommended it, but it's gone. I understood why you took down the other one. No discussion of Hilary of Poitiers?
He used language condemned by Vatican II so his confessor advised he take them down. Check his community post.
@@lollloloolool4172 I read his community post. Hence, why I said, "I understood why you took down the other one." What language in particular did he use in the first video from months and months ago? I don't recollect any problematic language. There are also some solid points made in that video (addressing Truglia, etc.) that are not covered in this video. He should revise the first video if need be and re-post it. I found that a lot of people found it edifying.
@@HenryBonesJr I plan on updating the old videos and reuploading them, it will take some time though, since editing videos - especially 2 hour long videos, takes a lot of time.
@ZmayevOrder try engaging the arguments
What language was used? I wish to know what was said.
To say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father at all and in any capacity is to implicitly say that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son on the same level (though not with the same priority ofc), because there is no paternity without filiation. Unless, of course, one were to suppose that the Father had some secret divinity, or had divinity prior to His Fatherhood -- that He was once not Father... oh what heresy did the filioque crush again? Hmmm...
Have you done interviews/discussions with John Collorafi? If yes, then where might I find those here on your channel? Thank you and Godspeed.
No I haven't. but John is great. He has some videos on Craig Truglia's channel as well as a debate with Ubi
@@dwong9289- John is my co-host on Fatima Friday when I do my talk radio show. If you want to interview him, let me know and I'll put you in touch with him.
Can you talk about miaphythism and The Council of Chalcedon? I have heard that Coptic Catholics can use the Miaphysite formula. Then say whether or not this was condemned by Chalcedon and whether it is a usable formula.
I am not well versed on Christology, sorry. You should ask this question on the Papacy Hub discord server
Constantinople II allowed for the use of the formula "one incarnate nature of the Word of God" provided it is understood correctly. Canon VIII:
"If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, but does not understand these things according to what the fathers have taught, namely that from the divine and human natures a union was made according to subsistence, and that one Christ was formed, and from these expressions tries to introduce one nature or substance made of the deity and human flesh of Christ: let him be anathema. In saying that it was in respect of subsistence that the only-begotten God the Word was united, we are not alleging that there was a confusion made of each of the natures into one another, but rather that each of the two remained what it was, and in this way we understand that the Word was united to human flesh. So there is only one Christ, God and man, the same being consubstantial with the Father in respect of his divinity, and also consubstantial with us in respect of our humanity. Both those who divide or split up the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ and those who introduce into that mystery some confusion are equally rejected and anathematized by the church of God."
Orthodox Churches are beautiful and colorful, Catholic Churches are beautiful and wealthy,but in my observation,many wants to be Born again Christian.
The attitude of each church toward another says it all. The Catholic Church calls the Orthodox separated brethren. the Catholic Church accepts the Apostolic succession validity of holy mysteries, and the grace within the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church says that we are in schism without succession and graceless. This shows the attitude difference between the two churches and the fact that resolution of this situation will not occur because of the orthodox attitude not because of the Catholic attitude. In the Orthodox way of thinking catholics are lost and damned. In the Catholic way of thinking the Orthodox in some ways are mistaken but full of Grace. This seems to be the difference between Western and eastern attitudes. They seem irresolvable to me.
Hey dwong I have an honest question and would like to hear your thoughts.
Since V2 and the Popes since then how do we reconcile all of the heresy and apostasy from that council and the heresies those Popes committed? I don’t want to be a Sedevacantist but it seems more appealing. But I also don’t want to be a cringe Michael Lofton cope for the Pope type guy. What’s a logical way to defend the church in its current state?
I simply reject the idea that V2 and the recent Popes taught heresy. You have to substantiate that claim. Read V2 and the sayings of the Popes with a hermeneutic of continuity not a heremeneutic of rupture, and do so in the most charitable light. I think Lofton does good work, since the Saints unanimously assert that we must interpret others actions in the most charitable light possible, this applies even more to the Pope and the Magisterium.
Sedevacantism has so many errors and bad fruits, clearly showing it is a false position. There is no visible unity of the Church, their Church lacks the Four Marks, they are usually filled with pride, they have a Protestant notion of the primacy of private interpretation, they reject universal and peaceful acceptance of the Pope, they have like 26 bishops in total, and many of them disagree with each other and would condemn each other. It’s a totally untenable position and denies the indefectability of the Church. If you think a Billion Catholics and all the Bishops were led astray for the last century, you reject the Promises of Christ. So, the only tenable position is that Vatican 2 is a Holy Ecumenical Council.
@@dwong9289 Thank you for the response. I’ll take this into account. The Church is having a tough time right now but things like this have happened in church history. Take Pope Alexander the 6th for example with Savonarola. Yes Borgia wasn’t the best Pope and had lots of scandals but he was still the Pope. I basically just apply to this to Pope Francis and the current church.
The principle of Lex randi, lex orandi applies.
The V2 mass does not consisteny proclaim an orthodox theology.
Hi dwong,
Yet to watch the video but I'd like to share an argument for the Pope the orthodox can't refute.
It comes from Acts 15 7. Peter clearly tells all present that the matter on the table is not theirs to solve. He says he was chosen from among them (by God)
That’s not what he says at all. He actually just says that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and Believe.
@@MaximusOrthodox That means he is the sole teacher of the Faith, you get teachings from him, The Pope.
@@koppite9600 No, he is not the sole teacher of the faith. There were many teachers of the faith.
@@MaximusOrthodox I only see succession from Peter, maybe you know of others
@@koppite9600 There is succession of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria as well.
Is it true to say that the Papacy is like a king holding supreme authority over any dukes ( Patriarchs, Bishops, archbishops)
Where your previous videos about filioque?
I took them down. Look at my community post :)
@@dwong9289Will they come back?
@@HumanCath Eventually, but there will be quite a bit of editing before I put them back up, so it won't be for awhile.
@@dwong9289 I will wait patiently
The Church Fathers video is back up th-cam.com/video/x6CcNU3YcX0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ENnUUu6Jk-p6Hj_V
is that the gta font
Yessir 😂
Ave Maria Purisima 🌹🤍🌹
I'm EO, this is an interesting video. I don't agree, but God bless you nevertheless.
Thanks! What don’t you agree with?
@@dwong9289Going to this alt now... I'm reading the Church Fathers and I'm seeing the Papacy. Keep me in your prayers.
@@redeemedsinner83If you are willing to share friend, I’m curious on where you are at with your journey.
Dwong remake your filioque video that was much longer
I will eventually!
@@dwong9289 Praise God, good stuff.
The Church Fathers video is back up th-cam.com/video/x6CcNU3YcX0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ENnUUu6Jk-p6Hj_V
Not baptized but still deciding between catholic and orthodox
let me know what you think after watching the video!
Any update?
@@dwong9289 it looks like its going to be the catholic church. The nearest Orthodox church is three and a half hours drive away from where I live. I live in New Zealand so not many Orthodox churches here. There are subtle differences between the two its more legalities of words more than anything else. I just wish the oriental, eastern orthodox and Catholic church can reunite one day. This would be acting in the spirit of God
do u have any plans to upload a video on islam?
I don’t know much about Islam. So no
@@dwong9289 oh alr ty for answering
@@fisho5139 Galatians 1:8 should be enough for refuting Islam.
We can go into any church, Catholic or orthodox (especially in the west) and see which church has completely changed and which has remained the same.
Yet none of that subjective judgement addresses the objective argument presented in the video.
It’s not subjective at all. An Orthodox liturgy from 500 years ago and one from today have very few differences.
A Catholic mass from a century ago and a Novus Ordo mass aren’t even remotely the same. You walk into a church, you might get a sublime sense of solemnity and sublimation. Or, you might get the same mass with guitars, Protestant hymns, versus populem, and extraordinary ministers that you’d get at the Lutheran church down the street.
@@GabrielWithoutWings Please try engaging the argument presented in the video.
@@GabrielWithoutWingsThe essence of the mass is unchanged. The apostles didn’t worship with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom nor had iconostases or things like this-liturgical rites can change over time. Plus, there are even Eastern Catholics who use the exact same rite you’re pointing at lol
@@namae2497
Yes, they change OVER TIME. They aren't assembled piecemeal by a bunch of boomers over the course of a couple of years, implementing Jewish meal prayers and Lutheran-style worship services.
The Eastern Rites that do so are heavily Latinized. Literally no one in the ancient world worshiped versus populem.
But, whatever. It isn't my church to worry about.
hey brian
how u been brother
I’ve been doing better than I deserve! Looks like I’m getting a job soon. Wbu?
@@dwong9289just living life everyday, 1 more year of highschool then im done.
For the sake of argument let’s say every one of these Saints quoted in your florilegium actually believed in Florence’s version of the filioque (Spirit’s hypostatic origin from Son).
Firstly, it’s still not “universal consensus” as your conclusion states. Secondly, Saints and Fathers of the Church can be wrong and uncondemned, especially when they speculate about a theologumenon (which clearly the filioque was for the entire time frame your video quotes from) before the heresy is formally condemned.
Furthermore, the Spirit’s hypostatic origin from the Son is explicitly denied by your Pope-“Saint” John Paul II (in his ordinary magisterium to which you are bound to submit). So now you get to play Papal Protestant and choose whether Florence or JP2 is right. Have fun with that…
Firstly, this would be the consensus of the Latin Fathers, and the argument presented in the video would hold (which you have yet to actually address).
Secondly you are gravely mistaken. The 1995 Filioque document is a non-magisterial document and therefore has 0 binding on one's conscience, and Catholics are free to accept or reject it. Furthermore you are misreading the text as it states the Father is the sole principal cause of the Holy Spirit, not the only cause of the Holy Spirit (big difference!)
Also is your argument really that I am bound to reject the Filioque? That is such an absurd, unsubstantiated position. The Catechism that was compiled under St. John Paul the II says this in CCC 246:
The Latin tradition of the Creed *confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration* . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
You want me to think that my Church and Saint John Paul the II is binding me to the exact opposite?
My second paragraph is a direct rebuttal to your “conclusion” slide. I don’t see how I didn’t engage your argument.
My second argument (third paragraph) is backed up by Vatican I (submit to ordinary magisterium). But for the sake of argument let’s grant your position that it’s up to each Catholic. The 1995 doc contradicts Florence (it explicitly says the Son can NOT be said to be cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit). So if you get to pick and choose- a point that you conceded - that’s ironic given this video defends the Florentine position as a means of vindicating Roman Catholicism, when you admit Roman Catholics can choose to accept or reject the Florentine filioque position.
@@user-qn6jy3qc5u Did you read my response? The 1995 Filioque document is a NON-MAGISTERIAL document
Bro, the Florentine definition is taught in the Universal Catechism promulgated by St. John Paul II. Cope harder.
Tbf, if the Catholic faith is the one true faith then to be Catholic is to be orthodox. So, you don't need to "choose" in the actual sense of the words.
It is referring to Eastern Orthodoxy
@@dwong9289 I know. I'm just being clever. Or trying to be anyway. Lol.
@dwong9289 still though. I do think that Catholics should try to reclaim the word. Orthodoxia means correct teaching. If the Catholic Church is the true one then in order to be a truly orthodox Christian one must be Catholic.
Words and definitions are important.
One true Catholic Church outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
Dogma-Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus-Period! ✝
Rome already overturned that in Vatican II
@@MajorMustang1117 Funny stuff that V2 Sect.
I do not think you have clearly showed that the context must be taken as hypostatic. My comment will mostly be addressing what is said from 3:03 to 15:08.
I noticed you spent a lot of time discussing the context in the creed without discussing the latin/greek terms and language. There is no more reason to believe that it was a hypostatic filioque than an energetic one based on the term "proceeds" being used since
1. Procedere in Latin can mean either (it actually just means "moving forward").
2. The Catholic Church denies that the "processio" of the Spirit from the Son is identical to his processio from the Father due to the Father being the truly unoriginate. You even discuss this at the 11:57 mark in your video talking about the distinction within Rome. I can look it up, but it seems Rome makes more distinctions that just the one you mentioned as well. With that in mind, if we were to argue that it is a hypostatic Filioque simply because the term "procedit" describes the relationship from the Father and the Son, then we would have to confess that it it means the Spirit proceeds from two unoriginate beings.
In other words, how would you argue that that line about the procession of spirit in the Athanasian Creed doesn't support the idea that the Son is also unorginate like the Father? You’d likely refer to other lines in the Creed but could you do that from the “procession of spirit” line? b
Would your line of reasoning not also be saying "procedit means hypostatic from the unorginate Father as the ultimate source but only secondarily from the Son who is also an aitia but an originate one”?
It seems to me that any answer I have heard from Catholics knowledgable about Latin and Greek on these questions tend to create a reason for why this okay and it just seem out of context entirely to the language at the time and even by today’s standards as well. It appears ad hoc to me.
Please feel free to look this up. I’m sure my comment will be unpopular here, but it is worth you and your viewers looking in to.
The context alone without the Latin term is sufficient for proving it is concerning Hypostatic origin. Is being created or made energetic? No, that is concerning Hypostatic origin. Is being unbegotten energetic? No, that is concerning Hypostatic origin. Is being begotten energetic? No, that is concerning Hypostatic origin. So is procession energetic? No it’s all in the context of Hypostatic origin. Basic interpretive skills is sufficient for proving this is about Hypostatic origin.
Furthermore the context is about the distinction of Persons and their unity in essence. Clearly Hypostatic procession is the reason for the distinction of Persons and their unity in essence. The energies are not the reason for the Person’s distinctions.
@@dwong9289 to anyone who knows Latin and Greek at the time of Florence and by modern standards, your answer of “context” is entirely unacceptable. And why Ubi Petrus pointed out why the document John Paul 2’s letter/ratified document entirely left out Florence’s use of the terms because it was likely embarrassing to Rome and their Latin Scholars in Rome. I had never noticed it until I looked it up myself.
Needless to say, there is a plain contradiction between in the Latin and Greek terms in Rome’s understanding of the Filioque, and I have seen no one attempt to address besides Wagner. But even he has flipped flop is answers to Ubi Petrus just on twitter a month ago in early Sept. 2023 (for anyone searching this).
Catholics often claim EOs give ad hoc answers about how we interpret the Ath. Creed based on their personal reading of the context, but in reality the context of the pure languages and how words are defined in the Latin and Greek indicate it is really the Catholics giving the ad hoc answers until they can give at least one answer to this simple yet glaring contradiction in the Latin.
Simply repeating and repeating that the context is enough to know it is hypostatic origin is just unacceptable and appears to be taking the easy way out without looking into the deeper issues of the languages that was originally used during the centuries east and west were drifting away.
Again, I hope any readers/viewers will look in to this more.
@@BCH_Au Simply asserting my argument is unacceptable in no way refutes anything I actually said. I substantiated my claims with the clear context, and you have yet to refute anything. Let me ask you a question: Is being begotten, unbegotten, or created referring to an energy or to hypostatic origin?
@@dwong9289 I didn’t simply assert you were wrong. My first comment here explained it in detailed, and you replied saying “context” is clear enough. That was unacceptable.
And to answer your question (though you haven’t answered mine) in the context of Ath. Creed, it would most likely refer to an eternal manifestation despite what you says bout the context. This is because of what I explained in my first comment about the Latin words. Would you like to specifically address those and that argument? Or will you attempt to change the topic?
@@BCH_Au So you think that the eternal begetting of the Son is energetic? And the ungeneratedness of the Father is energetic? So nothing is Hypostatic now?
I dare u attack the Oreantal orthodox Christology and Theology
lol as an Oriental Orthodox Christian myself i will die for my Catholic brothers.
@@ar2ro969 he doesn’t even understand our Theology
@@copt_live How so? This video is more about Catholicism vs Eastern Orthodox.
@@copt_live Aww, look at you. Desperate that your church has any sort of relevance. So pitiful.
I thought your confessor told you that you weren’t allowed to make these anymore since the V2 RCC has decided we’re not heretics?
That’s not at all what my confessor said. Calumny is a sin
@@dwong9289 That’s why I asked a question and didn’t make a statement.
@@ryrocks9487 okay my bad
Your arguments on the filioque are terrible.
Try to actually recite my arguments and debunk them then
I already did on twitter.
@@tradcath2976 who even are you
@@tradcath2976What's your user?
No matter how many text or quotes you try use, there are just as many that contradict them. Whether the Filioque or the Papacy. The early church taught from the first and 3rd councils the creed, and the eighth was confirmed by Rome to anathematize those who put the Filioque into it. And most of the Fathers didn’t say “and from
The son” they said from the father, through the son. Big difference. Even Christ said in John 15:26 that the spirit proceeds from the Father. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. But that’s not the main point I wanted to make.
The main point is this. The testament to the true Church that Christ started is in the Saints that it produces. You will never find Saints in the Catholic Church after the 1st millennium that have the wisdom of the Holy Spirit or perform the miracles that Saints in the Orthodox Church do. You just won’t. The closest would be Padre Pio. But that’s one Saint. The Orthodox Church is the church of miracles.
The Council of Ephesus has St Cyril teaching the Filioque in his 3rd Letter to Nestorius (watch my video The Church Fathers teach the Filioque for evidence). In The Second Council of Constantinople we have Patriarch St Tarasius teaching Hypostatic per Filium (something anathematized by your Council of Blachernae.) So the consensus of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils teach the Filioque.
Furthermore we affirm John 15:26. No one denies the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. St. Augustine in Tractate 99 asserts this also implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Furthermore, John 16:13-15 shows the Holy Spirit receives knowledge and therefore essence from the Son (see my video Catholics vs. Orthodox: The Filioque).
We have tons of miracle workers. Look up St Charbel, St Francis of Assisi, Blessed Solanus Casey. They have hundreds of proven miracles. So your point is completely wrong.
Furthermore we have confirmed Marian Apparitions. Look up Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Tilma is supernatural and has led to millions of conversions. Tell me where Our Lady has done a miracle for the EO church that led to millions of conversions, I am waiting. Look up Our Lady of Fatima miracle of the Sun, etc. Our Lady interceded and got God to perform a miracle attested by tens of thousands of people. We also have scientifically proven Eucharistic miracles.
Furthermore we alone possess the four marks of the Church, hence we inherited the name “The Catholic Church”, whereas you inherited the local regional name of “the Eastern Orthodox Church”. Become Catholic, as Vatican 2 asserts “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or remain in it, could not be saved”
@@dwong9289It's interesting that we don't see these types of big miracles in EO , also im quite sure there is 0 eucharistic miracles in EO
Why be a Dyophysite Roman when you can be a Miaphysite Orthodox?
I have to laugh at Catholics and EOs fighting each other. It's literally Rome fighting Rome.
Which Catholic do you want us to be? The Catholic that existed from 33AD to the 1960s? Or the church after the council? Because they're literally two different religions.
Are you Oriental?
@@lollloloolool4172
No. I just know a bit about them.
Just be where the Pope is and you are fine
@@joematt-tk9ob good will is not to be suppressed, that's what the Pope is saying. Many (who don't know the faith that well) want to do good for God.
@@joematt-tk9ob You are strawmanning the Holy Father. Back up your claims with primary source text
ORTHODOXY IS THE TRUE FAITH THE SAME FAITH WITH THE APOSTLES WITH THE FATHERS THE TRUE CHURCH AND THE TRUE LITURGY.CATHOLICISM ISN T A CHURCH BUT A RELIGION WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEM OF THOMISMUS THE OFFICIAL DOCTRINE OF ROME.1054 IS REALITY MORE THAN NEVER.
Actually address the arguments presented in the video
@@dwong9289 THE FILIOQUE BRINGS DIARCHY AND CONFUSION OF THE PERSONS
ALSO BRINGS AN OTHER HERESY THE SPIRITUQUE THAT MEANS THAT THE SON BORN NOT ONLY OF THE FATHER BUT ALSO BORN OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BECAUSE THE 3 PERSONS ARE ETERNAL.WHEN THE SON BORN THERE IS ALSO THE EXISTENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
PHOTIUS TOLD ONLY OF THE FATHER.
Dwong do you have discord? also you're such a good youtuber man you need more subs
Yes dwong#9464
If Eastern Orthodoxy is false, then Roman Catholicism is no less false than Orthodoxy...