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
Dwong, I am a Catholic inquirer into orthodoxy. My main issue isn't the filioque I think that there was a variety of thought in the early church. Do you have any videos on papal infallibility?
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!
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! 🙏
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.
I was very confused about Catholicism and whether it is true as an Eastern Orthodox, I will convert to Catholicism after seeing this. Edit: Further learning done and it is undeniable.
@@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!
I was in between of both Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy I didn’t know what was the truth, but in this video you literally proves the Filioque was thought by western and some eastern, and if they claim Filioque is Hersey which isn’t, they were in communion with the heretics then ?, thank you so much for this amazing video that made me Catholic, God bless 🙏
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.
@@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.
@@timothyjordan5731 The Father is the origin of both the Father and the Son. the Filiqoue does subordinate the Holy Spirit as it clearly makes the Father and the Son the origin points while the Holy spirit is neither. The Bible does not teach hypostatic procession from the Son, and simply only economic. It is heresy and Rome defected. Recall adding to the creed without an Ecumenical Council was condemned and that's exactly what Rome did.
I was thinking of being Eastern Orthodox for a few months, and then I looked into deeper research into my faith and everything clicked. Thank you for this video. I’ve just been feeling lost. I try to go back and read the Bible but feel wrong unless I go to confession and I know I shouldn’t feel that way. If you guys can pray for me please do so. Ave Christus Rex.
I had a similar experience but emerged on theCatholic side and have never had any reason to seriously doubt it. The Sacred Scriptures are almost unanimously Filioquist.
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 _"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!!!
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.
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) ?
Can I just ask for people on this thread to pray for me, peace, clarity and acceptance. Il pray for you too. I ask because I bet that people here know the trial of this debate and it would be a heart felt prayer. I Been struggling for years… I am catholic and was eo. Felt like a hypocrite going to mass to come home and consider RC might be in error it’s been tuff! I really hope we reunite one day there’s gotta be a lot of trust and love I know that. Thanks for vid bro, God bless to all!
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.
Bro, you absolutely destroyed the EO position on the Filioque. I was unsure which position was true, but now after so much proof from you it’s clear that the RCC holds the truth. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 🇻🇦✝️
@@harrisonphillips8365 debunked by history sounds like your church. No unity like your church believing different dogmas, venerating post-schism saints, and crying over the novus ordo and persecution of the TLM. Doesn’t sound very United to me, especially when your different rites only have to submit to the pope but not all the dogmas like the Syro-Malabar venerating Nestorious. Remember the anathema of Pope Vigilius and Honorius?
หลายเดือนก่อน +3
Filioque controversy is Orthodox grasping at straws to find a doctrinal reason why there should be a schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, over 200 years after the split occured, for entirely different reason.
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?
@@catholic_m 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.
"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'
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)
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?
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...
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.
Yeah one is the teaching of the undivided Church continued today. The papists have clearly changed their doctrine on no salvation outside of the church. Orthodox continue to hold the dogmatic beliefs of the first millenum not straying from truth because it hurts your feelings.
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
@@CatholicDwong 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
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.
@@timothyjordan5731 Check the Cheiti and Alexandria documents approved by the Vatican conceding the Orthodox understanding of Romes primacy. Also the papal bull of excommunication labeled us as heretics for removing the Filioque when it’s obvious Rome added it. Curious isn’t it? Also the fact Rome added to the creed without approval from an ecumenical council makes them Anathema.
This video furthers strengthen my faith that Catholicism is the only true religion! you deserve more views brother. Also: No Salvation Outside Catholic Church 🇻🇦✝
John 20:21-23 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose sins you retain, they are retained."
@@CatholicDwong- 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.
39:41 Eastern Orthodox say the Orthodox scholar Adam Zernikav “established” in 1672 that the words “ineffably” and “from the Son” were later additions to Hatfield.
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.
@@CatholicDwong 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.
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.
@@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.
Great! I thought I’d never find a ‘golden bullet’ for the debate but the fact seems if you deny the Filioque it’s heresy… I did get to a point and thought what if all these quotes were forged (my bad) then the Bessarion thing threw me a bit but even he changed his mind when the council went to Florence and obv the 700 Greeks signed off on the the Filioque to be true! I trust that and the validity of these quotes for the fathers. Peace Edit* didn’t mean thought you forged them lol just that what if for some reason Rome did maybe to protect their papal status but it’s me being paranoid as usual.
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 truly find this very educative, but my question to you is: If it is unthinkable for orthodox saints to believe in the filioque, since it would be “heresy”, what would you say about the eastern catholics who don’t accept the filioque?
@@CatholicDwongthank you very much! Once again, it is always very interesting to locate the multiple cracks in the EO faith. I notice that you do a lot about the filioque, and I was wondering if you will soon be doing a video regarding the papacy. Thank you and god bless!
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@@CatholicDwong 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?
@@CatholicDwong 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?
@ no that's why i asked, i looked at the summary and it looks like that's the argument. Are you arguing it's supposed to be Orthodox dogma, or just that a bunch of select people believed it?
@@CatholicDwong yeah? What of it? Condemnations don't apply to heretics from prior to the condemnation, that's a very standard position? No Church Father alone explicated the fullness of truth, the roman catholics hold this likewise. I really dont see how this argument has any actual weight to it. Even if i grant all the listed Church Fathers teach a western filioque, i dont see the relevance?
@ 1. The entire Latin Church adopted the Filioquist teaching of the Athanasian Creed 2. The Holy Spirit would not lead half the Church and saints into heresy for hundreds of years prior to the schism 3. Therefore the Filioque is not heretical and true 4. Therefore, Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong.
@@SwoleSlim Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"- Vatican 2
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”
Miracles happen with Protestants as well. Your point is clueless. If your making miracles a problem will you not speak on Constantinople and Moscows rejection of one another. Miracles exist because of Christ but your argument of EO mostly having miracles is wrong as more miracles happen in Catholic church.
@@turro3212 You would be wrong about this. The priests are educated on what to do if it turns into real flesh and blood. Just search and you will find affirmed miracles.
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u You seem to be uneducated about Orthodoxy. It is the church of Miracles and living Saints. I was Catholic for 35 years. The closest wonderworker that I can compare to most of the Orthodox Saints is Padre Pio.
@abc7653 There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved. (Lateran IV, 1) We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam). It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, …, cannot share in eternal life… unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. (Cum Cantate) The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. NO ONE, LET HIS almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, CAN BE SAVED, UNLESS HE REMAIN WITHIN THE BOSOM AND THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Some Catholics use the term "invincible ignorance" is a way to be saved outside the Catholic church. However. Even that doesn't cover the vase majority of Christians or other faiths as is described by post Vatican II Catholic hierarchy. Invincible ignorance, as described by official Roman Canon Law, is nearly impossible for the. If you have even heard of the Catholic Church, and don't seek to understand it, you were not Invincibly ignorance ignorant, but willfully ignorant. It's a far cry from things like Nostra Aetate regarding the Church’s relationship not only to Islam, but also to other religions: “This sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.” For instance, the Patriarchs and Bishops of Holy Orthodoxy are treated completely differently: "From this it must be clearly understood that bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately withdraw from Peter and his successors . . . But the episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter."-(Satis Cognitum) Compared to: "Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible."- (ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM) So while people like myself or others like the SSPX or others specifically use Vatican II as the difference, we are talking about the liberal spirit within the Catholic Church that built up to culminate around the Vatican II council. The medieval Catholics would want nothing to do with Vatican II Catholics. And 9th century Catholics would want nothing to do with medieval Catholics. Always progressing and changing.
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.
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.
@@CatholicDwong 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.
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
Dwong, I am a Catholic inquirer into orthodoxy. My main issue isn't the filioque I think that there was a variety of thought in the early church. Do you have any videos on papal infallibility?
@ if the Filioque is true than Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be true. This video sufficiently proves that the Filioque is true therefore EO cannot be true
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!
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.
I was very confused about Catholicism and whether it is true as an Eastern Orthodox, I will convert to Catholicism after seeing this.
Edit: Further learning done and it is undeniable.
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 in between of both Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy I didn’t know what was the truth, but in this video you literally proves the Filioque was thought by western and some eastern, and if they claim Filioque is Hersey which isn’t, they were in communion with the heretics then ?, thank you so much for this amazing video that made me Catholic, God bless 🙏
@Johan.f9 God bless bro 🙏
Welcome home 🔥
@ thank you so much my brother 🙏❤️
feels great to have some fellow ex-atheist catholic like me preaching the truth
Glad to see you back, brother.
Keep your content up, stay charitable and God bless you, you’re making an amazing job.
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.
@@timothyjordan5731 The Father is the origin of both the Father and the Son. the Filiqoue does subordinate the Holy Spirit as it clearly makes the Father and the Son the origin points while the Holy spirit is neither.
The Bible does not teach hypostatic procession from the Son, and simply only economic. It is heresy and Rome defected. Recall adding to the creed without an Ecumenical Council was condemned and that's exactly what Rome did.
Thanks for reposting this video 🙏🏻
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
I was thinking of being Eastern Orthodox for a few months, and then I looked into deeper research into my faith and everything clicked.
Thank you for this video.
I’ve just been feeling lost. I try to go back and read the Bible but feel wrong unless I go to confession and I know I shouldn’t feel that way.
If you guys can pray for me please do so. Ave Christus Rex.
I had a similar experience but emerged on theCatholic side and have never had any reason to seriously doubt it. The Sacred Scriptures are almost unanimously Filioquist.
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 :(
Share this video on Discord and to your Orthodox friends!
I have a book entitled "The Church Teaches". It is a collection of Credal statements and doctrinal pronouncements. It contains the Athanasian Creed.
nice!
Dwong these are great videos and very informative.
Thank you Halley! Much appreciated
Dude this is sick! I hope to see more content from you in the near future!
Thank you!
Great Video!
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.
Great video
Another SOLID video.
Yay, he's back with the good material!
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.
Another Common Rome W
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
Yeah like the Papacy alone is the leader of the church 🤭
@@SwoleSlim You added it youself. The catholic Church does not claim that
@@javierduenasjimenez7930 In Vatican I it's pretty clear of papal supremacy and papal infallibility.
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
Your videos are very well made and clear! Perfect for debunking orthodox claims etc. Thank you!
Can I just ask for people on this thread to pray for me, peace, clarity and acceptance. Il pray for you too. I ask because I bet that people here know the trial of this debate and it would be a heart felt prayer. I Been struggling for years… I am catholic and was eo. Felt like a hypocrite going to mass to come home and consider RC might be in error it’s been tuff! I really hope we reunite one day there’s gotta be a lot of trust and love I know that. Thanks for vid bro, God bless to all!
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.
Bro, you absolutely destroyed the EO position on the Filioque. I was unsure which position was true, but now after so much proof from you it’s clear that the RCC holds the truth. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 🇻🇦✝️
@@radekofficial2919 Thank you so much bro, God bless ❤️
Really appreciate this video.
cant wait to listen
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!
👍👍👍
Come home Harrison Phillips ☦
@@SwoleSlim if “home” is a church with no unity, debunked by history and made popular by TikTok than no thanks.
@@harrisonphillips8365 debunked by history sounds like your church. No unity like your church believing different dogmas, venerating post-schism saints, and crying over the novus ordo and persecution of the TLM. Doesn’t sound very United to me, especially when your different rites only have to submit to the pope but not all the dogmas like the Syro-Malabar venerating Nestorious.
Remember the anathema of Pope Vigilius and Honorius?
Filioque controversy is Orthodox grasping at straws to find a doctrinal reason why there should be a schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, over 200 years after the split occured, for entirely different reason.
The primary reason they even fostered such a huge schism is because the ottomans appointed rabidly anti-Latin patriarchs to keep the church apart
There are few doctrines that are more easily verified by Sacred Scripture than the Filioque.
God bless you and your family dwong, you helped me get out of the Eastern Orthodox church 🙏🙏🙏
Very well made video, thanks for sharing
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.
@@catholic_m 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.
thank you so much for this video.. God bless you.
❤️
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.
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.
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
@@CatholicDwong Is there like a way I could find this information online? + how do you find good books on such topics?
Excellent work!
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...
Can you make a video on the council of Florence?
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.
Yeah one is the teaching of the undivided Church continued today. The papists have clearly changed their doctrine on no salvation outside of the church. Orthodox continue to hold the dogmatic beliefs of the first millenum not straying from truth because it hurts your feelings.
@SwoleSlim it'd be weird if they didn't think we hold the same beliefs we do pre-Vatican II
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
Not baptized but still deciding between catholic and orthodox
let me know what you think after watching the video!
Any update?
@@CatholicDwong 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
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.
Filioque is heresy.
@@SwoleSlim Wow! What a powerful and convincing refutation!
@@timothyjordan5731 thank you
@@timothyjordan5731 Check the Cheiti and Alexandria documents approved by the Vatican conceding the Orthodox understanding of Romes primacy.
Also the papal bull of excommunication labeled us as heretics for removing the Filioque when it’s obvious Rome added it. Curious isn’t it? Also the fact Rome added to the creed without approval from an ecumenical council makes them Anathema.
@@timothyjordan5731 my comments be getting removed
This video furthers strengthen my faith that Catholicism is the only true religion! you deserve more views brother.
Also: No Salvation Outside Catholic Church 🇻🇦✝
@@michaelowen24 God bless brother!!!
Please re-upload your first video demonstrating the Fathers believed the Filioque. Thank you.
John 20:21-23
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them; whose sins you retain, they are retained."
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
@@CatholicDwong- 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.
This is phenomenal history and argumentation.
Thank you!
39:41 Eastern Orthodox say the Orthodox scholar Adam Zernikav “established” in 1672 that the words “ineffably” and “from the Son” were later additions to Hatfield.
Perhaps someone should send this video to Fr Peter Heers & Fr Josiah Trenholm…
Where your previous videos about filioque?
I took them down. Look at my community post :)
@@CatholicDwongWill 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.
@@CatholicDwong I will wait patiently
The Church Fathers video is back up th-cam.com/video/x6CcNU3YcX0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ENnUUu6Jk-p6Hj_V
Orthodox Churches are beautiful and colorful, Catholic Churches are beautiful and wealthy,but in my observation,many wants to be Born again Christian.
A Christian is born again via sacramental Baptism. Not the made up nonsense of Protestants (especially the deranged Pentecostals).
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.
@@CatholicDwong 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.
God bless you.
Thank you brother, learning how to explained the trinity the catholic way has been a wonderful blessing 🙏🙏🙏
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.
Dwong remake your filioque video that was much longer
I will eventually!
@@CatholicDwong Praise God, good stuff.
The Church Fathers video is back up th-cam.com/video/x6CcNU3YcX0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ENnUUu6Jk-p6Hj_V
I'm EO, this is an interesting video. I don't agree, but God bless you nevertheless.
Thanks! What don’t you agree with?
@@CatholicDwongGoing to this alt now... I'm reading the Church Fathers and I'm seeing the Papacy. Keep me in your prayers.
@@grrajdrrezyliIf you are willing to share friend, I’m curious on where you are at with your journey.
@@grrajdrrezyli To read the Fathers and to see the Vatican I papacy is to read that into them. It is not present.
Great! I thought I’d never find a ‘golden bullet’ for the debate but the fact seems if you deny the Filioque it’s heresy… I did get to a point and thought what if all these quotes were forged (my bad) then the Bessarion thing threw me a bit but even he changed his mind when the council went to Florence and obv the 700 Greeks signed off on the the Filioque to be true! I trust that and the validity of these quotes for the fathers. Peace
Edit* didn’t mean thought you forged them lol just that what if for some reason Rome did maybe to protect their papal status but it’s me being paranoid as usual.
Amen thank yoj
is that the gta font
Yessir 😂
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
I truly find this very educative, but my question to you is: If it is unthinkable for orthodox saints to believe in the filioque, since it would be “heresy”, what would you say about the eastern catholics who don’t accept the filioque?
@@Ejee511 eastern Catholics must accept the Filioque as dogma, or they are heretics. They are allowed to not recite it in the Creed though
@@CatholicDwongthank you very much! Once again, it is always very interesting to locate the multiple cracks in the EO faith. I notice that you do a lot about the filioque, and I was wondering if you will soon be doing a video regarding the papacy.
Thank you and god bless!
Ave Maria Purisima 🌹🤍🌹
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
@@CatholicDwong 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.
@@twenty-eightrock I think instead Orthodox need to reclaim the name Catholic, because we are the Orthodox Catholic Church.
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.
@@TimothyCausey Did you read my response? The 1995 Filioque document is a NON-MAGISTERIAL document
Is it true to say that the Papacy is like a king holding supreme authority over any dukes ( Patriarchs, Bishops, archbishops)
hey brian
how u been brother
I’ve been doing better than I deserve! Looks like I’m getting a job soon. Wbu?
@@CatholicDwongjust living life everyday, 1 more year of highschool then im done.
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.
@@CatholicDwong 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?
@@CatholicDwong 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?
Catholicism viva
Because it’s true and EO is not + it’s a larp. Idk why this had to be an hour.
@@Ignatiusofantioch87 Because just saying it’s true is not going to convince anyone.
@ those guys just don’t trust the plan enough.
Did you convert to catholicism or were you born catholic?
@@Roman_Leo3 I converted. Watch my video “Atheism to Catholicism” to hear about my conversion story.
@@CatholicDwong thank you God bless you!
do u have any plans to upload a video on islam?
I don’t know much about Islam. So no
@@CatholicDwong oh alr ty for answering
@@fisho5139 Galatians 1:8 should be enough for refuting Islam.
Dziękuję
You’re welcome!
Was this made by AI ?
The video? No I made it
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
@@CatholicDwong That’s why I asked a question and didn’t make a statement.
@@ryrocks9487 okay my bad
Amen
the argument is that individual Church Fathers believed filioque? So what? Individual Church Fathers can be wrong on matters, what's the point?
@@aaaaaaa7697 that’s not the argument at all. Be honest, did you watch the video?
@ no that's why i asked, i looked at the summary and it looks like that's the argument. Are you arguing it's supposed to be Orthodox dogma, or just that a bunch of select people believed it?
@ just watch the first 5 minutes of the video ninja 😭
@@CatholicDwong yeah? What of it? Condemnations don't apply to heretics from prior to the condemnation, that's a very standard position? No Church Father alone explicated the fullness of truth, the roman catholics hold this likewise. I really dont see how this argument has any actual weight to it. Even if i grant all the listed Church Fathers teach a western filioque, i dont see the relevance?
@ 1. The entire Latin Church adopted the Filioquist teaching of the Athanasian Creed
2. The Holy Spirit would not lead half the Church and saints into heresy for hundreds of years prior to the schism
3. Therefore the Filioque is not heretical and true
4. Therefore, Eastern Orthodoxy is wrong.
One true Catholic Church outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
Vatican II doesn't teach that no more loool
@@SwoleSlim Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it"- Vatican 2
@@Ilovewateriamwater So then why did John Paul II venerate post-schism Orthodox Saints? Guess your own Popes don't listen to their councils.
@@SwoleSlim western rite orthos also venerate our saints does not mean much other then respect
@@SwoleSlim just cause a Pope venerated someone does not make them a saing💀💀
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.
@@copt_live Miaphysite.
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”
@@CatholicDwongIt'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
Miracles happen with Protestants as well. Your point is clueless. If your making miracles a problem will you not speak on Constantinople and Moscows rejection of one another. Miracles exist because of Christ but your argument of EO mostly having miracles is wrong as more miracles happen in Catholic church.
@@turro3212 You would be wrong about this. The priests are educated on what to do if it turns into real flesh and blood. Just search and you will find affirmed miracles.
@@JaimeAlvarez-r9u You seem to be uneducated about Orthodoxy. It is the church of Miracles and living Saints. I was Catholic for 35 years. The closest wonderworker that I can compare to most of the Orthodox Saints is Padre Pio.
Your arguments on the filioque are terrible.
Try to actually recite my arguments and debunk them then
I already did on twitter.
@@SaltyPalamite who even are you
@@SaltyPalamiteWhat's your user?
His arguments are from the Church Fathers. Seems like you just do not care to follow the words of the saints
Dogma-Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus-Period! ✝
Rome already overturned that in Vatican II
@@MajorMustang1117 Funny stuff that V2 Sect.
@@arrom2116 Sede, Vatican II is dogmatic. Submit to the Pope or leave the papists. Stop living a lie.
@abc7653 There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved. (Lateran IV, 1)
We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Unam Sanctam).
It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, …, cannot share in eternal life… unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. (Cum Cantate)
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. NO ONE, LET HIS almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, CAN BE SAVED, UNLESS HE REMAIN WITHIN THE BOSOM AND THE UNITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Some Catholics use the term "invincible ignorance" is a way to be saved outside the Catholic church. However. Even that doesn't cover the vase majority of Christians or other faiths as is described by post Vatican II Catholic hierarchy. Invincible ignorance, as described by official Roman Canon Law, is nearly impossible for the. If you have even heard of the Catholic Church, and don't seek to understand it, you were not Invincibly ignorance ignorant, but willfully ignorant.
It's a far cry from things like Nostra Aetate regarding the Church’s relationship not only to Islam, but also to other religions: “This sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”
For instance, the Patriarchs and Bishops of Holy Orthodoxy are treated completely differently:
"From this it must be clearly understood that bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately withdraw from Peter and his successors . . . But the episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter."-(Satis Cognitum)
Compared to:
"Further, Catholics may ask for these same sacraments from those non-Catholic ministers whose churches possess valid sacraments, as often as necessity or a genuine spiritual benefit recommends such a course and access to a Catholic priest is physically or morally impossible."- (ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM)
So while people like myself or others like the SSPX or others specifically use Vatican II as the difference, we are talking about the liberal spirit within the Catholic Church that built up to culminate around the Vatican II council.
The medieval Catholics would want nothing to do with Vatican II Catholics. And 9th century Catholics would want nothing to do with medieval Catholics. Always progressing and changing.
🇻🇦✝️❤️
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?
@@catholic_m
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
@@CatholicDwong 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.
If Eastern Orthodoxy is false, then Roman Catholicism is no less false than Orthodoxy...
As it was proven in this video that at least in the Filioque the East is wrong, then where the truth lays without change, if not in Rome, then?
@@gabrielalejandrosarmientos527 Filiqoue is heresy. Rome believes we have the Eucharist why do we need the innovation of the papacy?
@@SwoleSlimyou clearly have got your aguments from ortho kyle😂😂😂
@@Ilovewateriamwater Genetic fallacy, answer the claim.
@@SwoleSlim lil bro acting like we in a council rn 💀💀💀
Great video