Correction: At 16:00 it should say simultaneously united in His Person under one nature. Union of two existences in one nature leads to composition in that nature. Union of two really distinct natures in the Hypostatic Union does not lead to composition. If you enjoyed the video, feel free to Venmo me money, I make preschool bucks venmo.com/u/Brian-Duong-82617 Link to slides drive.google.com/file/d/1pRG2DGDzDOAk5yH7D4MR-5127y5DHG27/view?usp=sharing Timestamps: 0:16 What is eternal manifestation 2:28 Manifestation in the Church Fathers 8:26 Debunking Energetic Procession 14:45 Debunking Gregory II of Cyprus' View 22:00 EM was made up at Blachernae
The Spirit of God is in the 2nd verse of Genesis. Clearly states the Holy Spirit was there before creation. The Holy Spirit was hovering above creation not part of it.
@@CatholicDwong I don't understand the title. I have never seen Eternal Manifestation taught in Orthodoxy. Is this a strawman that doesn't exist in order to attack Orthodoxy?
FYI: St. Cyril’s trinitarian treatise and the thesaurus are EXTREMELY pro-simplicity. Also, the Photius quote is a great citation. EOs love to cite the Acts of St. Andrew speaking of the Spirit resting in the Son, which is in direct opposition to Photius’s denial.
@EasternChristian333Dude, Catholic dogmatic theology blows Orthodox theology out of the water, it’s actually pretty embarrassing the disparity. Idek why the internet is obsessed with EO rn, they have never been the most dangerous anti-Catholic interlocutors. Those have always come from within (e.g. Gallicanism, Döllinger) or from Protestants (especially Anglicans). Most EO apologetics actually just steals arguments from those camps.
@EasternChristian333 Dude. You should become Orthodox. Leave already man. What’s the point of remaining Eastern Catholic when you only defend Eastern Orthodoxy?
@luisrios3446 I think your right, and I was baptised in the Byzantine rite, the Melkite Catholic Rite, I find some members of our melkite rite to have schismatic tendencies (not all) but the minority that does , i hope.they just leave, I find them despicable humans
@@jebbush2527 Well an EO could just say what's so special about Rome to have primacy or supremacy? Wouldn't Antioch or Alexandria have that same authority too?
I was told growing up that the canons said that "no word" can be altered or added to. Thats not true, it says that the faith of the creed cannot be altered. The creeds reference to the spirit proceeding from the father was a reference to the Macedonian heresy that envisioned a temporal procession in the Godhead. Thus, they emphasized that the Spirit proceeded from the son alone. In this way they denied a connection to the Father and therefore denied the spirits divinity. i cannot reconcile a procession without the Son and his consubstantial nature with the Father. The Greek position is untenable.
St Isidore in Epistle 6 says they can add the Filioque to the creed because it is the same faith as the Apostles not a different faith. St. Jerome in Letter 15 to Pope Damasus says the Pope has the authority to order a new Nicene Creed.
@@CatholicDwong It is the same faith! the emphasis on the Father doesn't say "alone" nor does it deny the Son as "through" which the Spirit's procession. It is just a refutation to the Macedonian's. not including the Son was to save confusion in the dispute. Photius was clutching at straws to find an argument after being deposed and the Greeks fell for it. Now the Greeks have to make up more heresies as they have a problem with the Cappadocian's writings.
@EasternChristian333 byzantine Catholics have to affirm the Filioque or they are anathema according to the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Second Lyons
The objections aren't just to the filioque but the Pope's justification to alter the creed willy-nilly without informing the other bishops to create a synod or an ecumenical council. It doesn't matter if the church father teaches the filioque or the filioque is true, the fact that no bishop can just alter or change infallible synods proofs that really no Bishop can, even the Bishop of Rome. By altering the creed, the Bishop of Rome suddenly has more authority than even an ecumenical council! At that point it isn't just Papal supremacy but Papal absolute supremacy, the literal Man who can abrogate words as if he's the Christ. At that point he's not just the vicar of Christ, he's admitting that he is the Christ
I am 2 stupid to understand the theology. became a beliver quie recently and choose Catholic church based on History. The theology is 2 complicated for my mind. I need o be more well versed in it. God bless you for your wondefull content
God bless you bro. This is advanced stuff, so don't feel like you need to understand it all. It takes hours and hours of study to grasp at these truths.
@@CatholicDwong also english is my second language, but i am on a hight level, but those words i need 2 google them and i dont even know them in my native language xd. I take my time with it. I understand more on terms of history then this "high" theology. Right Now all I truly know is That Christ is King
Hey man my advice is to just follow the Catechism. You don’t need to be an expert, just follow natural law, receive the sacraments, pray daily, avoid sin and go to confession and you’ll be ok
11:15 The quote you are using is definite proof of you proof texting the holy father's impiously. St. Gregory Nazianzen: The quote from Oration 30 discusses the nature of God as absolute being, but Gregory often speaks in paradoxical terms, acknowledging the ineffability and mystery of God. His work emphasizes the limitations of human language when describing the divine, suggesting that God is beyond human concepts of being and non-being. St. Augustine: Augustine does indeed identify God with being, but he also speaks of God as being beyond human comprehension, often indicating that God's nature transcends even our highest concepts. His idea that God is "supreme existence" is often intertwined with the notion that God is also beyond all that we can conceive. St. Gregory of Nyssa: While Gregory does argue against Eunomius by stating that God is the source of existence, he also emphasizes apophatic theology-the idea that God is ultimately unknowable and cannot be fully described by human categories like being or non-being.
Against Eunomious book 1 chapter 22 St Gregory of Nyssa is an argument of disparate relations not oppositional relations. Disparate relations unless you take scotism serious does not lead to a filioque. In fact, this is the exact argument used by St. Mark of Ephesus in the Florentine debates.
@@Faustus_de_Reiz Gregory of Nyssa teaches relations of opposition in On Not Three Gods, where he says the only distinction is between cause and that which is caused, which is why in Sermon 3 on the Lord’s Prayer, he says the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son. The manuscript evidence says that portion is authentic, which you have previously denied with no good reason.
@@CatholicDwong I have explained to you that in his letter to his brother of Saint Basil, he corrects some of these misapplied doctrines that you're discussing. Again where St. Basil or St. Gregory of Nyssa depending on your view of the tradition explain that it is not only by relations of opposition and that the signs of distinction are multiple and varied.
@@CatholicDwong "Properties of the hypostases, like colors seen in the Iris, flash their brightness on each of the Persons Whom we believe to exist in the Holy Trinity; but that of the proper nature no difference can be conceived as existing between one and the other, the peculiar characteristics shining, in community of essence, upon each. Even in our example, the essence emitting the many-colored radiance, and refracted by the sunbeam, was one essence; it is the color of the phenomenon which is multiform. My argument thus teaches us, even by the aid of the visible creation, not to feel distressed at points of doctrine whenever we meet with questions difficult of solution, and when at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us, our brains begin to reel. In regard to visible objects experience appears better than theories of causation, and so in matters transcending all knowledge, the apprehension of argument is inferior to the faith which teaches us at once the distinction in hypostasis and the conjunction in essence. Since then our discussion has included both what is common and what is distinctive in the Holy Trinity, the common is to be understood as referring to the essence; the hypostasis on the other hand is the several distinctive sign."
@@CatholicDwong "For this is the nature of the properties, to show the otherness in the identity of the essence; and while the properties often differ and oppose each other, they do not break the unity of the essence." As shown here it states often differs and opposes but that does not necessitate that they always differ in a pose. Also again this is another statement of multiple signs.
@@CatholicDwong"Properties of the hypostases, like colors seen in the Iris, flash their brightness on each of the Persons Whom we believe to exist in the Holy Trinity; but that of the proper nature no difference can be conceived as existing between one and the other, the peculiar characteristics shining, in community of essence, upon each. Even in our example, the essence emitting the many-colored radiance, and refracted by the sunbeam, was one essence; it is the color of the phenomenon which is multiform. My argument thus teaches us, even by the aid of the visible creation, not to feel distressed at points of doctrine whenever we meet with questions difficult of solution, and when at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us, our brains begin to reel. In regard to visible objects experience appears better than theories of causation, and so in matters transcending all knowledge, the apprehension of argument is inferior to the faith which teaches us at once the distinction in hypostasis and the conjunction in essence. Since then our discussion has included both what is common and what is distinctive in the Holy Trinity, the common is to be understood as referring to the essence; the hypostasis on the other hand is the several distinctive sign."
Just researching this topic, book 1 Chp 10 of St. John Damascus (exposition of orthodox faith). Can you verify if the phrase that is translated " Ideas of Separation" uses the Greek word antithesis or Chorismou? in the original Greek?
If quote mining is allowed then.... "so also, when we have learned about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy" the spirit reveals the energy of the word this is straight out of new advent.
@@watsonblack7481 of course they are all different. They are different in concept. No one denies that. You are reading in a real distinction. An essence-energies real distinction leads to composition (watch my video Debunking Eternal Manifestation)
@@watsonblack7481 Of course the Spirit shows forth the energy of the Son. Since the Spirit receives the essence from the Son, He receives the energy from the Son.
@@CatholicDwongthis comment proposes that the reception of energy which is of nature communicated by hypostasis. Care to expand on how this works more?
Can you make a video defending the papacy? I'm a cradle Catholic who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy but after stumbling upon your channel, I might change my mind, the papacy is what bothered me the most.
When you say real distinction, I'm curious what you mean because there is multiple formats of what a real distinction could entail. St. Gennadios Scholarios [Class I Thomistic Distinction:] [Thomas] was also considering each instance, falling under the genus “distinction of reason,” as rather unreal (ἀδρανεστέραν). [A.] There was either the distinction from concepts (ἐκ τῶν λόγων; rationis ratiocinantis), [B.] or the distinction from the nature of the thing (ex rei natura; ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πράγματος φύσεως), not merely of reason [e.g., substance and accident]. [Definition of Class I (cf., supra, A):] This means that there was not only a distinction of reason (τοῦ λόγου), i.e., “of the conceptual” (τῆς ἐπινοίας) -whether understood in abstracto (εἰλικρινῶς) or in concreto (συσταλμένως)- which is understood by two terms (ὅροις), but that these terms [or abstract concepts] were produced (πεποιημένοις) by virtue of the soul and by no distinct item in the thing itself is it distinguished. [Practical Example of Class I (cf., supra, A):] The following would not have been simple (ἀφελής) (so as for the mind to believe the divine essence and its energy are two [items]): The mind divides (διαιρῶν) and composes Socrates according to its intrinsic power. It composes some such kind of proposition; namely, “Socrates is Socrates.” Yet, in such way, the mind does not know an essential distinction (οὐσιώδη διάκρισιν). [Class II Thomistic Distinction:] Also there is a distinctio maior (ἱσχυροτέραν) other than this previous [class of] distinction. Yes, indeed, all these former distinctions are beyond the real distinction (πραγματικήν). [Thomas] was used to calling all these “real distinctions” (πραγματικάς) [cf., supra, B], being accustomed thusly to put under the category of “real distinction” (πραγματικὴν) all of these [so-called] “real” distinctions [of Meyronnes]. [Class β´-δ´ Mayronist-Scotistic Distinctions:] That is, these [aforementioned and so-called “real” distinctions] were manifestly of a lesser (ἐλάττω) and comparatively unreal difference (αδρανεστέραν διαφοράν). We [Thomists] call all of these “the distinction of reason” (διαφορὰ τοῦ λόγου). These [greater] are distinctions [cf., supra, B] that caused (στρεφομένας) division to be made (χωρίζεσθαι) between: [Thomistic Real Distinction: B1] two subsistent res, and [Thomistic Real Distinction: B2] two individuals, and [Thomistic Real Distinction: B3] two wholes, between either two separables, or two potencies-powers. However, they [viz., Scotists] speak rather of “the essential definition” (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) in [abstracted or formal] concepts (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις).
A mix of act and potency would make it a creature? I'm not sure how much Aristotle or other Aristotelian/ neoplatonist you've read, but there is first actuality and second actuality, and then there's also the notion of active potentiality which is still in accordance with pure act.
@@CatholicDwong see you agree that we have a distinction between God's act and Divinity itself right? So did it become whether this is just by reason alone for a reason in the nature of things.
The roman version has it all wrong, even in the thumbnail it shows that the Son generates the Spirit, which is the false Filioque teaching, because the original one states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father!!!
You are also debunking latin "notions" ? Hypostatic origins and notions are different ... notions are an equivalent of appropriations...one is in divine essence other in creation. Eternal manifestation is equivalent of Latin Notions...its just less defined.
I'd buy a physical copy even tho much of it would probably be way over my head. I've been trying to read Cardinal Bessarion's Defense of the Doctrines of the Latins and it makes me feel dumb as bricks lol 😂
Is my argument valid against EO Palamism? P1 God is absolutely perfect P2 - If God's perfection is not absolutely infinite, than he is not absolutely perfect and can be surpassed. P3 A part is necessarily less than the whole P4 - Therefore, if God were composed of Essence and Engergy, his parts would be less than the whole. P5 - Thus, a part of God is not absolutely infinite. P6 - Non absolute infinity can't be added to absolute infinitiy. Therefore, there is no composition (essence energy) in God.
Please just don’t send this to any mathematician. What does non absolute infinity even mean? Also if you want to view the distinction between essence energies as infinite parts of infinity, you can use sets theory. The entire being of God you would describe as an infinite set. You can then split the set into two parts - essence and energies which can and are both still infinite and at the same time parts of the original set. Each part is not the same infinity as the original set, but is also infinite. The sum of the two parts(sets) would give you the original set. Also you can add any infinity to any infinity. The result would be the larger infinity. In the case of non-absolute infinity + absolute infinity this would result in absolute infinity as the cardinality of an absolute infinity is larger than that of a non-absolute infinity.
Also the idea behind essence and energies comes less from logic and more from experience. We as Christians are vessels of God’s love and through us He shares it with the world. We partake of something that God has, but we can’t partake of all things that God is because we are created beings, so we are not infinite. The things that we can partake in the orthodox call energies. These are his love, grace, wisdom and power. P.S. I am not orthodox
@@Цар_Антоний It has spread around the world, just as Christians were commanded to do. After spread around the world, the great apostasy, then the Antichrist, then the second coming.
@@Цар_Антонийmost heresy came from the east also😢 that why God use the Catholic ture church to evangelize the world, so the Orthodox heresy won't spread over the world 🗺
7:23 “Then again, we see yet another such light [Holy Spirit] after the same fashion sundered by no interval of time from that offspring Light [Son], and while shining forth by means It yet tracing the source of its being to the Primal Light [Father];” “After the same fashion” means “in every way like Him [Father], in beauty, in power, in luster, in size, in brilliance, in all things at once that we observe in the sun. “Sundered,” means split or distinct. “By no interval of time from the offspring Light [Son];” the Spirit is distinct by no interval of time from the Son. Then it says, “yet tracing the source of its being to the Primal Light [Father].” Therefore, the plain reading is, the Spirit is the likeness of the Son just as the Son is the likeness of His Father. Meaning, the Spirit is the same likeness of the Father. However, distinct from the Son and sourced from the Father under no bounds of time and uncreated. Isn’t this the EO position? Wasn’t Nyssa involved at the 2nd ecumenical council where the fathers articulated the procession of the Spirit from the Father? Again, it appears your interpretation is presupposed by a mind bound to Catholicism. Just like Calvinists change the plain reading of scripture to fit their system, you’re influencing your audience to read Gregory unfairly. My opinion. I’ll keep watching.
@@StewForTheGospel try watching my video “The Greek Father’s taught the Filioque” for proof that St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the Filioque. Or read my new free book which has a whole chapter dedicated to St. Gregory. www.academia.edu/123425101/The_Filioque_Answering_the_Eastern_Orthodox
The more I learn, the less I know....Really deep..Christianity is a Revealed Religion n i really seeing the need for the Magesterium..Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium...Catholic all the way..
Some Neo-Palamite theologians claim eternal manifestation is energetic procession. Regardless, if you actually watch the video you see that I debunk both popular interpretations of eternal manifestation including that of Gregory II of Cyprus
@@CatholicDwong I didn’t see you debunk eternal manifestation through the Son being hypostatic. I was working while listening though. I’ll go back and listen again.
I have some objections towards actus purus/Pure actuality, if you mind can you refute these So if God is pure actuality without any distinction then: 1. God lacks free will 2. God lacks distinction in his act and essence, therefore determinism 3, God lacks distinction in his acts, essence, and hypostasis therefore when The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different operations, will result in a change in the Essence 1. God lacks free will A= God is Pure Act B= Act is Essence C= Essence is eternal A=B=C, So if his Essence is eternal so does his Act. By this Logic, God is the Eternal Creator by virtue of Eternally Creating therefore leaving no room for him to stop creating That's why the last time we had a dialogue I asked you If God is a Robot, which in this case he does because a Robot is something purposefully built for solely in design but in not free will 2 D= Essence is necessary E = Essence is unchangeable F= Creation is necessary If A=B=C=D=E=F, then you gotta admit that God is determined by his act. He can't choose what to do as every act is necessary and he is unchangeable therefore every act is a must and any deviation is change. Therefore God is determined to cause an eternal chain of creation because the Act of Creation is necessary 3 G= Every act by the person are different H= Each persons have different roles J= Different acts are different essence Therefore A=B=C=D=E=F= G=H=J. This is because every act is his essence and his essence is necessary and unchangeable therefore every different act includes different essence and is changing his eternal essence through different acts of himself which is necessary and eternal. Therefore a changing God is a violation of almost every ecumenical council
Also, I have no idea how you connect the argument of esse to passive potency. That's absurd from anyone who's read Aristotle or any of the Holy fathers. Because we have to agree that God exercises that which is actively potential. For example, when considering the difference between dynamis and energeia (actuality), dynamis can refer to a kind of power that is not yet actualized. This was integral in the arguments against eternal creation from origen. That God was Creator before creation by the attribute of Creator, being a part of the nature, actualized.
@@CatholicDwong every single quote is incorrectly interpreted. St Cyril for example explicitly says that the Spirit IS NOT from the Son. You can cope and try to force filoque into patristics. But everyone who is interested in knowing the truth they can go and read these texts for themselves.
Correction: At 16:00 it should say simultaneously united in His Person under one nature. Union of two existences in one nature leads to composition in that nature. Union of two really distinct natures in the Hypostatic Union does not lead to composition.
If you enjoyed the video, feel free to Venmo me money, I make preschool bucks venmo.com/u/Brian-Duong-82617
Link to slides drive.google.com/file/d/1pRG2DGDzDOAk5yH7D4MR-5127y5DHG27/view?usp=sharing
Timestamps:
0:16 What is eternal manifestation
2:28 Manifestation in the Church Fathers
8:26 Debunking Energetic Procession
14:45 Debunking Gregory II of Cyprus' View
22:00 EM was made up at Blachernae
Make a paypal account.
@@namapalsu2364 my PayPal is banned
The Spirit of God is in the 2nd verse of Genesis. Clearly states the Holy Spirit was there before creation. The Holy Spirit was hovering above creation not part of it.
@@stevelenores5637 no one denies that here
@@CatholicDwong I don't understand the title. I have never seen Eternal Manifestation taught in Orthodoxy. Is this a strawman that doesn't exist in order to attack Orthodoxy?
FYI: St. Cyril’s trinitarian treatise and the thesaurus are EXTREMELY pro-simplicity.
Also, the Photius quote is a great citation. EOs love to cite the Acts of St. Andrew speaking of the Spirit resting in the Son, which is in direct opposition to Photius’s denial.
When EO have to cite apocrypha to support their heretical doctrine
Dwong with another banger
Bro you post like once every decade 😭
Dwong, this is just the video I've been waiting for. Nice work!
Thank you bro. Hope it helps!
Your spirited reading of the "objection" at 10:50 is intense. I cannot wait to buy the physical copy.
How often will you debunk so called orthodoxy?
Dwong: yes
Americas past time is baseball, dwongs is killing heresy
Hello there, Dwong! Happy Trinity Sunday! ✝️
Happy Solemnity of the Holy Trinity. May God bless you abundantly
Likewise!
God bless you Dwong
❤️
Ubi Petrus in shambles
@EasternChristian333😂😂
@EasternChristian333Dude, Catholic dogmatic theology blows Orthodox theology out of the water, it’s actually pretty embarrassing the disparity. Idek why the internet is obsessed with EO rn, they have never been the most dangerous anti-Catholic interlocutors. Those have always come from within (e.g. Gallicanism, Döllinger) or from Protestants (especially Anglicans). Most EO apologetics actually just steals arguments from those camps.
@EasternChristian333 Dude. You should become Orthodox. Leave already man. What’s the point of remaining Eastern Catholic when you only defend Eastern Orthodoxy?
@luisrios3446 I think your right, and I was baptised in the Byzantine rite, the Melkite Catholic Rite, I find some members of our melkite rite to have schismatic tendencies (not all) but the minority that does , i hope.they just leave, I find them despicable humans
@@jebbush2527 Well an EO could just say what's so special about Rome to have primacy or supremacy? Wouldn't Antioch or Alexandria have that same authority too?
Nice work. Waiting for the book
Well done brother🇻🇦✝️
I was told growing up that the canons said that "no word" can be altered or added to. Thats not true, it says that the faith of the creed cannot be altered. The creeds reference to the spirit proceeding from the father was a reference to the Macedonian heresy that envisioned a temporal procession in the Godhead. Thus, they emphasized that the Spirit proceeded from the son alone. In this way they denied a connection to the Father and therefore denied the spirits divinity. i cannot reconcile a procession without the Son and his consubstantial nature with the Father. The Greek position is untenable.
St Isidore in Epistle 6 says they can add the Filioque to the creed because it is the same faith as the Apostles not a different faith.
St. Jerome in Letter 15 to Pope Damasus says the Pope has the authority to order a new Nicene Creed.
@@CatholicDwong It is the same faith! the emphasis on the Father doesn't say "alone" nor does it deny the Son as "through" which the Spirit's procession.
It is just a refutation to the Macedonian's. not including the Son was to save confusion in the dispute.
Photius was clutching at straws to find an argument after being deposed and the Greeks fell for it. Now the Greeks have to make up more heresies as they have a problem with the Cappadocian's writings.
@EasternChristian333 When I speak of greek, I'm referring to the orthodox. I'm generalizing, only for the sake of argument.
@EasternChristian333 byzantine Catholics have to affirm the Filioque or they are anathema according to the Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Second Lyons
The objections aren't just to the filioque but the Pope's justification to alter the creed willy-nilly without informing the other bishops to create a synod or an ecumenical council. It doesn't matter if the church father teaches the filioque or the filioque is true, the fact that no bishop can just alter or change infallible synods proofs that really no Bishop can, even the Bishop of Rome. By altering the creed, the Bishop of Rome suddenly has more authority than even an ecumenical council! At that point it isn't just Papal supremacy but Papal absolute supremacy, the literal Man who can abrogate words as if he's the Christ. At that point he's not just the vicar of Christ, he's admitting that he is the Christ
Bro is gonna become the new Aquinas with all this orthodoxy debunking 😭
He is killing it 😂
Another Dwong Classic.
I’ve watched Dwong for about 10 minutes but I know he’s the goat 👍🏼
You’re awesome bro ❤️
The man, the myth, the legend, is back !
Excited for the book!
God bless you bro in Christ! 💪🏿
Will you be responding to Erhan's upcoming video in response to you?
If he actually addresses my arguments
@@CatholicDwong So, did he?
@@David-kz2im not from what I’ve seen, but I plan to make a video against his Filioque videos
@@CatholicDwong He did a livestream 10 days ago about Filioque and this eternal manifistation.
I am 2 stupid to understand the theology. became a beliver quie recently and choose Catholic church based on History. The theology is 2 complicated for my mind. I need o be more well versed in it. God bless you for your wondefull content
God bless you bro. This is advanced stuff, so don't feel like you need to understand it all. It takes hours and hours of study to grasp at these truths.
@@CatholicDwong also english is my second language, but i am on a hight level, but those words i need 2 google them and i dont even know them in my native language xd. I take my time with it. I understand more on terms of history then this "high" theology. Right Now all I truly know is That Christ is King
@@MilesDei95brother I feel you… I have the EXCAT same problems as you have. Except that my english is not even high level, lol
@dermoldawe8498 i feel you bro. My is quite good, but here i feel illiterate :)
Hey man my advice is to just follow the Catechism. You don’t need to be an expert, just follow natural law, receive the sacraments, pray daily, avoid sin and go to confession and you’ll be ok
Is the book available yet? I’m definitely interested.
@@thelifeofcole8755 not yet, soon!
@@CatholicDwong how soon?
@@thelifeofcole8755 4 weeks!
Dwong proves them wrong
11:15 The quote you are using is definite proof of you proof texting the holy father's impiously.
St. Gregory Nazianzen: The quote from Oration 30 discusses the nature of God as absolute being, but Gregory often speaks in paradoxical terms, acknowledging the ineffability and mystery of God. His work emphasizes the limitations of human language when describing the divine, suggesting that God is beyond human concepts of being and non-being.
St. Augustine: Augustine does indeed identify God with being, but he also speaks of God as being beyond human comprehension, often indicating that God's nature transcends even our highest concepts. His idea that God is "supreme existence" is often intertwined with the notion that God is also beyond all that we can conceive.
St. Gregory of Nyssa: While Gregory does argue against Eunomius by stating that God is the source of existence, he also emphasizes apophatic theology-the idea that God is ultimately unknowable and cannot be fully described by human categories like being or non-being.
Will 100% be buying that book
22:47 bookmark
Dwong amazing video🙌🏾 could you make videos like this on the papacy in the ecumenical councils?
Thank you!!!❤
You’re welcome
Against Eunomious book 1 chapter 22 St Gregory of Nyssa is an argument of disparate relations not oppositional relations. Disparate relations unless you take scotism serious does not lead to a filioque. In fact, this is the exact argument used by St. Mark of Ephesus in the Florentine debates.
@@Faustus_de_Reiz Gregory of Nyssa teaches relations of opposition in On Not Three Gods, where he says the only distinction is between cause and that which is caused, which is why in Sermon 3 on the Lord’s Prayer, he says the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is that the Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
The manuscript evidence says that portion is authentic, which you have previously denied with no good reason.
@@CatholicDwong I have explained to you that in his letter to his brother of Saint Basil, he corrects some of these misapplied doctrines that you're discussing. Again where St. Basil or St. Gregory of Nyssa depending on your view of the tradition explain that it is not only by relations of opposition and that the signs of distinction are multiple and varied.
@@CatholicDwong "Properties of the hypostases, like colors seen in the Iris, flash their brightness on each of the Persons Whom we believe to exist in the Holy Trinity; but that of the proper nature no difference can be conceived as existing between one and the other, the peculiar characteristics shining, in community of essence, upon each. Even in our example, the essence emitting the many-colored radiance, and refracted by the sunbeam, was one essence; it is the color of the phenomenon which is multiform. My argument thus teaches us, even by the aid of the visible creation, not to feel distressed at points of doctrine whenever we meet with questions difficult of solution, and when at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us, our brains begin to reel. In regard to visible objects experience appears better than theories of causation, and so in matters transcending all knowledge, the apprehension of argument is inferior to the faith which teaches us at once the distinction in hypostasis and the conjunction in essence. Since then our discussion has included both what is common and what is distinctive in the Holy Trinity, the common is to be understood as referring to the essence; the hypostasis on the other hand is the several distinctive sign."
@@CatholicDwong "For this is the nature of the properties, to show the otherness in the identity of the essence; and while the properties often differ and oppose each other, they do not break the unity of the essence."
As shown here it states often differs and opposes but that does not necessitate that they always differ in a pose. Also again this is another statement of multiple signs.
@@CatholicDwong"Properties of the hypostases, like colors seen in the Iris, flash their brightness on each of the Persons Whom we believe to exist in the Holy Trinity; but that of the proper nature no difference can be conceived as existing between one and the other, the peculiar characteristics shining, in community of essence, upon each. Even in our example, the essence emitting the many-colored radiance, and refracted by the sunbeam, was one essence; it is the color of the phenomenon which is multiform. My argument thus teaches us, even by the aid of the visible creation, not to feel distressed at points of doctrine whenever we meet with questions difficult of solution, and when at the thought of accepting what is proposed to us, our brains begin to reel. In regard to visible objects experience appears better than theories of causation, and so in matters transcending all knowledge, the apprehension of argument is inferior to the faith which teaches us at once the distinction in hypostasis and the conjunction in essence. Since then our discussion has included both what is common and what is distinctive in the Holy Trinity, the common is to be understood as referring to the essence; the hypostasis on the other hand is the several distinctive sign."
Just researching this topic, book 1 Chp 10 of St. John Damascus (exposition of orthodox faith). Can you verify if the phrase that is translated " Ideas of Separation" uses the Greek word antithesis or Chorismou? in the original Greek?
If quote mining is allowed then.... "so also, when we have learned about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy" the spirit reveals the energy of the word this is straight out of new advent.
No where does that say the energy is really distinct from the essence. You falsely read that into the text
@@watsonblack7481 of course they are all different. They are different in concept. No one denies that. You are reading in a real distinction. An essence-energies real distinction leads to composition (watch my video Debunking Eternal Manifestation)
@@watsonblack7481 Of course the Spirit shows forth the energy of the Son. Since the Spirit receives the essence from the Son, He receives the energy from the Son.
@@CatholicDwongthis comment proposes that the reception of energy which is of nature communicated by hypostasis. Care to expand on how this works more?
The king returns (with a new kino video) 💪💪💪
What are some introductory books into these metaphysical concepts
ABC of Scholastic Philosophy
Fr Gilles Emery Introduction to the Trinity
Fr Gilles Emery Trinitarian Thought of St Thomas Aquinas
Can you make a video defending the papacy? I'm a cradle Catholic who wanted to convert to Orthodoxy but after stumbling upon your channel, I might change my mind, the papacy is what bothered me the most.
Possibly in the future.
Btw if the Filioque is true then Eastern Orthodoxy cannot be true
@@CatholicDwong Do you recommend any good content creators that defend the Papal supremacy?
@@walkingmoai Erick Ybarra is one of the best. Check out his book The Papacy
@@CatholicDwong Thanks!
When you say real distinction, I'm curious what you mean because there is multiple formats of what a real distinction could entail.
St. Gennadios Scholarios
[Class I Thomistic Distinction:] [Thomas] was also considering each instance, falling under the genus “distinction of reason,” as rather unreal (ἀδρανεστέραν). [A.] There was either the distinction from concepts (ἐκ τῶν λόγων; rationis ratiocinantis), [B.] or the distinction from the nature of the thing (ex rei natura; ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πράγματος φύσεως), not merely of reason [e.g., substance and accident].
[Definition of Class I (cf., supra, A):] This means that there was not only a distinction of reason (τοῦ λόγου), i.e., “of the conceptual” (τῆς ἐπινοίας) -whether understood in abstracto (εἰλικρινῶς) or in concreto (συσταλμένως)- which is understood by two terms (ὅροις), but that these terms [or abstract concepts] were produced (πεποιημένοις) by virtue of the soul and by no distinct item in the thing itself is it distinguished.
[Practical Example of Class I (cf., supra, A):] The following would not have been simple (ἀφελής) (so as for the mind to believe the divine essence and its energy are two [items]): The mind divides (διαιρῶν) and composes Socrates according to its intrinsic power. It composes some such kind of proposition; namely, “Socrates is Socrates.” Yet, in such way, the mind does not know an essential distinction (οὐσιώδη διάκρισιν).
[Class II Thomistic Distinction:] Also there is a distinctio maior (ἱσχυροτέραν) other than this previous [class of] distinction. Yes, indeed, all these former distinctions are beyond the real distinction (πραγματικήν). [Thomas] was used to calling all these “real distinctions” (πραγματικάς) [cf., supra, B], being accustomed thusly to put under the category of “real distinction” (πραγματικὴν) all of these [so-called] “real” distinctions [of Meyronnes]. [Class β´-δ´ Mayronist-Scotistic Distinctions:] That is, these [aforementioned and so-called “real” distinctions] were manifestly of a lesser (ἐλάττω) and comparatively unreal difference (αδρανεστέραν διαφοράν). We [Thomists] call all of these “the distinction of reason” (διαφορὰ τοῦ λόγου). These [greater] are distinctions [cf., supra, B] that caused (στρεφομένας) division to be made (χωρίζεσθαι) between: [Thomistic Real Distinction: B1] two subsistent res, and [Thomistic Real Distinction: B2] two individuals, and [Thomistic Real Distinction: B3] two wholes, between either two separables, or two potencies-powers. However, they [viz., Scotists] speak rather of “the essential definition” (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι) in [abstracted or formal] concepts (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις).
@@Faustus_de_Reiz real distinction = non-identity in reality apart from the mind’s activity of thinking.
@@CatholicDwong things can be identical and still be distinct. For example, quantitative distinctions exist for homonymous things, right?
@@CatholicDwong well, the essence and energy are identical. But are distinct
Is eastern catholicism a good choice
Yes, if that’s what you are drawn to.
@@CatholicDwongdo I need to be a palamite or venerate Palamas to become one because I don’t agree with him much, Aquinas is 🔥
God bless you!
Thanks!
A mix of act and potency would make it a creature? I'm not sure how much Aristotle or other Aristotelian/ neoplatonist you've read, but there is first actuality and second actuality, and then there's also the notion of active potentiality which is still in accordance with pure act.
@@Faustus_de_Reiz I’m talking about passive potency
@@CatholicDwong see you agree that we have a distinction between God's act and Divinity itself right? So did it become whether this is just by reason alone for a reason in the nature of things.
@@CatholicDwong also, why would you bring a passive potency when no Eastern Orthodox has ever proposed that there's passive potency in God?
@@Faustus_de_Reiz if it’s not pure act, it has passive potency
@@CatholicDwong ....ok follow the question.
The roman version has it all wrong, even in the thumbnail it shows that the Son generates the Spirit, which is the false Filioque teaching, because the original one states that the Spirit proceeds from the Father!!!
The thumbnail doesn’t say The Son causes the Spirit learn how to read😭
The Spirit proceeding from the Father is vastly different than saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father ALONE.
@@ultraviolett2489 yeah learn how to read the signs
@@codyleger1750 so who else does it proceed from, santa claus?
@@sirius4518 I am able to do so, still doesn’t say that
You are also debunking latin "notions" ? Hypostatic origins and notions are different ... notions are an equivalent of appropriations...one is in divine essence other in creation. Eternal manifestation is equivalent of Latin Notions...its just less defined.
Did you actually watch the video?
Common Dwong W
Thank you
You’re welcome buddy!
I'd buy a physical copy even tho much of it would probably be way over my head. I've been trying to read Cardinal Bessarion's Defense of the Doctrines of the Latins and it makes me feel dumb as bricks lol 😂
Glad to hear bro. I have suggested reading list at the beginning of my book to warm someone up to the topic!
Is my argument valid against EO Palamism?
P1 God is absolutely perfect
P2 - If God's perfection is not absolutely infinite, than he is not absolutely perfect and can be surpassed.
P3 A part is necessarily less than the whole
P4 - Therefore, if God were composed of Essence and Engergy, his parts would be less than the whole.
P5 - Thus, a part of God is not absolutely infinite.
P6 - Non absolute infinity can't be added to absolute infinitiy.
Therefore, there is no composition (essence energy) in God.
In short, infinity and perfection entails simplicity, refuting "Orthodox" neo - palamism.
Please just don’t send this to any mathematician. What does non absolute infinity even mean?
Also if you want to view the distinction between essence energies as infinite parts of infinity, you can use sets theory. The entire being of God you would describe as an infinite set. You can then split the set into two parts - essence and energies which can and are both still infinite and at the same time parts of the original set. Each part is not the same infinity as the original set, but is also infinite. The sum of the two parts(sets) would give you the original set.
Also you can add any infinity to any infinity. The result would be the larger infinity. In the case of non-absolute infinity + absolute infinity this would result in absolute infinity as the cardinality of an absolute infinity is larger than that of a non-absolute infinity.
Also the idea behind essence and energies comes less from logic and more from experience. We as Christians are vessels of God’s love and through us He shares it with the world. We partake of something that God has, but we can’t partake of all things that God is because we are created beings, so we are not infinite. The things that we can partake in the orthodox call energies. These are his love, grace, wisdom and power.
P.S. I am not orthodox
It never even began for the East
It started in the East
Christianity started in the east, and it has stayed in the east.
@@Цар_Антоний It has spread around the world, just as Christians were commanded to do. After spread around the world, the great apostasy, then the Antichrist, then the second coming.
@@Цар_Антонийmost heresy came from the east also😢 that why God use the Catholic ture church to evangelize the world, so the Orthodox heresy won't spread over the world 🗺
@@Цар_АнтонийUntil part of the East rebelled?
Great research
7:23
“Then again, we see yet another such light [Holy Spirit] after the same fashion sundered by no interval of time from that offspring Light [Son], and while shining forth by means It yet tracing the source of its being to the Primal Light [Father];”
“After the same fashion” means “in every way like Him [Father], in beauty, in power, in luster, in size, in brilliance, in all things at once that we observe in the sun.
“Sundered,” means split or distinct. “By no interval of time from the offspring Light [Son];” the Spirit is distinct by no interval of time from the Son.
Then it says, “yet tracing the source of its being to the Primal Light [Father].”
Therefore, the plain reading is, the Spirit is the likeness of the Son just as the Son is the likeness of His Father. Meaning, the Spirit is the same likeness of the Father. However, distinct from the Son and sourced from the Father under no bounds of time and uncreated. Isn’t this the EO position? Wasn’t Nyssa involved at the 2nd ecumenical council where the fathers articulated the procession of the Spirit from the Father?
Again, it appears your interpretation is presupposed by a mind bound to Catholicism. Just like Calvinists change the plain reading of scripture to fit their system, you’re influencing your audience to read Gregory unfairly.
My opinion. I’ll keep watching.
@@StewForTheGospel try watching my video “The Greek Father’s taught the Filioque” for proof that St. Gregory of Nyssa taught the Filioque. Or read my new free book which has a whole chapter dedicated to St. Gregory. www.academia.edu/123425101/The_Filioque_Answering_the_Eastern_Orthodox
@@CatholicDwong cool cool.
@@StewForTheGospel God bless bro
Father son and Holy Spirit
I really copy, I thought there wasn’t gonna be any
I found a publisher!
The more I learn, the less I know....Really deep..Christianity is a Revealed Religion n i really seeing the need for the Magesterium..Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium...Catholic all the way..
Commenting for the algorithm
God is a trinity
Correct
Debate an orthodox christian. It would be interesting.
“Energetic procession”
Isn’t eternal manifestation. Eternal manifestation from the Father through the Son is hypostatic in Orthodox theology.
Some Neo-Palamite theologians claim eternal manifestation is energetic procession. Regardless, if you actually watch the video you see that I debunk both popular interpretations of eternal manifestation including that of Gregory II of Cyprus
@@CatholicDwong I didn’t see you debunk eternal manifestation through the Son being hypostatic. I was working while listening though. I’ll go back and listen again.
@@catholicbites6605 It’s addressed at 14:45
Jesus was with the father enternaly with the father, jesus is god jesus is god the son
Yes, but what does this have to do with the video.
Oh my bad dude I guess I misconstrued what you were saying my apologize my guy
I genuinely am sorry for the misunderstanding, God bless you buddy
@@matthewlogan4267 God bless you!
Latin "Notions" are more illucidated equivalents of Greek "Manifestation" +++
I have some objections towards actus purus/Pure actuality, if you mind can you refute these
So if God is pure actuality without any distinction then:
1. God lacks free will
2. God lacks distinction in his act and essence, therefore determinism
3, God lacks distinction in his acts, essence, and hypostasis therefore when The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different operations, will result in a change in the Essence
1. God lacks free will
A= God is Pure Act
B= Act is Essence
C= Essence is eternal
A=B=C, So if his Essence is eternal so does his Act. By this Logic, God is the Eternal Creator by virtue of Eternally Creating therefore leaving no room for him to stop creating
That's why the last time we had a dialogue I asked you If God is a Robot, which in this case he does because a Robot is something purposefully built for solely in design but in not free will
2
D= Essence is necessary
E = Essence is unchangeable
F= Creation is necessary
If A=B=C=D=E=F, then you gotta admit that God is determined by his act. He can't choose what to do as every act is necessary and he is unchangeable therefore every act is a must and any deviation is change. Therefore God is determined to cause an eternal chain of creation because the Act of Creation is necessary
3
G= Every act by the person are different
H= Each persons have different roles
J= Different acts are different essence
Therefore A=B=C=D=E=F= G=H=J. This is because every act is his essence and his essence is necessary and unchangeable therefore every different act includes different essence and is changing his eternal essence through different acts of himself which is necessary and eternal. Therefore a changing God is a violation of almost every ecumenical council
Literally just not understanding active potentiality...
Also, I have no idea how you connect the argument of esse to passive potency. That's absurd from anyone who's read Aristotle or any of the Holy fathers.
Because we have to agree that God exercises that which is actively potential. For example, when considering the difference between dynamis and energeia (actuality), dynamis can refer to a kind of power that is not yet actualized.
This was integral in the arguments against eternal creation from origen. That God was Creator before creation by the attribute of Creator, being a part of the nature, actualized.
Stark Ramp
Dale Crescent
Catholic win
total Filioque triumph
👍
Orthobro cope right now
You should re-name this video 'Debunking the Truth'.
Try to address the arguments.
How can you debunk the truth bro (also if he was debunking the truth it would say “debunking Roman Catholicism”)
Quote mining 101
“Quote mining”
“Forgery”
@@CatholicDwong every single quote is incorrectly interpreted.
St Cyril for example explicitly says that the Spirit IS NOT from the Son. You can cope and try to force filoque into patristics. But everyone who is interested in knowing the truth they can go and read these texts for themselves.
@@CatholicDwong
"Pachamama"
"Pope Francis said X at Y Place"
"Clown Masses"
"4th Crusade Catholics mean"
"St. Josaphat is Mean"
And Many More
@@johnmanual7595 Another cope out comment. Enjoy your female priestesses being ordained lol
Way to engage
+++
Allah is best of creators?? Which creators ??? Moon 🌙 god worshiper 😂😂😂😂😂
?
Christian prince
@@NathanKefyalew did you think I was Muslim?