00:00 Introduction 00:37 Catholic & Orthodox Dogmas 03:29 St. Cyril 15:50 Theodoret 171 18:33 St. Epiphanius 26:42 St. Gregory of Nyssa 44:04 St. Athanasius 52:06 St. Basil 55:00 Summary Correction at 31:59 I meant the property that distinguishes the Spirit from the Son. Correction: At 3:55 a more exact translation would be “of the essence of the Son.” However, the point still stands because in the latter quotes he also uses the formula from the essence of the Son. So it makes no substantial difference to our argumentation. Correction: At 10:38 I accidentally combined two separate quotes into one. Link to slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1MozMIvsqlgptaLzQX3VNzrx65edC9K7u/view?usp=sharing Venmo: venmo.com/u/Brian-Duong-82617
The witness of St. Epiphanius is especially powerful because, although Constantinople +381 is credited with the "second half" of the Nicene creed, it first shows up in the historical record about a decade prior in the writings of St. Epiphanius. Since Epiphanius clearly believed in the Filioque, we know with certainty that the "original" formula of the creed, "the Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father," wasn't intended to deny a procession "from the Son" also. In fact, Epiphanius wrote another version of that creed which says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son." There is a reason why the Latins believed the Greeks removed the Filioque from the creed, and vice versa: the history of the creed is more complex than either side realized. See Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, "Two Creeds of Epiphanius. A.D. 374."
I know I’ve commented on your work before, but I just wanted to thank you again because your work on this issue has single-handedly eased some of the worst anxiety I’ve ever felt.
An R2D2 profile picture said that a stickman called Dwong gave a lecture on the Eastern Church Father’s view of the Filioque. The internet is a perplexing place.
Yep, these Fathers are also why Ecumenical Patriarch John Bekkos, realized the differences between Eastern and Western Churches were exaggerated and wanted to mend the Schism. To which he was persecuted for it.
Thank you for making this entire series. I began my exit out of protestantism about a year ago and was heavily pulled towards Orthodoxy before I came across these videos. No EO I ever bring these quotes up to can ever substantively respond, just hand-wave or angrily assert they're forgeries. I think it's only a matter of time before I convert to Catholicism.
At the 31:45 mark (in the "St. Gregory of Nyssa" chapter), I think you meant to type "Son" instead of "Spirit" as the last word in the green highlighted phrase. With that said, this was an excellent video. I am continually amazed by the rigour of your research and the clarity of your arguments. I look forward to your upcoming book which I am sure will be as inspired as all your online content.
2:50, 55:01-51:23, Congratulations on refuting Eastern Orthodoxy. Since dogma in the Roman Catholic understanding are divine truths revealed by God himself (the Filioque is dogma in Roman Catholicism and God cannot deceive anyone Numbers 23:19), either the Roman Catholic Church is correct and the EO Church is false or vice versa. This video clearly proves that the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the procession of the Holy Spirit is the true position and the true faith. To deny an infallible dogma of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Filioque is to call God a liar, telling Him that what He revealed to us in his Church is not true. Not only can God not deceive anyone, but in addition, the Roman Catholic Council of Lyon in 1274 already declared the Filioque to be dogma, so if God revealed the Filioque dogma and was present in the Roman Catholic Church in 1274, it is impossible that God simultaneously revealed the contradictory single procession as divinely revealed truth in the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Council at Blachernae in 1285 (debunking any claim that the EO is actually the true Catholic Church.) No Eastern Orthodox apologist will be able to refute this video and it’s not necessarily relevant that their apologists bring up other arguments such as the Papacy, because as you mentioned, the Council of Blachernae (and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2016 officially stated that it is guided by the Holy Spirit in its councils and later councils after the schism with Rome) claim that God spoke in their Church by dogmatizing the single procession, thus falsifying their own Church and proving the EO is not the true Catholic Church, the Pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim 3:15. Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the (Roman Catholic) Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from Heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself - Condemned.” Pope Leo XIII, TAMETSI FUTURA PROSPICIENTIBUS para #9 - “To reject dogma is simply to deny Christianity.”
The Memoirs of Silvester Syropoulos reveal that Mark of Ephesus called the Council of Florence "ecumenical"; George Scholarios suggested a compromise text saying that the Holy Spirit gushes forth (anabluzei) or fountains forth from the Son.
17:01 Saint Cyril wrote, “but the Spirit Himself of God and the Father, who proceedeth also from Him, and is not alien from the Son, according to His essence.” This is explicitly the EO position. I acknowledge it doesn’t disprove the RC position.
I think it would be useful in these videos if the Greek were put side by side with the translation so that we can see what terms are used. I've not seen the whole vid, but that first S. Cyril quote does not have 'ek' in the Greek brackets when it talks about the Spirit being 'from' the 'essence of the Son'.
Thank you Dionysius. I followed the translation given by Dr. Ed Siecienski when it says “from the essence of the Son.” I re-checked the PG and it says “τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς οὐσίας ὁμολογεῖν τοῦ Υἱοῦ” which more precisely translates to “the Spirit is of the essence of the Son.” However, this substantially means the same thing as Hypostatic origin, as St. Basil says “of the Substance of the Father” means Hypostatic origin. So, the argument still holds. I added a correction to the pinned comment as well. However, if you disagree, it doesn’t matter since St. Cyril does use “from (ek) the essence of the Son” in the quotes provided at 8:06 11:14 and 13:06 Regardless, St. Cyril teaches both the Spirit is of the essence of the Son and from the essence of the Son, comparing this to naturally existing from the Son, indicating both are substantially identical. Cheers!
@@CatholicDwong Yeah I think the Byzantines have an interpreted tradition here. They would say that this refers to consubstantiality rather than hypostatic origination. E.g., Palamas says: " Everytimethat Cyril, this theophoreman, says that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son, he refers to the consubstantiality [τὸ ὁμοούσιον] of the Son, and not to the fact that the Son would be the cause of the Spirit. ...It could be well said that the Spirit does not proceed from the hypostasis of the Son, but naturally from the Father and from the essence of the Son, due to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, so that- since this shows the consubstantiality of the divine Spirit with the Father and the Son, and not the different existence of the Spirit from the Father, due to the consubstantiality, it is the same to say the Spirit is also from the essence of the Son and to say the Spirit is of the same essence with the Son."
@@dionysiuscarthusianus3015If Palamas were to be consistent and say that the Son being from/of the essence of the Father merely refers to the consubstantiality that he has with the Father and not that he proceeds from him, then I guess there’s no problem with that interpretation (although St. Basil here seems to equate being “of the substance of the Father” with hypostatic origination). That being said there are quotes here that cannot honestly be reconciled with the EO position.
@@CatholicDwong It’s nice to hear that you remember. But yeah! I can confirm that I have indeed returned to the Catholic Church, in fact I was confirmed last Easter vigil. It’s great bearing witness to the fullness of the truth
@@saullustre6733Wagner debated Erhan and has about 3 response streams on his (wild) videos. Wagner also had an interaction with Dyer recently where he showed his incorrect perception of hypostatic relations. He also has at least five videos against him (on channel’s called Distinguo & Unionist Initiative) as well as a playlist with many videos on the topic, one of which refutes the only decent argument against the Filioque. “Let’s see a debate” is coping. Wagner crushed Ubi Petrus in a Filioque debate a while ago as well while i’m on the topic.
Another banger Dwong. By the way, I know you spent time in a Maronite monastery. Are you a practising Maronite? If so, what brought you to the Maronite Church? Prayers from Sydney
Thanks bro. I am Latin rite but I entered a Maronite Monastery (without switching rites because they had an indult) because their charism of Eucharistic Adoration attracted me. I was part of the Maronite Monks of Adoration in Petersham, MA
@@CatholicDwong Amazing. Are you currently attending Latin Rite or Maronite? By the way, us Maronites have 4 more Saints coming soon. Blessed Estephan Douayhi and the 3 Massabki martyrs. "The just shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow up like the cedar of Lebanon. They that are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of the house of our God." Psalm 92:13-14 DR
I love your content. Please do a video on the controversy between Vatican 1 and 2 and some of the alleged contradictions. Sedevacantism is growing hugely and needs to be put down
dwong I really like your videos, keep making them in the same spirit, you explain autumn well and simply👍 are you thinking about making a video about Papism among the Fathers of the Church in the future?
4:30 Saying the Spirit is from the essence of the Son is different than saying, from the Son. The Son’s essence is from the Father. Therefore, with the Father is divine essence. From Whom the Son and Spirit draw their eternal existence. Saint Cyril even said, “If this is so, then the Spirit is God from God, and not a creature.” The goal of Saint Cyril is to prove the Spirit is not a creature. As we confess He is “equal to the Father and Son,” the Father being “One God” and the Son is “True God of True God, of one essence with the Father.” This communicates the Son is from the Father as the same God. Therefore, Saint Cyril is relating the Son and Spirit in order to make them equals. Leading to the obvious conclusion that the Spirit is God from God, aka processed by the Father. We may imply that he is teaching the Filioque, but it can’t be claimed as if it’s explicit. Obviously, I have implied that he’s teaching the EO position. The reason the EO position has better weight given this specific quote is when Saint Cyril writes, “is sent by Him [the Son] into creation to enact renewal…” This understanding being anchored in scripture. Saint John the Apostle writes Jesus’ explanation how He sends His Spirit and when (Pentecost). All this being done relative to time as witnessed by the Church in Acts. Therefore, temporal. It can’t be definitively imputed into Ontology beyond creation as a hypostatic relation between them. I’ll keep watching… I love the icon of the of the church fathers right next to the text. It’s so helpful to put faces to names. Protestant’s need to get on board with that. Great teaching tools at the very least.
Can you respond to Orthodox heretics who responded your videos by saying that the fathers didn't teach the filioque. I just have no ide who is correct because the debate never gets resolved. Help me please😊
Good video, a few recommendations if you want them. 1. changing your pace or voicing while reading quotes makes it much easier for listeners to follow, as when only listening it all blurs together. 2 The pace is very quick, and can make it difficult to follow, speaking ~10% slower would probably reach people better. God bless!
Is it true that this issue isn’t what’s really dividing us, more so the papacy? One of my priests said this is a big issue, but my other priest said it’s just a misunderstanding?
I'm aware that St. Bede mentioned the filioque in his Ecclesiastical History and one of his sermons. Reading the History along with the manuscript notes, nothing was mentioned regarding the filioque clause, therefore I suppose it is authentic because the author used earlier manuscripts. Also, supposedly St. Theodore of Canterbury was at this Hatfield Council where the filioque was explicitly stated. Point is, as far as I researched, and am no expert, the filioque in Bede's writings is authentic and well attested.
I’m glad you respect Catholics. But did you know your Church authoritatively anathematized the teaching of the Filioque. In this video I showed that the Greek Fathers taught the Filioque. Therefore, your Church erred and does not possess the fullness of truth. This is why you should become Catholic instead.
@@CatholicDwong I'm not gonna pretend knowing. my savior is Jesus and my life belongs to the Lord I'm not gonna claim having knowledge why we split but I know we were one church .
@@TheoVonKing Examine the evidence presented in this video and study the material and you will see the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Catholicism teaches it is necessary to enter the Church to be saved. Read Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer.
@@TheoVonKing I leave this problem to the Bishops. God wanted that the Bishops are the shepherds of us and Bishops on both sides still have jurisdiction, so are still in charge of being shepherds.
I saw a video where an Orthodox priest was listing anathema and the congregation was affirming via responsorial "anathema". I don't know what the context was but always wondered if there was some part of the Orthodox liturgy that anathematized Catholics explicitly. Is that a thing?
@@dailyDorc If you saw it in a video taking place within a liturgical context then I'd say that answers your question. Yes, anathemas are handed out most notably during the Triumph of Orthodoxy which is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent in commemoration of the Orthodox Triumph over the Iconoclasts.
@caseycardenas1668 The video didn't make the context clear, which is the whole reason I was asking if it was part of the liturgy. Thank you for the clarification. Thank God for Triumph of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasts. I'm currently reading a book by Aidan Hart on Icons and it leaves one with the desire to create something beautiful
Dear Dwong, quick question, regarding Epiphanius' use of through the Son, never saw it before, just to make sure, could you double check the greek if he literally said that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, because I personally think that could only be reasonably interpreted as a causal through and not some economic or manifesting through.
Hello brother, sorry for the delayed response. I found the Greek text in PG 42, 609D. The Greek says “ἀπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς” which translates to “from Him [the Father] through the Only-Begotten.” Cheers!
That whole discussion is a very bad argument from them. It usually goes like this. They say we venerate Nestorius as a saint. We say no ofc not. They say so why does one of your eastern Catholic Churches use the anaphora of Nestorius keep in mind some don’t even know what anaphora means. Then we explain what anaphora is and then since they then cannot refute that they say well why does the church call him Mar Nestorius. Which they say means Saint. Then you say they also call some of their bishops Mar showing that Mar doesn’t always mean Saint. Or showing them any website from their Orthodox Churches who call Catholic saints “saints and they either reject it or accept it and then move on to say well it’s still bad that they keep the anaphora of Nestorius in. Like tbh this is a very weak argument.
@TheNewCrusade it's the Assyrian Church of the East and like other churches who have been brought into communion w Rome there are some local venerations that are more allowed abuses than approved things. Many would contest that they venerate him at all but its far from being an approved thing. Sort of similar is that many American Catholics love Cardinal Vigano bc they see he was trying to clean up the abuse scandals. And many love Bishop Strickland bc they see him as defending tradition. Little different bc neither is a heretic but both are at odds w Rome despite maintaining a position of loyalty but yeah....
@@imjustwatchingyoutube8725 no and I'm also not saying that Cardinal Vigano nor bishop Strickland are venerated. I'm saying there are instances of "veneration" in local churches that's more akin to a locally celebrated person than it is to saintly veneration. Apologies for my sloppy articulation
@ its not confounding but rather lacks the context for each excerpt used. Primarily it fails a basic sense check; Your accusation is that the Greeks themselves are so out of touch with their very own fathers that they have got it completely wrong. Big burden of proof and quite delusional
7:15 The quote begins with clear context, referencing creation’s reception of the Spirit from the Son. It’s evident to the EO position that He does this by proceeding from the Father and the Son, or “through.” Saint Cyril writes, “He is of the divine substance, proceeding substantially in it and from it,” because the temporal reception of the Spirit proves that He is God from God, just like the incarnation proves Jesus is God from God. To say the Spirit is from divine substance, doesn’t mean He’s lacking it. Therefore, He proceeds from Himself in as much as He proceeds from the Father and Son. This doesn’t help us understand hypostatic properties. We are learning from Saint Cyril that the Holy Spirit is God. Was this not the work of the church after the 2nd Ecumenical Council? To convict the church in opposition to the Macedonians? I think our beloved Cyril is championing this for us in these texts. Praise God. I do think it’s interesting how Saint Cyril’s theology is related to Saint Athanasius. It’s fun to see the similarities and expansion of thought as the Church grows.
How do you translate the Filioque into Greek? Hahaha, it’s funny because you have the original in the Vatican and technically it Roman Catholics don’t really care whether it’s in or it’s not but that’s what you get
Catholic Catechism #248 "At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."
Correct, this teaches what the Council of Florence Session 6 teaches. That the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is substantially identical to the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae Tomus Against Bekkos, 4, rejects both the Hypostatic procession through the Son and from the Son.
"The three venerable hypostases are known and believed in unoriginate Father and in only-begotten Son and in Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Not begottenly just as the Son, *but proceeding, insofar as He is said to be from only the Father* as from a mouth, but manifested through the Son and speaking in all the holy prophets and apostles." -Cyril, Second Oration on the Trinity
I have a question. Why is it that the Father sends the Holy Spirit to alight on Jesus from heaven seemingly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father to Jesus there, and then he’s driven by the Holy Spirit into the desert etc. I can see a case for it seeming like after this event the Holy Spirit is sent from Jesus in time. My priest said it was done to show us the trinity, epiphany, right? But of course Jesus was already God and therefore one with the father and Holy Spirit.
7:54 Christ as the Lawgiver is enacting the law. This is Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. By saying the Spirit naturally exists in and from Christ, affirms how the Son is also involved in work of giving creation His Law. Let’s not forget, though not mentioned, the Father is working in this too. Of course, we also have the Law of Christ written on our hearts by the Spirit. Maybe Saint Cyril is writing of this? Either way, because the topic is “giving the law,” doesn’t it imply temporal procession. If the Spirit exists in Christ, does that mean He’s contained within His person? That could be problematic. If I go through a mountain by digging a tunnel, at some point I am in the mountain. After I get through, I can claim that I am from that mountain. Why is “in and from” important to Saint Cyril? Couldn’t he have communicated “through?” It seems he doesn’t want to divide God when communicating His working. I don’t see EO having any issue with this quote. I don’t think it’s explicit in support of Catholicism’s claim. I think this is the best quote in support of your claim, thus far. I am curious what’s hiding in the paragraphs surrounding this single sentence. I’ll check the source. Isn’t it obvious Saint Cyril would’ve confessed the Nicene Creed as it was articulated at Constantinople, without the Filioque? If so, these writings won’t contradict that. Of course, he can build on whatever he wants in his personal writings. This may help lead to the western development, but asserting that Saint Cyril taught the Filioque, as dogmatically defined at Florence, is a stretch. If we hyper-focus on these quote mines, we miss what he is actually teaching us. I love how Saint Cyril is saying scripture is from Jesus.
Interesting video. I must profess, as much as it is a plausible position to take from the texts, I remain unconvinced that they specifically taught Filioque. The Lord Jesus Christ purchasing His Church through His fulfillment of the law "changed heaven" forever, opening a bridge to Heaven for the salvation of all, becoming the King and High Priest of His Kingdom(the Church) and thus the Father granting His Son all authority as we must honor Him as we do the Father. Hence, it can be said that the Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father and Son, from the Son in a divine sense of authority and certain properties. Regardless, God bless you my brother in Christ. Peace be with you 🙏☦️
How can you deny they taught the Filioque? St Gregory of Nyssa unmistakably calls the Son the aitia of the Spirit and says the property the distinguishes the Son and the Spirit is that the Spirit is from the Son. St. Cyril clearly says the Spirit exists from the Son and proceeds from the Son’s essence. St. Epiphanius says the Spirit is from Christ or from Both, in the context of Hypostatic origin. St. Athanasius says the reason the Spirit proceeds from the Father hypostatically is because He is from the Son. St. Basil teaches the Spirit is produced by the Father and the Son as one principle. This clearly teaches the Filioque and there is no way around this.
@dwong9289 quote mining is not the way to prove points. And this creates a Diad, not a Triad, hence placing the Holy Spirit in a strange created/uncreated limbo. Again, peace be with you 🙏☦️
@@ElDogeRenacidoExegeting the Fathers is not quotemining. Until you provide another realistic interpretation of the texts, your comment has no value against actual argumentation provided by the Fathers.
@christophersalinas2722 average prideful RC You're not doing the papists any favors by further cementing my stance from converting from RC. The addition of Filioque is pride incarnate. That basically spits on those who originally wrote out the Creed; essentially saying the Council of Nicea was wrong centuries later.
@@assala_611 St. Athanasius says “from the essence” means Hypostatic derivation. There is no distinction between an essential and Hypostatic procession. A Hypostatic procession simply is the communication of the Essence.
The passage here from sermon 3 is highly suspect. I'm sure you can look into the debate on whether or not this is a real real piece from the original writings, but I would argue highly unlikely.
The issue in orthodox Catholic and Protestant discussions is this constant fillcious way og trying to argue and try to do it without reproach you just cant. The issues in Orthodoxy are great same in protestantism and catholism as a Lutheran i favor and love catholism abit more than orthodoxy tho i do love them and many of their saints are good place to learn wisdom. Same to catholics. Same to coptic Orthodox saints.
Balamand Declaration states it's a matter of personal preference which church one is apart of, so kind of a moot point when Rome heraelf has decided it's acceptable to be Orthodox 🤷🏻
It’s Catholic dogma that Outside the Church there is no salvation. Vatican 2 in Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” You bring this up because you can’t refute my arguments.
@@ThruTheUnknown they are in partial communion. But this does not contradict what Unam Sanctam declared ex cathedra (that all creatures must be subject under the Roman Pontiff to be saved.)
@@CatholicDwong so either you simply are unskilled enough for a debate, or you're making up excuses to avoid a debate. Either way, you can't just say this and that, without defending it and by avoiding confrontation, you just prove how much easily you'd be refuted.
@@CatholicDwong so instead of debating the Actual more skilled dude, you're just gonna Challenge a random TH-cam account. Now you're willing to debate, just not the skilled people. That's hypocrisy of a certain level that you just can't ignore. IDK about Ubi Petrus, maybe he'll refute it, but it might just go into a back and forth kinda thing where one repsonds to the other without proper confrontation.
First, you start with an ambiguous definition of the filioque. The filioque says the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father AND the Son. If the position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son, we would have no contention. In other words, Orthodox believe the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit. That is the Monarchy of the Father.
The Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Blachernae in the Tomus Against Bekkos Canon 4 says the Spirit can not proceed through the Son hypostatically. According to the EO, the Spirit can only proceed through the Son by eternal manifestation or temporal procession. In this video I show the Spirit is said to proceed hypostatically from and through the Son, directly contradicting Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
Second, the quote mine from St. Cyril is talking about economy. Notice what St. Cyril doesn’t say. He says the Spirit is sent by the Son. But he doesn’t say the Spirit comes (Gk. ἐκπορεύω) from the Son.
Third, the divine essence is from the Father. That’s why the Creed says light of light, true God of true God. The Father communicates His essence to the Son and the Spirit. The Father is the only cause of everything. There is no abstract divine essence. There’s the divine essence from the Father.
15:18 Saying the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son is the same as saying they share the same essence. Essence same as the Father. Essence they get from the Father. The essence is with the Father. The Father is not from the essence. St. Cyril says “through the Son,” maintains the EO position because the Father is the source of His Son and Spirit. From the Father they have essence. That essence isn’t lacking in any way between the Trinity. So of course the Spirit has what the Son has. Just as He comes from the Son, so too He comes from Himself. However, His source is the Father. He can’t be from both if He is through the Son. From the perspective of creation He may appear from Both, but beyond creation divinely simple He is from the Father. This is Saint Cyril’s position and contradicts Catholicism. Again it just seems, Saint Cyril isn’t defining the Catholic dogma. Instead, he’s proving the divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can’t we also affirm that the Son has all that the Spirit has because of their shared essence? Was Jesus not incarnate by the Spirit, being through Him from the Father? Can we say that beyond creation this is a hypostatic reality? No. Likewise, according to the witness of scripture, how can we confidently apply this logic to the Spirit? I don’t think we can. I might be wrong, of course. I’ve been wrong many times. Jesus, please, have mercy on me. It seems the Filioque position as dogmatically defined is contrary to the early fathers’ intent. Then Roman Catholics try to make it their intent. It doesn’t seem fair or edifying to a layman like myself. Trying to discern out of Protestantism, it seems everything hinges on this topic. As you can tell I’m leaning EO, but I’m trying to be diligent in my study of RC. Your channel is a great challenge. Its takes me what feels like forever to work through your videos, but it’s fun. Thanks.
@@CatholicDwong bro i think it is fallacy, i have mentioned you today in twitter with page in greek&latin, objecting theodorets fourth anathema counter statement. that the spirit indeed proceeds from the father, and did not affirm or defend theodoret's accusaition "he believes that spirit derive his existence from the son" he just say theodoret is accusar.. so what is your reply? sincerly
I think Siecienski means Theodoret's accusation to Cyril's 9th anathema where he says that Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit and Cyril didn't said no. You didn't mentioned that.
In St. Cyril’s explanation of the Ninth Anathema he teaches the Filioque, he clarifies what He means when He says the Spirit is proper (idios) to the Son. He says this means the Spirit is from the Son and in Him. I didn’t include it in this video, because the common argument that St. Cyril rejected the Filioque is from Theodoret Letter 171 not from his Counter-statement 9 to St. Cyril’s 12 anathemas. Anyways I’m writing a book that will have even more quotes from St. Cyril showing he taught the Hypostatic Filioque.
There are many church fathers who believed in it, and there are many who didn’t. The church as a whole agreed that the Filioque was a heresy except Rome at the time of the schism.
00:00 Introduction
00:37 Catholic & Orthodox Dogmas
03:29 St. Cyril
15:50 Theodoret 171
18:33 St. Epiphanius
26:42 St. Gregory of Nyssa
44:04 St. Athanasius
52:06 St. Basil
55:00 Summary
Correction at 31:59 I meant the property that distinguishes the Spirit from the Son.
Correction: At 3:55 a more exact translation would be “of the essence of the Son.” However, the point still stands because in the latter quotes he also uses the formula from the essence of the Son. So it makes no substantial difference to our argumentation.
Correction: At 10:38 I accidentally combined two separate quotes into one.
Link to slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1MozMIvsqlgptaLzQX3VNzrx65edC9K7u/view?usp=sharing
Venmo: venmo.com/u/Brian-Duong-82617
The witness of St. Epiphanius is especially powerful because, although Constantinople +381 is credited with the "second half" of the Nicene creed, it first shows up in the historical record about a decade prior in the writings of St. Epiphanius. Since Epiphanius clearly believed in the Filioque, we know with certainty that the "original" formula of the creed, "the Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father," wasn't intended to deny a procession "from the Son" also. In fact, Epiphanius wrote another version of that creed which says that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son." There is a reason why the Latins believed the Greeks removed the Filioque from the creed, and vice versa: the history of the creed is more complex than either side realized. See Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, "Two Creeds of Epiphanius. A.D. 374."
Yes I have the Second Creed from St. Epiphanius in my upcoming book ❤️
@@CatholicDwong looking forward to it!
Hurray! Now the Eastern Orthodox can reunite with Catholicism!!!
@@DanielAluni-v2t Pride unfortunately is a boulder in our travails.
@@johnnotrealname8168Hopefully not if they want to be like Jesus
I know I’ve commented on your work before, but I just wanted to thank you again because your work on this issue has single-handedly eased some of the worst anxiety I’ve ever felt.
A stickman called dwong gives me a detailed lecture on the Eastern Church Fathers' view on the Filioque. The internet is a perplexing place.
An R2D2 profile picture said that a stickman called Dwong gave a lecture on the Eastern Church Father’s view of the Filioque. The internet is a perplexing place.
@@CatholicDwong Future internet archeologists will note the subjects in question were self aware of the strangeness that would be examined
One of the best videos ever made.
Whoa. Such a clear and precise presentation! God bless the only divinely authoritative Catholic Church!
This video is not only excellent, it's important. It ought to be shared widely.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 thank you very much ❤️
Yep, these Fathers are also why Ecumenical Patriarch John Bekkos, realized the differences between Eastern and Western Churches were exaggerated and wanted to mend the Schism. To which he was persecuted for it.
Thank you for making this entire series. I began my exit out of protestantism about a year ago and was heavily pulled towards Orthodoxy before I came across these videos. No EO I ever bring these quotes up to can ever substantively respond, just hand-wave or angrily assert they're forgeries. I think it's only a matter of time before I convert to Catholicism.
Glory to God brother! If you need any help feel free to reach out to dwong23 on Discord
I will pray for you brother!
It’s the Orthodox way “forgeries bro!” or the classic “quoteminer🙄”
Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, pray for us.
I was just hoping you had new content and this pops up.
Amazing video, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, and St. Basil along with their defenders and interpreters John Bekkos and Nikephoros Blemmydes pray for us.
Thanks UI!
Dwong with another banger
Another banger. You should do one on the Papacy.
At the 31:45 mark (in the "St. Gregory of Nyssa" chapter), I think you meant to type "Son" instead of "Spirit" as the last word in the green highlighted phrase.
With that said, this was an excellent video. I am continually amazed by the rigour of your research and the clarity of your arguments. I look forward to your upcoming book which I am sure will be as inspired as all your online content.
You are correct, that was a typo. Thank you so much, God bless 🙏
Another Banger
Bro didn’t even watch yet, but he’s supporting 🔥
2:50, 55:01-51:23, Congratulations on refuting Eastern Orthodoxy.
Since dogma in the Roman Catholic understanding are divine truths revealed by God himself (the Filioque is dogma in Roman Catholicism and God cannot deceive anyone Numbers 23:19), either the Roman Catholic Church is correct and the EO Church is false or vice versa.
This video clearly proves that the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the procession of the Holy Spirit is the true position and the true faith. To deny an infallible dogma of the Roman Catholic Church such as the Filioque is to call God a liar, telling Him that what He revealed to us in his Church is not true.
Not only can God not deceive anyone, but in addition, the Roman Catholic Council of Lyon in 1274 already declared the Filioque to be dogma, so if God revealed the Filioque dogma and was present in the Roman Catholic Church in 1274, it is impossible that God simultaneously revealed the contradictory single procession as divinely revealed truth in the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Council at Blachernae in 1285 (debunking any claim that the EO is actually the true Catholic Church.)
No Eastern Orthodox apologist will be able to refute this video and it’s not necessarily relevant that their apologists bring up other arguments such as the Papacy, because as you mentioned, the Council of Blachernae (and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2016 officially stated that it is guided by the Holy Spirit in its councils and later councils after the schism with Rome) claim that God spoke in their Church by dogmatizing the single procession, thus falsifying their own Church and proving the EO is not the true Catholic Church, the Pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim 3:15.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the (Roman Catholic) Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from Heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself - Condemned.”
Pope Leo XIII, TAMETSI FUTURA PROSPICIENTIBUS para #9 - “To reject dogma is simply to deny Christianity.”
Now do the Papacy
@@LeontiusInvictusare you going to address the video first?
@@fillydunit9763 notice how he never responded? lmao
@@sumlad5229 yeah😂
Love this, you are doing God's work defending the faith! Have you considered doing a video addressing polemics against thomism?
I’m a beginner Thomist myself. Christian B. Wagner and Astro are much better at that. You should watch the channel Scholastic Answers
@@CatholicDwong I love his channel
I was confirmed this past Easter Vigil and your videos def helped contribute to my choosing between both churches. 🇻🇦💗
God bless you Maya, welcome home 🙏
@@CatholicDwong God bless you as well Dwong and thank you🩷
The Memoirs of Silvester Syropoulos reveal that Mark of Ephesus called the Council of Florence "ecumenical"; George Scholarios suggested a compromise text saying that the Holy Spirit gushes forth (anabluzei) or fountains forth from the Son.
bro. stone cold stunner. youre the man.
I LOVE THE FILIOQUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for posting. Thanks to you I could realize the beauty and truthfulness of our One Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church. Please don’t stop ❤🙏
Awesome to hear brother. God bless!
Very good video!
17:01
Saint Cyril wrote, “but the Spirit Himself of God and the Father, who proceedeth also from Him, and is not alien from the Son, according to His essence.” This is explicitly the EO position. I acknowledge it doesn’t disprove the RC position.
Amazing work, God bless 🙏🏻
Really appreciate this video..Very insightful.
You ever gonna make videos on the papacy like these?
Wow I’ve never seen eastern fathers admit the filoque thought it was just the west this just changed a lot for me now just the papacy in history
@@DayoAkinrinmade If Filioque is true than EO cannot be true!
Excellent work
I got a job. I’m definitely buying that book my dude. Hopefully there are coloring pages 🤗
I think it would be useful in these videos if the Greek were put side by side with the translation so that we can see what terms are used. I've not seen the whole vid, but that first S. Cyril quote does not have 'ek' in the Greek brackets when it talks about the Spirit being 'from' the 'essence of the Son'.
Thank you Dionysius. I followed the translation given by Dr. Ed Siecienski when it says “from the essence of the Son.” I re-checked the PG and it says “τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς οὐσίας ὁμολογεῖν τοῦ Υἱοῦ” which more precisely translates to “the Spirit is of the essence of the Son.” However, this substantially means the same thing as Hypostatic origin, as St. Basil says “of the Substance of the Father” means Hypostatic origin. So, the argument still holds. I added a correction to the pinned comment as well.
However, if you disagree, it doesn’t matter since St. Cyril does use “from (ek) the essence of the Son” in the quotes provided at 8:06 11:14 and 13:06
Regardless, St. Cyril teaches both the Spirit is of the essence of the Son and from the essence of the Son, comparing this to naturally existing from the Son, indicating both are substantially identical. Cheers!
@@CatholicDwong Yeah I think the Byzantines have an interpreted tradition here. They would say that this refers to consubstantiality rather than hypostatic origination. E.g., Palamas says: " Everytimethat Cyril, this theophoreman, says that the Spirit is from the essence of the Son,
he refers to the consubstantiality [τὸ ὁμοούσιον] of the Son, and not to the fact that the Son
would be the cause of the Spirit.
...It could be well said that the Spirit does not proceed from the hypostasis of the Son, but naturally from the Father and from the essence of the Son, due to the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, so that- since this shows the consubstantiality of the divine
Spirit with the Father and the Son, and not the different existence of the Spirit from the
Father, due to the consubstantiality, it is the same to say the Spirit is also from the essence of the Son and to say the Spirit is of the same essence with the Son."
@@dionysiuscarthusianus3015If Palamas were to be consistent and say that the Son being from/of the essence of the Father merely refers to the consubstantiality that he has with the Father and not that he proceeds from him, then I guess there’s no problem with that interpretation (although St. Basil here seems to equate being “of the substance of the Father” with hypostatic origination). That being said there are quotes here that cannot honestly be reconciled with the EO position.
Excellent presentation
It’s over for the Orthobros
Hey brother. I remember around 8 months ago you were saying you were returning to the Catholic Church. Any update?
@@CatholicDwong It’s nice to hear that you remember. But yeah! I can confirm that I have indeed returned to the Catholic Church, in fact I was confirmed last Easter vigil. It’s great bearing witness to the fullness of the truth
@@AveChristusRex789 awesome to hear man. God bless! Stay close to the sacraments!
@@CatholicDwong I will. Keep it up with these videos man 🙏
And yet here we are.☦️😘
Qui ex patre filioque procedit 🔥🔥🔥
Yesssss another one🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
Pachamama, quote mining, Francis... Debunked... I am very intelligent...
Oh sweet goodness it's you again.
Cathobros have come here to pull out some of the biggest strawmen possible.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318I was joking
Haha
The EO's are scared of this guy.
Let’s see a debate with David Erhan or Jay Dyer
@@saullustre6733Wagner debated Erhan and has about 3 response streams on his (wild) videos. Wagner also had an interaction with Dyer recently where he showed his incorrect perception of hypostatic relations. He also has at least five videos against him (on channel’s called Distinguo & Unionist Initiative) as well as a playlist with many videos on the topic, one of which refutes the only decent argument against the Filioque. “Let’s see a debate” is coping. Wagner crushed Ubi Petrus in a Filioque debate a while ago as well while i’m on the topic.
As someone who left the Catholic Church for the Eastern Orthodox, we are not scared of him
Papacy next?
Another banger Dwong. By the way, I know you spent time in a Maronite monastery. Are you a practising Maronite? If so, what brought you to the Maronite Church?
Prayers from Sydney
Thanks bro. I am Latin rite but I entered a Maronite Monastery (without switching rites because they had an indult) because their charism of Eucharistic Adoration attracted me. I was part of the Maronite Monks of Adoration in Petersham, MA
@@CatholicDwong Amazing. Are you currently attending Latin Rite or Maronite?
By the way, us Maronites have 4 more Saints coming soon. Blessed Estephan Douayhi and the 3 Massabki martyrs.
"The just shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow up like the cedar of Lebanon. They that are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of the house of our God."
Psalm 92:13-14 DR
@@UnionSince452I am currently attending Latin rite.
The Filioque is obviously true! Awesome videos
@@catholicpenguin thank you! God bless brother!
I love your content.
Please do a video on the controversy between Vatican 1 and 2 and some of the alleged contradictions. Sedevacantism is growing hugely and needs to be put down
Lol, if Vatican II is really an ecumenical council, then sedevacantism is true.
dwong I really like your videos, keep making them in the same spirit, you explain autumn well and simply👍 are you thinking about making a video about Papism among the Fathers of the Church in the future?
4:30
Saying the Spirit is from the essence of the Son is different than saying, from the Son. The Son’s essence is from the Father. Therefore, with the Father is divine essence. From Whom the Son and Spirit draw their eternal existence.
Saint Cyril even said, “If this is so, then the Spirit is God from God, and not a creature.” The goal of Saint Cyril is to prove the Spirit is not a creature. As we confess He is “equal to the Father and Son,” the Father being “One God” and the Son is “True God of True God, of one essence with the Father.” This communicates the Son is from the Father as the same God. Therefore, Saint Cyril is relating the Son and Spirit in order to make them equals. Leading to the obvious conclusion that the Spirit is God from God, aka processed by the Father.
We may imply that he is teaching the Filioque, but it can’t be claimed as if it’s explicit. Obviously, I have implied that he’s teaching the EO position.
The reason the EO position has better weight given this specific quote is when Saint Cyril writes, “is sent by Him [the Son] into creation to enact renewal…” This understanding being anchored in scripture. Saint John the Apostle writes Jesus’ explanation how He sends His Spirit and when (Pentecost). All this being done relative to time as witnessed by the Church in Acts. Therefore, temporal. It can’t be definitively imputed into Ontology beyond creation as a hypostatic relation between them.
I’ll keep watching… I love the icon of the of the church fathers right next to the text. It’s so helpful to put faces to names. Protestant’s need to get on board with that. Great teaching tools at the very least.
Can you respond to Orthodox heretics who responded your videos by saying that the fathers didn't teach the filioque. I just have no ide who is correct because the debate never gets resolved. Help me please😊
Good video, a few recommendations if you want them.
1. changing your pace or voicing while reading quotes makes it much easier for listeners to follow, as when only listening it all blurs together.
2 The pace is very quick, and can make it difficult to follow, speaking ~10% slower would probably reach people better.
God bless!
I personally receive the info a lot better when he talks quicker. It sticks in my mind better for sum reason. It also makes the videos more enjoyable
It's also possible to slow down the video speed.
Is it true that this issue isn’t what’s really dividing us, more so the papacy? One of my priests said this is a big issue, but my other priest said it’s just a misunderstanding?
No it’s an actual dogmatic disagreement. They completely contradict our dogma.
@@CatholicDwong Thank you, God bless 🙏🏼
Hey brother, where can I have a conversation with you because I need your help 🙏
@Johan.f9 Maybe sometime this weekend. Ads CatholicDwong on Discord
Great video
@@ChristianSigma thanks!
Do one with the English saints I would if I had a following
What saints are you thinking about
I'm aware that St. Bede mentioned the filioque in his Ecclesiastical History and one of his sermons. Reading the History along with the manuscript notes, nothing was mentioned regarding the filioque clause, therefore I suppose it is authentic because the author used earlier manuscripts. Also, supposedly St. Theodore of Canterbury was at this Hatfield Council where the filioque was explicitly stated. Point is, as far as I researched, and am no expert, the filioque in Bede's writings is authentic and well attested.
Im greek Orthodox i dont have a problem with the Catholics
I’m glad you respect Catholics. But did you know your Church authoritatively anathematized the teaching of the Filioque. In this video I showed that the Greek Fathers taught the Filioque. Therefore, your Church erred and does not possess the fullness of truth. This is why you should become Catholic instead.
@@CatholicDwong can we agree to disagree ? We were one before the schism right my bro ?
@@CatholicDwong I'm not gonna pretend knowing. my savior is Jesus and my life belongs to the Lord I'm not gonna claim having knowledge why we split but I know we were one church .
@@TheoVonKing Examine the evidence presented in this video and study the material and you will see the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Catholicism teaches it is necessary to enter the Church to be saved. Read Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer.
@@TheoVonKing I leave this problem to the Bishops. God wanted that the Bishops are the shepherds of us and Bishops on both sides still have jurisdiction, so are still in charge of being shepherds.
Based quote mines ❤❤
BASED DWONGGGGG!!!!!
Just because im greek Orthodox i wont say anathema to the catholics
I saw a video where an Orthodox priest was listing anathema and the congregation was affirming via responsorial "anathema". I don't know what the context was but always wondered if there was some part of the Orthodox liturgy that anathematized Catholics explicitly. Is that a thing?
@@dailyDorcif you do not hold to the proper teachings of the Church, and openly deny them, you are anathema.
@caseycardenas1668 I was asking if that's part of the liturgy, but thanks, simple jack
@@dailyDorc If you saw it in a video taking place within a liturgical context then I'd say that answers your question.
Yes, anathemas are handed out most notably during the Triumph of Orthodoxy which is celebrated on the first Sunday of Great Lent in commemoration of the Orthodox Triumph over the Iconoclasts.
@caseycardenas1668 The video didn't make the context clear, which is the whole reason I was asking if it was part of the liturgy. Thank you for the clarification. Thank God for Triumph of Orthodoxy over the iconoclasts. I'm currently reading a book by Aidan Hart on Icons and it leaves one with the desire to create something beautiful
Dear Dwong, quick question, regarding Epiphanius' use of through the Son, never saw it before, just to make sure, could you double check the greek if he literally said that the Spirit is from the Father through the Son, because I personally think that could only be reasonably interpreted as a causal through and not some economic or manifesting through.
Hello brother, sorry for the delayed response. I found the Greek text in PG 42, 609D.
The Greek says “ἀπ' αὐτοῦ καὶ διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς” which translates to “from Him [the Father] through the Only-Begotten.”
Cheers!
Nice Video, I think you should talk about the Anaphora of nestorius, Orthobros likes to use it as an argument against RCC.
That whole discussion is a very bad argument from them. It usually goes like this. They say we venerate Nestorius as a saint. We say no ofc not. They say so why does one of your eastern Catholic Churches use the anaphora of Nestorius keep in mind some don’t even know what anaphora means. Then we explain what anaphora is and then since they then cannot refute that they say well why does the church call him Mar Nestorius. Which they say means Saint. Then you say they also call some of their bishops Mar showing that Mar doesn’t always mean Saint. Or showing them any website from their Orthodox Churches who call Catholic saints “saints and they either reject it or accept it and then move on to say well it’s still bad that they keep the anaphora of Nestorius in. Like tbh this is a very weak argument.
@TheNewCrusade it's the Assyrian Church of the East and like other churches who have been brought into communion w Rome there are some local venerations that are more allowed abuses than approved things. Many would contest that they venerate him at all but its far from being an approved thing. Sort of similar is that many American Catholics love Cardinal Vigano bc they see he was trying to clean up the abuse scandals. And many love Bishop Strickland bc they see him as defending tradition. Little different bc neither is a heretic but both are at odds w Rome despite maintaining a position of loyalty but yeah....
@@dailyDorc correct me if I’m wrong but are you saying the anaphora of Nestorius equals veneration?
@@imjustwatchingyoutube8725 no and I'm also not saying that Cardinal Vigano nor bishop Strickland are venerated. I'm saying there are instances of "veneration" in local churches that's more akin to a locally celebrated person than it is to saintly veneration. Apologies for my sloppy articulation
@@dailyDorc oh Ait Ye i agree, its Ait bro i prob just read your comment wrong😅 my fault
Nice quote-mines bro!
One hour of quote mines?
"everything that confounds me is quote mining"
@ its not confounding but rather lacks the context for each excerpt used. Primarily it fails a basic sense check; Your accusation is that the Greeks themselves are so out of touch with their very own fathers that they have got it completely wrong. Big burden of proof and quite delusional
7:15
The quote begins with clear context, referencing creation’s reception of the Spirit from the Son. It’s evident to the EO position that He does this by proceeding from the Father and the Son, or “through.”
Saint Cyril writes, “He is of the divine substance, proceeding substantially in it and from it,” because the temporal reception of the Spirit proves that He is God from God, just like the incarnation proves Jesus is God from God.
To say the Spirit is from divine substance, doesn’t mean He’s lacking it. Therefore, He proceeds from Himself in as much as He proceeds from the Father and Son. This doesn’t help us understand hypostatic properties. We are learning from Saint Cyril that the Holy Spirit is God.
Was this not the work of the church after the 2nd Ecumenical Council? To convict the church in opposition to the Macedonians? I think our beloved Cyril is championing this for us in these texts. Praise God.
I do think it’s interesting how Saint Cyril’s theology is related to Saint Athanasius. It’s fun to see the similarities and expansion of thought as the Church grows.
How do you translate the Filioque into Greek? Hahaha, it’s funny because you have the original in the Vatican and technically it Roman Catholics don’t really care whether it’s in or it’s not but that’s what you get
Dwong "orthodoxy" debunking systems
Catholic Catechism #248 "At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."
Correct, this teaches what the Council of Florence Session 6 teaches. That the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is substantially identical to the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Eastern Orthodox Council of Blachernae Tomus Against Bekkos, 4, rejects both the Hypostatic procession through the Son and from the Son.
"The three venerable hypostases are known and believed in unoriginate Father and in only-begotten Son and in Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. Not begottenly just as the Son, *but proceeding, insofar as He is said to be from only the Father* as from a mouth, but manifested through the Son and speaking in all the holy prophets and apostles."
-Cyril, Second Oration on the Trinity
@@papercut7141 drop the Patrologia Graeca citation and the original Greek
@@CatholicDwong αἱ προσκυνηταὶ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις γινώσκονται καὶ πιστεύονται ἐν πατρὶ ἀνάρχῳ καὶ ἐν υἱῷ μονογενεῖ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ τῷ ἐκπορευομένῳ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός· οὐ γεννητῶς καθάπερ ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ’ ἐκπορευομένῳ καθάπερ εἴρηται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς ὡς ἀπὸ στόματος, πεφηνότι δὲ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ λαλήσαντι ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις πᾶσι προφήταις τε καὶ ἀποστόλοις
PG 75:724A
I can't read greek myself so do with that what you will
I have a question. Why is it that the Father sends the Holy Spirit to alight on Jesus from heaven seemingly the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father to Jesus there, and then he’s driven by the Holy Spirit into the desert etc. I can see a case for it seeming like after this event the Holy Spirit is sent from Jesus in time.
My priest said it was done to show us the trinity, epiphany, right? But of course Jesus was already God and therefore one with the father and Holy Spirit.
Common Dwong W
7:54
Christ as the Lawgiver is enacting the law. This is Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit. By saying the Spirit naturally exists in and from Christ, affirms how the Son is also involved in work of giving creation His Law. Let’s not forget, though not mentioned, the Father is working in this too.
Of course, we also have the Law of Christ written on our hearts by the Spirit. Maybe Saint Cyril is writing of this?
Either way, because the topic is “giving the law,” doesn’t it imply temporal procession. If the Spirit exists in Christ, does that mean He’s contained within His person? That could be problematic.
If I go through a mountain by digging a tunnel, at some point I am in the mountain. After I get through, I can claim that I am from that mountain.
Why is “in and from” important to Saint Cyril? Couldn’t he have communicated “through?” It seems he doesn’t want to divide God when communicating His working. I don’t see EO having any issue with this quote. I don’t think it’s explicit in support of Catholicism’s claim.
I think this is the best quote in support of your claim, thus far. I am curious what’s hiding in the paragraphs surrounding this single sentence. I’ll check the source.
Isn’t it obvious Saint Cyril would’ve confessed the Nicene Creed as it was articulated at Constantinople, without the Filioque? If so, these writings won’t contradict that. Of course, he can build on whatever he wants in his personal writings. This may help lead to the western development, but asserting that Saint Cyril taught the Filioque, as dogmatically defined at Florence, is a stretch. If we hyper-focus on these quote mines, we miss what he is actually teaching us.
I love how Saint Cyril is saying scripture is from Jesus.
Interesting video.
I must profess, as much as it is a plausible position to take from the texts, I remain unconvinced that they specifically taught Filioque.
The Lord Jesus Christ purchasing His Church through His fulfillment of the law "changed heaven" forever, opening a bridge to Heaven for the salvation of all, becoming the King and High Priest of His Kingdom(the Church) and thus the Father granting His Son all authority as we must honor Him as we do the Father.
Hence, it can be said that the Holy Spirit is sent forth from the Father and Son, from the Son in a divine sense of authority and certain properties.
Regardless, God bless you my brother in Christ. Peace be with you 🙏☦️
How can you deny they taught the Filioque? St Gregory of Nyssa unmistakably calls the Son the aitia of the Spirit and says the property the distinguishes the Son and the Spirit is that the Spirit is from the Son. St. Cyril clearly says the Spirit exists from the Son and proceeds from the Son’s essence. St. Epiphanius says the Spirit is from Christ or from Both, in the context of Hypostatic origin. St. Athanasius says the reason the Spirit proceeds from the Father hypostatically is because He is from the Son. St. Basil teaches the Spirit is produced by the Father and the Son as one principle. This clearly teaches the Filioque and there is no way around this.
@dwong9289 quote mining is not the way to prove points. And this creates a Diad, not a Triad, hence placing the Holy Spirit in a strange created/uncreated limbo.
Again, peace be with you 🙏☦️
@@ElDogeRenacidoExegeting the Fathers is not quotemining. Until you provide another realistic interpretation of the texts, your comment has no value against actual argumentation provided by the Fathers.
@@ElDogeRenacidoaverage EO
@christophersalinas2722 average prideful RC
You're not doing the papists any favors by further cementing my stance from converting from RC.
The addition of Filioque is pride incarnate. That basically spits on those who originally wrote out the Creed; essentially saying the Council of Nicea was wrong centuries later.
Babe wake up
New dwong video dropped
Can you do a video on St. John Damascus and the Filioque?
Erick Ybarra has a video on it
Dwong the Orthodox say if Cyrill says from the essence from the Son it is only essential procession and not hypostatical how can we refute this?
@@assala_611 St. Athanasius says “from the essence” means Hypostatic derivation. There is no distinction between an essential and Hypostatic procession. A Hypostatic procession simply is the communication of the Essence.
@@CatholicDwong Thank you Brother
lol whoever told you that just proved the filioque for you
The passage here from sermon 3 is highly suspect. I'm sure you can look into the debate on whether or not this is a real real piece from the original writings, but I would argue highly unlikely.
Actually deal with the arguments presented showing it is authentic. The manuscript evidence favors it
based dwong video
Based Sicilianus comment
Hey dwong can I have your discord, they banned me from Papacy hub
sure my discord is dwong23
The issue in orthodox Catholic and Protestant discussions is this constant fillcious way og trying to argue and try to do it without reproach you just cant. The issues in Orthodoxy are great same in protestantism and catholism as a Lutheran i favor and love catholism abit more than orthodoxy tho i do love them and many of their saints are good place to learn wisdom. Same to catholics. Same to coptic Orthodox saints.
Are you by any chance Norwegian?
Balamand Declaration states it's a matter of personal preference which church one is apart of, so kind of a moot point when Rome heraelf has decided it's acceptable to be Orthodox 🤷🏻
It’s Catholic dogma that Outside the Church there is no salvation.
Vatican 2 in Lumen Gentium 14 says:
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”
You bring this up because you can’t refute my arguments.
@@CatholicDwongseparated brethren means they are in an invisible communion if they have trinitarian baptism and valid Sacraments though?
@@ThruTheUnknown they are in partial communion. But this does not contradict what Unam Sanctam declared ex cathedra (that all creatures must be subject under the Roman Pontiff to be saved.)
Ubi Petrus said he reached out to you, will you debate Filioque with him? that would be interesting.
I am not a debater
@@CatholicDwong so either you simply are unskilled enough for a debate, or you're making up excuses to avoid a debate.
Either way, you can't just say this and that, without defending it and by avoiding confrontation, you just prove how much easily you'd be refuted.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Recite the arguments and refute them then
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 Or Ubi petrus can just refute him in a video.
@@CatholicDwong so instead of debating the Actual more skilled dude, you're just gonna Challenge a random TH-cam account.
Now you're willing to debate, just not the skilled people.
That's hypocrisy of a certain level that you just can't ignore.
IDK about Ubi Petrus, maybe he'll refute it, but it might just go into a back and forth kinda thing where one repsonds to the other without proper confrontation.
Based
First, you start with an ambiguous definition of the filioque. The filioque says the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father AND the Son. If the position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son, we would have no contention. In other words, Orthodox believe the Father is the sole cause of the Holy Spirit. That is the Monarchy of the Father.
The Eastern Orthodox at the Council of Blachernae in the Tomus Against Bekkos Canon 4 says the Spirit can not proceed through the Son hypostatically. According to the EO, the Spirit can only proceed through the Son by eternal manifestation or temporal procession. In this video I show the Spirit is said to proceed hypostatically from and through the Son, directly contradicting Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
Second, the quote mine from St. Cyril is talking about economy. Notice what St. Cyril doesn’t say. He says the Spirit is sent by the Son. But he doesn’t say the Spirit comes (Gk. ἐκπορεύω) from the Son.
He covers that in the video
Third, the divine essence is from the Father. That’s why the Creed says light of light, true God of true God. The Father communicates His essence to the Son and the Spirit. The Father is the only cause of everything. There is no abstract divine essence. There’s the divine essence from the Father.
@@nelsoncamachotirado6967
”The Father is the only cause of everything” This is blasphemy. Eastern Pseudo-Orthodox like you are neo-Arians.
based
th-cam.com/video/4hUrJdDzEt0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=zb0EGxSKlNAxeyYh
Can you respond to this recent objection?
Olson Track
The Greeks who received the free salvation by FAITH ALONE were slaughtered by their people like the Hebrews did to their prophets
15:18
Saying the Spirit is consubstantial with the Son is the same as saying they share the same essence. Essence same as the Father. Essence they get from the Father. The essence is with the Father. The Father is not from the essence. St. Cyril says “through the Son,” maintains the EO position because the Father is the source of His Son and Spirit. From the Father they have essence.
That essence isn’t lacking in any way between the Trinity. So of course the Spirit has what the Son has. Just as He comes from the Son, so too He comes from Himself. However, His source is the Father. He can’t be from both if He is through the Son. From the perspective of creation He may appear from Both, but beyond creation divinely simple He is from the Father. This is Saint Cyril’s position and contradicts Catholicism.
Again it just seems, Saint Cyril isn’t defining the Catholic dogma. Instead, he’s proving the divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit. Can’t we also affirm that the Son has all that the Spirit has because of their shared essence? Was Jesus not incarnate by the Spirit, being through Him from the Father? Can we say that beyond creation this is a hypostatic reality? No. Likewise, according to the witness of scripture, how can we confidently apply this logic to the Spirit? I don’t think we can.
I might be wrong, of course. I’ve been wrong many times. Jesus, please, have mercy on me. It seems the Filioque position as dogmatically defined is contrary to the early fathers’ intent. Then Roman Catholics try to make it their intent. It doesn’t seem fair or edifying to a layman like myself.
Trying to discern out of Protestantism, it seems everything hinges on this topic. As you can tell I’m leaning EO, but I’m trying to be diligent in my study of RC.
Your channel is a great challenge. Its takes me what feels like forever to work through your videos, but it’s fun. Thanks.
Decimating orthodoxy
shamelessly attributing this doctrine to st cyril which denied when Theodoret accused him believing so..
@@JohannesCalvinus that objection is dealt with in the video at 15:50 (if you actually watch before commenting.)
@@CatholicDwong thx for clarification. love
@@CatholicDwong bro i think it is fallacy, i have mentioned you today in twitter with page in greek&latin, objecting theodorets fourth anathema counter statement. that the spirit indeed proceeds from the father, and did not affirm or defend theodoret's accusaition "he believes that spirit derive his existence from the son" he just say theodoret is accusar.. so what is your reply? sincerly
@@JohannesCalvinuscan u pls give me the source? and it is the quote where he says polytheism?
learn Greek lol, using English for this is so cringe and allows you to warp meaning
@@danielsheinin1623 address the arguments.
The Greek found in Patrologia Graeca is cited for most texts
Orthocope incoming
Dwong Based
Jenkins Greens
Pseudo-Orthodox*
Thompson Greens
Bradtke Corner
I think Siecienski means Theodoret's accusation to Cyril's 9th anathema where he says that Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit and Cyril didn't said no. You didn't mentioned that.
In St. Cyril’s explanation of the Ninth Anathema he teaches the Filioque, he clarifies what He means when He says the Spirit is proper (idios) to the Son. He says this means the Spirit is from the Son and in Him.
I didn’t include it in this video, because the common argument that St. Cyril rejected the Filioque is from Theodoret Letter 171 not from his Counter-statement 9 to St. Cyril’s 12 anathemas.
Anyways I’m writing a book that will have even more quotes from St. Cyril showing he taught the Hypostatic Filioque.
@@CatholicDwong Thanks. I think it would be a good idea for you to respond to this argument in your future videos.
Nice pfp bro 🇦🇲
Mauricio Circles
Piper Plain
Tillman Expressway
There are many church fathers who believed in it, and there are many who didn’t. The church as a whole agreed that the Filioque was a heresy except Rome at the time of the schism.
The holy Spirit is the spirit of the Son by nature, it's in the Bible, Orthodoxy are false
False, watch my video The Church Fathers taught the Filioque. Basically every Father except for one taught the Filioque.
Evelyn Flats
You should make a video on the heresy of hesychasm in the orthodox church lol
Why is Hesychasm a heresy?
You might’ve cooked with this one
Reinger Orchard