Correction: At 1:23:23 I should have said "immanent origin through the Son" not "immanent pouring forth." My apologies. Correction: At 1:34:42 I meant to say that St Gregory the Wonderworker says the Son manifests the presence of the Holy Spirit. Correction: At 1:35:27 It is letter to Serapion 2&3 (they were originally one letter according to this author linked below), not letter 4. Letter 4 had another quote I was going to use, but didn't. You can find it here at archive.org/details/TheLettersOfSaintAthanasiusConcerningTheHolySpirit/page/n173/mode/2up page 172 Clarification: When I said the Father and Son are originators of the Holy Spirit, I meant these two Persons are One Origin of the Holy Spirit. Correction: At 1:28:58 the quote is from verse 29 not 28 Correction: At 30:24 in my slides I write "an argument from silence is no argument at all", I correct my position and believe arguments from silence can be valid, although this instance it was invalid. Correction: At 36:55 I should have said the hypostatic properties are the relations of opposition in another view. Correction: At 40:13 I read "the Monarchy is not lost" as referring to the Monarchy of the Father, but now I think it actually refers to the Monarchy of the Godhead not the Monarchy of the Father. However, this would still imply that this is referring to the Divine Substance and therefore the hypostatic per filium, so the argument still holds but needs modification. Correction: At 1:00:34 the quote from St. Gregory of Tours should say, " I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, that it is not inferior and is not of later origin, but is God."
Wow like over 50 church fathers that are recognized on both east and west. All arguments you find online for or against the filioque usually quote like 3 sources and that it. And many of the were so clear. That was crazy good.
I profoundly appreciated this video, and the obvious effort put into not just compiling a bunch of Patristic quotations, but also carefully investigating how to distinguish statements about the economy from statements about the essence or nature, and then expressing this verbally in a way that indicates the fervancy and conviction of your beliefs. It is a good thing to hear (though I do urge a certain caution concerning letting this be the entirety of how you relate to the topic and especially the people who believe it) and I give thanks to God for having given you the time and the capacity to both study this carefully, and to express it with similar precision and theological detail. May God bless this endeavor to address this cause of division in those who are not Catholic, and to remind Catholics of the need to recognize the positive reason for those things which the Church has maintained despite the politicization of this division by others.
Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened and forbade any alteration in the Creed. He ordered the Creed - without Filioque - to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver tablets and mounted to the right and the left of the entrance to the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. He said that he did this, “for love and defense of the Orthodox faith.” 879 AD - Rome condemns filioque again. A general council at Constantinople accepted by all the patriarchs, including Pope John VIII (Patriarch) of Rome, condemns the filioque and reaffirms the historical equality of all Patriarchates and the Papal primacy as one of honor not of authority.
@@anthony1998 Here's Pope Leo III defending the doctrine of the Filioque: "We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son and He's consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son...The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is fullt God" -Leo III, Epistle 15 (PL 102:1030c-1031b) Pope Leo III was against the addition of the Filioque to the creed for prudential reasons. His is a legitimate position and we can imagine a scenario in which the Roman Church get the filioque out of the creed without altering the theology behind it, if that mean unity with the East. The Catechism of the Catholic Church even states that there are "complementary ways" of expressing the same Truth and that the RC doesn't take semantics as an obstacle for union.
Let it now be forever settled that the Eastern Orthodox have departed from the Patristic doctrine of the filioque, and through their reactionary theology now have canonically affixed egg to their faces.
Wow, I was considering making felioque video next but you did such a good job going through the Fathers that it renders my work not so necessary. Good work my friend. Glad I decided to check out your page following our chat! God speed!
People ask me a lot about video, especially my countrymen who don't know much about it (and because very small group of outspoken convertodox from our own country heckles them). I have to repeat explaning the same thing over and over. And I'm too lazy to make a paper or video about filioque (not to toot my own horn, but my knowledge on filioque is better than most since I invest quite a lot of time in it). Thank God Brian Doung made these videos. Now, I'll simply refers to them. His other video even goes into Essence and energy distinction (a topic to which I also got a lot of questions about).
I always come back to this video every few months because it’s just so good. This video is a death blow to falsehood and a beacon to Truth. God bless you and your work✝️🇻🇦.
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence…." - Saint Maximus The Confessor in his letter to Marinus. A church father himself, is saying that other church fathers do not believe in dual origination of the spirit, but rather you and everyone else misunderstand it as teaching the modern filoque, where the son is the cause of the spirit also. Put aside all the arguments by quote mining for a second, there's a time for that. This is the most damning evidence against you and the catholic church by one singular quote of a church father.
Here are some of the legally accessible works referenced in the video (many quotes were from books which are not free and can’t be accessed legally for free online. For such quotes - I cited most of them in the video.) St. Augustine Tractate 99 on John 16:13 www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701099.htm St. Augustine On the Holy Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 14, 15 www.newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm St. Hilary's qui Patre et Filio auctoribus quote [PL 10, 69A] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/_i8RAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 St. Hilary's On the Holy Trinity, Book 8, Chapter 20 www.newadvent.org/fathers/330208.htm St. Athanasius' Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 25, 24 and Chapter 28, 44 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm St. Leo the Great's Letter 15 (1) www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604015.htm St. Gregory of Nyssa Not Three gods www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm St. Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 1 Chapter 42 www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm St. Gregory of Nyssa On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians - www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 11, 120 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book 2, Chapter 11, 118 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/34022.htm St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 75, 608] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/fI3YAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 75, 585A] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus_series_grae/MGTsxMNY76cC?hl=en&gbpv=1 St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 68, 148] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologi%C3%A6_cursus_completus_Series_Gr%C3%A6/5hrvsqzMt3oC?hl=en&gbpv=1 St. Basil On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 18, 45, 47 and 48 www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm Acts from the Second Council of Constantinople www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm St Ephrem the Syrian - Lamy, Hymni et Sermones, III, p.242 archive.org/details/sanctiephraemsy01lamygoog/page/n188/mode/2up St Epiphanius Ancoratus 75 [PG 43, 157A] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/K4LYAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 St Isidore [PL 82, 268C] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/tvcQAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 Faith of Damasus from Denzinger 15 (old numbering) patristica.net/denzinger/ St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius www.uniontheology.org/resources/doctrine/jesus/third-letter-to-nestorius Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon - Evangelical Review, Vol 26, April 1877, page 229 www.google.com/books/edition/evangelical_review/6Q8EAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 Support on the historicity of the Council of Seleucia Cstesiphon (not free, but Google has a preview of page 282 if you search in the book for the phrase “Seleucia”) www.google.com/books/edition/Doctrinal_Diversity/GC4vwTXJSaMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=seleucia 11th Council of Toledo in 527 Dz 277 www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwv.htm St Theodore’s confession at Local Council of Hatfield in Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, Chapter 17 which includes the Filioque. www.gutenberg.org/files/38326/38326-h/38326-h.html#toc45 Notice how Venerable Bede says St. Theodore’s confession fights the “heresy of Eutyches” and how St. Theodore “convened an assembly of venerable bishops and many learned men.” Furthermore, note how in Chapter 18 Venerable Bede says, “The synod we have spoken of having been called for this purpose in Britain, the Catholic faith was found untainted in all, and a report of the proceedings of the same was given him to carry to Rome.” So, clearly Venerable Bede is a Filioquist and thinks it is the faith of the Fathers. Furthermore, he says, “yet the testimony of the Catholic faith of the English nation was carried to Rome, and received with great joy by the Apostolic Pope, and all those that heard or read it.” So, Pope St. Agatho received this, meaning he is a Filioquist as well and thinks it is the faith of the Fathers. Furthermore, St. Bede in the same chapter calls Pope St. Agatho the successor of "the most blessed chief of the Apostles." Patriarch St. Tarasius’ Confession at N [Mansi 12, 1222D] gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k51594s/f566.item# Pope Adrian’s Letter Defending St. Tarasius, translated by Adam Groves adamgroves.net/letter/?fbclid=IwAR2B7ENrulzB-N0xB2PkaTR0AkgjAwoFWNKGyRRz0wI9Jvd862TIGtLBUmU West Syriac Anaphoras - Liturgiarum Orientalium collection Volume 2 pages 136,191, and 348, www.google.com/books/edition/Liturgiarum_Orientalium_collectio/1bwPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover St Jacob of Sarugh - Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, pg 302 www.google.com/books/edition/_/emRoAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 St Paulinus of Nola Poem 27 (this source is not free, but you can use Google preview to view page 273 by searching “The Holy Spirit proceeds” in the search in book box) www.google.com/books/edition/Gedichte_engl/T2pNj8rVeAUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=The%20Holy%20Spirit%20proceeds St Ildephonsus [PL 96, 113B] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/sH_YAAAAMAAJ?hl=en St Prosper - Liber sententiarum, 371 www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0610/_PAB.HTM St Maximus Quaestiones Ad Thalassium 63 [PG 90, 672C] www.google.com/books/edition/Opera_omnia/8a0WAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 St. Fulgentius [PL 67, 797] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/bxJ_2gOJZpYC?hl=en&gbpv=1 Pope St. Gregory the Great - Homily 26 sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/gospel-of-john-commentary/gregory-the-great-homily-26-on-the-gospels St. Faustus of Riez - De Spiritu Sancto, I erickybarra.org/2017/10/14/filioque-in-the-west/ St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, 3 www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103317.htm St. Gregory the Wonderworker - Declaration of Faith www.newadvent.org/fathers/0601.htm St. John Damascene - Holy Images www.gutenberg.org/files/49917/49917-h/49917-h.html Legal free books on the Procession of the Holy Spirit Edward Pusey - On the Clause "and the Son" in Regard to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Clause_and_the_Son_in_Regard_to_t/EtcCAAAAQAAJ?hl=en Henry Barclay Swete - On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Early_History_of_the_Doctrine_of/mdoCAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 St Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia, ST, and ScG aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDePot.Q10.A3.Rep5 Pohle Preuss - Divine Trinity archive.org/details/V02TheDivineTrinity Books on the Filioque and Latin Trinitarianism that cost money but are 100% worth buying Sacrae Theologiae Summa 2A On the One and Triune God www.amazon.com/Sacrae-Theologiae-Summa-IIA-Triune/dp/0991226801 Gilles Emery - The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas www.amazon.com/Trinitarian-Theology-St-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0199582211 Erick Ybarra’s Filioque book www.amazon.com/Filioque-Revisiting-Doctrinal-Catholics-Orthodox/dp/B09TF1JZVH Siecienski’s Filioque book www.amazon.com/Filioque-Doctrinal-Controversy-Historical-Theology/dp/0199971862/ Bernard Lonergan Triune Doctrines www.amazon.com/Triune-God-Doctrines-Collected-Lonergan/dp/0802096670/ Bernard Lonergan Triune Systematics www.amazon.com/Triune-God-Systematics-Collected-Lonergan/dp/0802094333/
@@dwong9289 lol I really appreciate the comment. The filioque has been a topic I’ve never completely understood as to whether there was a substantial dogmatic difference or merely a semantic difference but this helped clarify a lot the difference between the 2 positions so this video is actually very revelatory and the amount of evidence from the Fathers is also quite amazing. What was also very new for me was the connections that can be drawn from the Filioque to various other things instituted by God like the family structure and the Church. This is definitely a topic of study I’m interested in reading about to refute the Ortho position and understand as many arguments that Orthos make to better refute them because disproving their position on this disproves all of their legitimacy
Dwong, I know your list is by no means exhaustive, but if you haven’t read the morals of Job by Gregory the Great then your in for a treat. He explicitly rejects a distinction between Gods “Light” seen in the eschaton and His “Essence.” He also rejects Chrysostom for saying the angels don’t see the Divine Essence. Also, He predicates all attributes as an “aspect” of the divine Essence so clearly that nobody could reject that he informed Thomas Aquinass ADS. Thanks for pointing out Leo’s 15th letter in favor of Thomism. Always makes me smile when I hear of new proofs.
Thanks for the share! That’s such a wonderful find. Yes Leo letter 15 is really good. In the previous video, I showed how the Church Fathers believed Exodus 3:14 was about God’s Essence (showing God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens) - which debunks the Neo-Palamite claim that Existence is an uncreated energy of God that is really distinct from His Essence
@@dwong9289 I’ll have to check out that video too. I can definitely say (having read the Fathers for about 4 years straight) that I recall many of them saying that “I Am” being subsisting Essence. In fact, I even recall Damascene and Chrysostom saying something of the sort.
@@namapalsu2364 Yeah, it gets a lot of traction. Mostly positive but some would prefer I delete my account and stop hoping for the impossible. But my spiritual director has my heart and ears and so I will continue to make videos for the time being.
Please debate an orthodox on this its kinda hard to get a responds video on this since you only have 600 subs and if you make it it would be content ;D also a live debate would be nice
The so-called (and so often invoked) Consensus of the Fathers, we Catholics possess it. We are not Western nor Eastern alone (as the Pseudo-Orthodox identify themselves as, "Eastern") but we have both with us. From Hesychasm to Scholasticism, from Mount Athos to the Chartreux, all that is True has been given to our disposal by the Lord through his Church. The schismatics however, have to be content with half of the Lord's gift (and an incomplete and mutilated half at that).
On the whole, this is the best presentation I have seen. At a minimum you show solid support for the Filioque in Latin fathers, with eastern fathers tending to support procession through the Son, and eminent theologians Cardinal Bessarion and John Bekkos coming to support the Filioque after further review.
I've been trying to get a hold of you for years about your ancient papacy website. Is it ok that I reproduced some of your articles on my channel and blog from that site ? I tried emailing your years ago. Thanks
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 Be of good cheer. My new book, Keys Over the Christian World, incorporates that content, and it's on the Robert Sungenis site. The co authors did not even object when it was made a free download, because we want to convert people. I think what you did was okay, enjoy the book and go convert somebody. God love you.
Let it be know that the Pseudo-orthodox Greeks diverge from the Christian Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Church on the matter of Filioque and do so in particular because of their pride and rebellion against the rightful authority of the Roman Pontiff, another matter in which they diverge from the Tradition of the Fathers. It would be useful if you did a similar video on this latter point, as it is really the crux of the problem (their pride and insubordination, combined with their political pretensions and their subservience to secular interests in their caesaropapism), and if you want material on it I recommend the book called "The Eastern Churches and the Papacy". Caesaropapism is really the scourge of their schismatic Church, as it rendered them hostage and bound to worldly interests for their whole existence, and it's a shame that not more Catholics point that out.
I don't think we have to rely on letter 171. St Cyril doesn't secure with Theodoret's rejection of the hypostatic filioque in his replies to the Theodoret's objections to the 12 chapters. Instead, he blames him for misinterpreting his words and says that he was simply emphasizing that the Holy Spirit was not separate from Christ (since if he were, Christ would be a mere man receiving grace, rather than the Word of whom the Spirit is) Ninth Anathema: If any suggest that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit by making use of a power that came through the Spirit, a power that was something other than his own, and that he received from the Spirit the ability to overcome evil spirits and perform divine miracles for people, instead of saying that the Spirit by which he wrought the miracles was his very own, let them be anathema. Excerpt from Theodoret's response: We would agree with him that the Spirit is the Son’s own, and would accept his formula as a godly one, so long as he also says that the Spirit is of one nature with the Son and pro- ceeds from the Father. But if he is suggesting that the Spirit de- rives his existence from or through the Son, such a doctrine we would reject as entirely blasphemous. For we believe the Lord when he speaks of “the Spirit which proceeds from the Father”75 and similarly the most divine Paul when he says that “we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of the Father.” Excerpt from St Cyril's reply to Theodoret: "I explained beforehand that the meaning of the anathemas is directed specifically against Nestorius’s stuttering and careless explanations. When he referred to the Holy Spirit as “this thing which bestowed such a great glory upon Christ, which caused the demons to fear him and which granted him to be taken up into heaven,” and spouted such garbage as if Christ were a per- son just like the rest of us, the anathema became absolutely nec- essary, not to exclude people who say that Jesus, namely, God the Word made man, was glorified by the Holy Spirit, but in op- position to those who openly claim that he made use of a power that came through the Spirit and was something other than his own. After all, remember how he said quite clearly about the Holy Spirit, “He shall glorify me,”77 and by this we know that it was because the Holy Spirit was at work within him that he could shatter evil, unclean powers; what we deny is that he made use of a power that he had through the Spirit as something that did not belong to him, just as a saint would do. No, the Spirit was and is his own, just as he in turn belongs to the Father. This is what the god-inspired Paul makes abundantly clear to us when he wrote, “Those who are in the flesh are not able to please God; but you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not possess the Spirit of Christ, then he does not belong to him.”78 As our Savior said, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and is not foreign to the Son, since everything is with the Father. He also taught about the Holy Spirit, “All that the Father possesses is mine; because of this I said to you that he would take from me and make it known to you.”79 The Holy Spirit, then, glorified Jesus by enacting miracles, but he did so as his own Spirit, not as some power over and above him, seeing as he is reckoned to be God"
Hi Dwong I’m new to your channel but already this one video has gotten me very interested in your channel and you explain stuff with an easier way of understanding. I love how you always show the sources and bring up pictures of the actually quotes which actually makes it easy to see what you are saying is completely true🙌🏾 thank you for this truly. I hope to see more uploads which also tackles different areas of the dispute between the east and west as I can’t wait for more of your videos to enlighten me. I’m currently writing almost every quote and reasoning you use in this video in my notebook so that everytime I encounter an orthodox who wants a discussion about this I am prepared because of you. Thank you Dwong. Gloria in excelsis Deo🙌🏾 the peace of Christ be with you🙌🏾
Glory to God! Thank you for the kind words brother. I am writing a book on this topic, and it will be out in a month or so, so you can use that for your notes as well
Simple question: Is being cause a hypostatic property of the Father or an essential one? It seems to me, if I’m understanding you correctly that your logical basis for saying he proceeds from both is based on the idea that the Father communicates all that he has to the Son, which seems to indicate you would answer that it’s an essential one.
Your question is like asking "is being caused an hypothetic property of the Son or an essential one since both the Son and Spirit are caused". From catholic perspective, the hypostatic properties of the Father would include things like : Fatherhood ( generation of the Son), being uncaused, being the source of Godhead, being the ultimate cause in the Godhead. Being simply "cause" is not an absolute property in the Trinity but more like a relative one. To the Son, the father is the cause and to the Spirit, the Son and the Father are the cause.
I’ll lay some things out. The Father is the *primordial* principle, being cause isn’t a property per se. The idea of being cause or uncaused is notional and can apply to anyone who spirates the Spirit. The Father’s hypostatic property is paternity which denotes his role in relation to the Son (i.e., begetting). The Son’s property is filiation (i.e., being begotten). The Spirit’s property is passive spiration (i.e., proceeding). Now, active spiration is shared by the Father and the Son which is proper because it does not constitute either of their persons. The two processions are proper to the essence, of the nature, so it’s not an act of will by the Father to beget the Son, rather either of them are constituted by their relation of origin with the other. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from both by nature. We know there is a third category of property because there are some which can be predicated to one or two, but not three, that are not constitutive nor essential.
The Father communicates active spiration to the Son by begetting, yes. Does the Spirit then cause another? No. He is the terminus of the second procession.
Good evening brother and Long Live Christ the King. Thank you for this video. It’s going to help me a lot with my video coming out this weekend on the Filioque and Papacy
@@AdesteFideles.I'm also looking forward to that, as dwong doesn't disappoint. What I found the most interesting about Honorius' case is that his successor Pope that condemned him posthumously did so because "he let the heresy of monothelitism spread and did not condemn it" which implies that Rome had in fact power to pass judgment over other Churches and it even was expected that it did so and, more importantly, emphasis on the fact that he was reproached for not condemning the Patriarch of Constantinople of all people. A great book on the subject that I recommend is "The Eastern Churches and the Papacy".
Did you know ? : The same disputed verb "ekpoureitai" in John is used by Christ in another passage about expelling (&$#%&) 🫢 from the human body!!! ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα 🔺️ἐκπορεύεται🔻, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα; - Mark 7:19 "Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?" We must reconsider the debate on Filioque in another total way. The verb is neither theological nor sophisticated; it simply means : to go out. Thus, it can have many synonymes. If Saint Cyril of Alexandria, for instance, said that the Holy Spirit "comes from" or "flows from" or "goes out" the Son , they are all identical and proove the filioque.
Hello Dwong! Regarding your second quote about St Maximus The Confessor: “For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High“. (Opuscula 11, PG 91.137-140; trans. Cooper 2005:181; taken from Oxford Handbook, 552) Here's the Eastern Orthodox Objection - Pro-Roman Rhetoric & Flowery Language EO apologists like Ubi Petrus cites our Catholic yet liberal scholar Fr Richard Price (he's credible overall) in his translation and commentary on the Acts of Lateran 649, Fr. Price notes the following about St. Maximus’ views of Rome: “But this same faction [Palestinian monks] also now realised that their personal and doctrinal fates depended upon the continuous support of the Roman popes, whose abrogation of Monothelitism and support for the doctrinal resistance had saved it from irrelevance. This inspired a distinctly pro-Roman rhetoric in Maximus’ output of the 640s, as the fates of his Palestinian faction and the Roman popes became ever more closely intertwined. Around 641 he composed a defence of Pope Honorius’ orthodox credentials in his First Letter to Sergius, arguing that the pope’s ‘one will’ had in fact designated the divine will (and indeed, in a desperate addendum, that he had not stated ‘one will’ in the first place); and, later in the same decade, he composed from Carthage a letter in which he defended, against detractors at Constantinople, Pope Theodore’s use of the Filioque formula (that is, the Latin doctrine that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father ‘and the Son’). At the same time, throughout this decade Maximus in several texts celebrated Roman pre-eminence within the Christian Church, and acknowledged three distinct bases for it: Rome’s status as the guardian of the orthodox faith, its inheritance through the promise of Christ to St Peter (Matt 16:18-19) and its recognition in canonical decrees. […] Maximus cannot, of course, be considered a proto-champion of the later, monarchic claims of the post-Gregorian popes: the principal criterion for Rome’s pre-eminence remained its commitment to orthodox doctrine. But although the Palestinian allies of Maximus had much to gain by upholding long-standing papal claims to special status - which reinforced its own doctrinal stance while also challenging the right of the eastern authorities to intervene in matters of the faith - their pro-Roman rhetoric in this period did not represent some gross deviation from their earlier output. It was instead a further extension of that previous emphasis on eucharistic communion as the inviolable bedrock of divine illumination, irrespective of reversals within the terrestrial sphere. From this earlier position, it was but a short a leap into an assertion of ecclesial independence which complemented the rhetoric of Rome.”[11] In other words,EOs argues that quote is truly an example of “flowery” language which is so commonly used in the classical world. A great example of which is when Pope St. Celestine, when writing to Nestorius, describes how the See of Constantinople had been pure up until Nestorius.[12] They argue it is flowery language because Rome simply could not “shut up and lock every heretical mouth” as despite decree after decree from Rome, it was not until an Orthodox emperor took the throne that progress began to be made, decades after St. Maximus wrote this. They also argue that Rome had its own sullied history with Popes such as Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius (whose defense St. Maximus quietly abandons) so that quote is a pure hyperbole. They also argue that Popes Eugenius and St. Vitalian compromised the Faith when they forbade speech on whether there was one or two wills in Christ and made that the official position of the Church of Rome. They also argue that how, when pressed on the issue, St. Maximus shows he is more than willing to ditch Rome,and they cite Fr. Price again,who gives a fuller background to the view St. Maximus had: "The role of the papacy in the monothelete controversy raises important questions of its involvement in the empire and its position as leader of the universal church. […] The involvement of successive popes in the controversy reflected the position of the Roman church as leader of the universal church and the special prestige of Rome in matters of doctrine articulated in ideas of papal primacy. Peter’s confession of faith at Matthew 16:18-19 was the basis for the idea that the popes had a special authority in matters of doctrine and teaching because they had gained their understanding through St Peter directly from Christ. This primatial position was acknowledged throughout the eastern and western churches and, while there could be tensions, Constantinople recognised that in upholding orthodoxy the Roman church was but fulfilling its duty. However, this did not mean that in the east papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine were regarded as automatically definitive and necessitating acceptance. Papal prestige was enhanced by the growing importance of Rome as a centre of martyr cults and as a place of pilgrimage. […] Relic cults heightened the prestige of the popes who promoted them, and highlighted Rome’s apostolic inheritance and primatial status through its possession of the remains of St Peter. When Pope Theodore set out ritually to depose Patriarch Pyrrhus after the latter’s return to monotheletism, he was said to have done so at the tomb of Peter, an act which underlined his own exercise of apostolic authority, connecting it directly with the living presence in his tomb of the prince of the Apostles.”[13] Their references [11] Price, Acts of Lateran 649 p.36-37 [12] “Know therefore, clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, that unless thou preach those very doctrines concerning our God Anointed, which both the Church of the Romans, and the Church of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal Church holds fast, and as the holy Church in the great city of Constantine very well held fast until thee…” www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/pope-celestines-letter-to-nestorius.html [13] Price, Acts of Lateran 649 p.40-41 How would we respond to this objection? Thank you so much in advance!
So the objector's reasoning is that this is an example of flowery language and therefore cannot be used as a proof text for Vatican 1 Papacy. And their comparison was that "Pope St. Celestine, when writing to Nestorius, describes how the See of Constantinople had been pure up until Nestorius." Alright let's first acknowledge that this comparison is so dissimilar at first, since St. Maximus is clearly asserting that the see of Rome is given supreme power (universal jurisdiction over the entire Church), and that this power to Bind and Loose is promised by the Lord and guaranteed by the Councils. And in the other quote St. Maximus says that all Christians from all times believed in this and saw Rome as their sole foundation. So, St. Maximus claims the indefectibility of the See of Rome is based off of the promises of the Lord, and it is not just some contingent accident, or not from a mere correct exposition of the faith. Rome's correct exposition of the faith is grounded in the promise of the LORD. And from this connection that St. Maximus makes, it is clear that the Divine Institution of the Papacy means the indefectibility of the Church is connected with the promise to St. Peter that the Gates of hell shall not prevail, and the indefectibility of binding and loosing is connected with the promise to St. Peter specifically. Here's Michael Lofton on it, for more information th-cam.com/video/mFvoY5GkO8g/w-d-xo.html
A simple reply is that in the Lateran Council, Pope Martin appointed a papal vicar with authority to appoint entire hierarchies of bishops, priests, and deacons in the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, and required obedience to the vicar. Numerous eastern monks took part in this council, and St Maximus demanded that Constantinople accept it. It is not credible to reduce St Maximus to flowery language regarding the popes. Mansi 10, 806 Sq.
@@johncollorafi257 John the question falls that since Stephen of dora asked rome to intervene in the other episcopates it was only after an invitation to do so?
@@shiningdiamond5046 I will be discussing this in detail on Orthodox Christian Theology, scheduled for December 22. There were certainly requests for Rome's intervention; Stephen of Dora says that St Sophronius commanded him to go to inform Rome. St Martin in the Lateran Council speaks of appeals from multiple places and the Council gathered the best of the orthodox east. It's highly likely that orthodox eastern refugees at Rome drew up the Greek acts of the council, as Fr Price opines in his translation of the conciliar acts.
St John 8 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God, I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me. St John 15 26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. From the Douay Rhiems bible. Jesus said he proceed from the the one who sent me. And Jesus said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. No, some say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the Son, but that's a different meaning. And of course we have the council condemning anyone from making changes to the creed. I rather listen to these than people's ideas. Then you have the Eastern catholics allowed to omit the filioque while the west say it. Unreal. And I could go on abiut many problems with Roman Catholism including prayer meetings in Assisi and a so call saint pope john paul 2. But I don't have the time
Speaking of Kappes, he points out the following in a 2019 article. According to the official acts of the council of Florence, John Montenero, who was the speaker for the Latins at the council, argued that the Son has the power to spirate because there exists dignities in the trinity in his debate with Mark of Ephesus. Montenero justified his heretical position by citing an obviously-interpolated version of Basil's book 3 of Against Eunomius. Although Mark of Ephesus attempted many times to prove to Montenero that his copy was interpolated and that he was reading Basil out of context, he refused to concede. In the end, Montenero's stubbornness caused the Greeks to think that the Latins believed in a subordinationist pneumatology, which would partially explain why the reunion failed. Christiaan Kappes claims that Florence's definition of the Filioque can be "read in light of Montenero's position or in light of "Aquinas’ plausible influence on the formula of the Second Council of Lyon, the very source of contention necessitating the debates at Florence.” How do we reconcile this with the biblical and patristic fact that the Filioque is true? I’ve read the bull Cantate Domino and Pope Eugene IV is emphatic that “These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes. Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power.” Laetentur Caeli never says that the spirit is ontologically lesser than the son either and only mentions how many texts by both the western and eastern fathers teach that the Holy Spirit receives existence eternally from the Father together with the Son. Both bulls are dogmatically binding. I read Bessarion’s dogmatic speech at the council and nowhere does he state that the spirit is 3rd in dignity (dignitas). In reality, the debate was more about if the Filioque is patristic rather than if its theology is sound. Mark of Ephesus refused to recognize "through the son" as being hypostatic and presumed that texts by the Latin fathers that teach the Filioque had been interpolated. This dilemma has been worrying me for the past few days ever since I read the article.
Three things: 1. St. Basil's use of the word that is translated to "dignity" is disputed. The Author of "Vindicating the Filioque" says he personally doesn't like that translation of the word. I presume St. Basil is just referring to the taxis or order of the Persons, being Third in rank and 'dignity' according to the order. The Father is First because He is from no one, the Son is second because He is from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit is Third because He is from both the Father and the Son, hence Third in rank and 'dignity' (although that translation of the term is disputed.) 2. The Filioque doctrine and the Florentine definition of the Filioque explicitly rejects Subordinationism, in Session 11 Bull with the Copts they affirm "It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. *It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity."* 3. If apologetics is causing you to be worried, I would step away and focus on developing a healthy spiritual life. Prayer and the Sacraments come before apologetics, and apologetics is meant to help guide with union with God. It is easy, even for me, to get distracted with apologetics and not to have it ordered toward Union with God. You should prevent yourself from needlessly scrolling online and finding every argument and trying to resolve every disputation, that is a way to lose the faith if you aren't adequately trained. Stay close to the Rosary if you are experiencing doubts, Our Lady always reassures you.
That’s a relief. Once again, please pardon my poor attention to detail. I guess the sense of worry took over me and messed with my cognition. That's why I didn't notice what was written on the bull of union with the Copts. Are you still active on Discord? I feel like taking these discussions there would be better.
What do you say to the objection that Isaiah 48:16 says that the son is being sent by the Father and his spirit? My reply would be that it is clearly ad extra, and economic. The incarnation is being described and the spirit sending the son is seen in the opening of Luke and Mark’s gospels (eg. Mark 1:12). But then, how do we distinguish between this instance (Is 48:16) from other instances (john 16/Rev 22) where we wish to say that these instances as extra reflect the tirinity ad intra ? Maybe because Isiah doesn’t use ekporumenon like the Creed, or Revelation 22?
I give a short reply at 1:32:19 If you read Fr Dominic Legge’s book the Trinitarian Consciousness of Christ, I think he does a much better job at explaining how the Holy Spirit’s role in Christology connects with the Immanent Trinity. It’s pretty advanced stuff, so I didn’t fully explain it.
To be completely honest why does the filioque matter to you? Your church already allows palamite theology and no filioque in the creed in the Uniates and once Rome probably reunites with the east in 2025 this debate will be an in house debate so why does this matter so much?
The Eastern Catholics must affirm the Filioque dogmatically, it’s taught in the Universal Catechism and the Ecumenical Council of Florence says all Christians (including Easterners) must affirm it or they’re anathema. Eastern Catholics can hold to Palamism but not to Neo-Palamism, as it is dogma that all is one in God where there is no relative opposition. Therefore there is no essence-energies real distinction, only a logical or formal distinction.
where does it say that St Augustine said "Accordingly, He shall not speak of Himself; because He is not of Himself. But whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: He shall hear of Him from whom He proceeds. To Him hearing is knowing; but knowing is being, as has been discussed above. Because, then, He is not of Himself, but of Him from whom He proceeds, and of whom He has essence, of Him He has knowledge; from Him, therefore, He has hearing, which is nothing else than knowledge."? Just asking as a Roman Cath
St. Athanasius, Champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy : "οιδε [Δαυιδ] γαρ παρα τω θεω Πατρι οντα τον Υιον την πηγην του αγιου Πνευματος" "For he [David] knows that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit with God the Father"
We believe all 3 Persons are co-equal and that the Father is the source of the Godhead. Monarchy of the Father simply means the Father is the source of life in the Trinity, which Catholics assert. This is not to be confused with Monarchianism which is the heresy that says God is one person. So we do not hold on to monarchianism, rather we believe that all 3 Persons are God.
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
Correction: At 1:23:23 I should have said "immanent origin through the Son" not "immanent pouring forth." My apologies.
Correction: At 1:34:42 I meant to say that St Gregory the Wonderworker says the Son manifests the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Correction: At 1:35:27 It is letter to Serapion 2&3 (they were originally one letter according to this author linked below), not letter 4. Letter 4 had another quote I was going to use, but didn't. You can find it here at archive.org/details/TheLettersOfSaintAthanasiusConcerningTheHolySpirit/page/n173/mode/2up page 172
Clarification: When I said the Father and Son are originators of the Holy Spirit, I meant these two Persons are One Origin of the Holy Spirit.
Correction: At 1:28:58 the quote is from verse 29 not 28
Correction: At 30:24 in my slides I write "an argument from silence is no argument at all", I correct my position and believe arguments from silence can be valid, although this instance it was invalid.
Correction: At 36:55 I should have said the hypostatic properties are the relations of opposition in another view.
Correction: At 40:13 I read "the Monarchy is not lost" as referring to the Monarchy of the Father, but now I think it actually refers to the Monarchy of the Godhead not the Monarchy of the Father. However, this would still imply that this is referring to the Divine Substance and therefore the hypostatic per filium, so the argument still holds but needs modification.
Correction: At 1:00:34 the quote from St. Gregory of Tours should say, " I believe that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son, that it is not inferior and is not of later origin, but is God."
You should pin this comment if you can brother. Thank you for your helpful videos 🙏 God bless you and your loved ones
Thanks for the shout out!
W
Wow like over 50 church fathers that are recognized on both east and west. All arguments you find online for or against the filioque usually quote like 3 sources and that it. And many of the were so clear. That was crazy good.
I profoundly appreciated this video, and the obvious effort put into not just compiling a bunch of Patristic quotations, but also carefully investigating how to distinguish statements about the economy from statements about the essence or nature, and then expressing this verbally in a way that indicates the fervancy and conviction of your beliefs. It is a good thing to hear (though I do urge a certain caution concerning letting this be the entirety of how you relate to the topic and especially the people who believe it) and I give thanks to God for having given you the time and the capacity to both study this carefully, and to express it with similar precision and theological detail. May God bless this endeavor to address this cause of division in those who are not Catholic, and to remind Catholics of the need to recognize the positive reason for those things which the Church has maintained despite the politicization of this division by others.
Thank you! God bless ❤️
I am Orthodox, and this video officially put me into an existential crisis. Please pray for me.
Praying for you. Our Lady never disappoint in the Rosary ❤️
Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened and forbade any alteration in the Creed. He ordered the Creed - without Filioque - to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver tablets and mounted to the right and the left of the entrance to the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. He said that he did this, “for love and defense of the Orthodox faith.”
879 AD - Rome condemns filioque again.
A general council at Constantinople accepted by all the patriarchs, including
Pope John VIII (Patriarch) of Rome, condemns the filioque and reaffirms the
historical equality of all Patriarchates and the Papal primacy as one of honor
not of authority.
@@anthony1998 Here's Pope Leo III defending the doctrine of the Filioque: "We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds equally from the Father and the Son and He's consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and the Son...The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son is fullt God" -Leo III, Epistle 15 (PL 102:1030c-1031b)
Pope Leo III was against the addition of the Filioque to the creed for prudential reasons. His is a legitimate position and we can imagine a scenario in which the Roman Church get the filioque out of the creed without altering the theology behind it, if that mean unity with the East. The Catechism of the Catholic Church even states that there are "complementary ways" of expressing the same Truth and that the RC doesn't take semantics as an obstacle for union.
@@anthony1998 Your last statement about John VIII is false and based on a fake letter.
i will
Let it now be forever settled that the Eastern Orthodox have departed from the Patristic doctrine of the filioque, and through their reactionary theology now have canonically affixed egg to their faces.
Wow, I was considering making felioque video next but you did such a good job going through the Fathers that it renders my work not so necessary. Good work my friend. Glad I decided to check out your page following our chat! God speed!
Thank you for the kind words. God bless you and your work brother
@Boulanger We talked via the live chat of a stream on William Albrecht's channel
People ask me a lot about video, especially my countrymen who don't know much about it (and because very small group of outspoken convertodox from our own country heckles them). I have to repeat explaning the same thing over and over. And I'm too lazy to make a paper or video about filioque (not to toot my own horn, but my knowledge on filioque is better than most since I invest quite a lot of time in it).
Thank God Brian Doung made these videos. Now, I'll simply refers to them.
His other video even goes into Essence and energy distinction (a topic to which I also got a lot of questions about).
I always come back to this video every few months because it’s just so good. This video is a death blow to falsehood and a beacon to Truth. God bless you and your work✝️🇻🇦.
God bless bro. So glad it helps!
Little root town is, in fact, a faithful Catholic polity.
If any Orthodox dares to say the Church Fathers did not teach the Filioque, share this video with them!
You anglos sometimes have some insane good apologetics , keep the good work , fight for the roman church ✌️🇻🇦✝️
“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence…." - Saint Maximus The Confessor in his letter to Marinus.
A church father himself, is saying that other church fathers do not believe in dual origination of the spirit, but rather you and everyone else misunderstand it as teaching the modern filoque, where the son is the cause of the spirit also. Put aside all the arguments by quote mining for a second, there's a time for that. This is the most damning evidence against you and the catholic church by one singular quote of a church father.
@@turro3212He even an Anglo?
@@johnnotrealname8168 I think he’s Asian 😭
This channel is honestly amazing!
Thanks bro! God bless 🙏
@@dwong9289 God bless bro🙏🏻
I can’t believe that the Eastern Orthodox going against the Filioque, after confirming that for hundreds of years.
2 years later, this is still a masterpiece.
@@christophersalinas2722 thanks bro ❤️
2 hours long, I can appreciate how much time, remakes, editing, and then just simply uploading it took!
Here are some of the legally accessible works referenced in the video (many quotes were from books which are not free and can’t be accessed legally for free online. For such quotes - I cited most of them in the video.)
St. Augustine Tractate 99 on John 16:13
www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701099.htm
St. Augustine On the Holy Trinity, Book 5, Chapter 14, 15 www.newadvent.org/fathers/130105.htm
St. Hilary's qui Patre et Filio auctoribus quote [PL 10, 69A] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/_i8RAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
St. Hilary's On the Holy Trinity, Book 8, Chapter 20
www.newadvent.org/fathers/330208.htm
St. Athanasius' Discourse 3 Against the Arians, Chapter 25, 24 and Chapter 28, 44 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/28163.htm
St. Leo the Great's Letter 15 (1)
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604015.htm
St. Gregory of Nyssa Not Three gods
www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm
St. Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book 1 Chapter 42 www.newadvent.org/fathers/290101.htm
St. Gregory of Nyssa On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians - www.newadvent.org/fathers/2903.htm
St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 11, 120 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm
St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book 2, Chapter 11, 118 - www.newadvent.org/fathers/34022.htm
St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 75, 608] www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/fI3YAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 75, 585A]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus_series_grae/MGTsxMNY76cC?hl=en&gbpv=1
St. Cyril of Alexandria [PG 68, 148]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologi%C3%A6_cursus_completus_Series_Gr%C3%A6/5hrvsqzMt3oC?hl=en&gbpv=1
St. Basil On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 18, 45, 47 and 48
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm
Acts from the Second Council of Constantinople
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
St Ephrem the Syrian - Lamy, Hymni et Sermones, III, p.242
archive.org/details/sanctiephraemsy01lamygoog/page/n188/mode/2up
St Epiphanius Ancoratus 75 [PG 43, 157A]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/K4LYAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
St Isidore [PL 82, 268C]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/tvcQAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Faith of Damasus from Denzinger 15 (old numbering)
patristica.net/denzinger/
St. Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius
www.uniontheology.org/resources/doctrine/jesus/third-letter-to-nestorius
Council of Seleucia Ctesiphon - Evangelical Review, Vol 26, April 1877, page 229
www.google.com/books/edition/evangelical_review/6Q8EAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Support on the historicity of the Council of Seleucia Cstesiphon (not free, but Google has a preview of page 282 if you search in the book for the phrase “Seleucia”)
www.google.com/books/edition/Doctrinal_Diversity/GC4vwTXJSaMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=seleucia
11th Council of Toledo in 527 Dz 277
www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwv.htm
St Theodore’s confession at Local Council of Hatfield in Venerable Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, Chapter 17 which includes the Filioque.
www.gutenberg.org/files/38326/38326-h/38326-h.html#toc45
Notice how Venerable Bede says St. Theodore’s confession fights the “heresy of Eutyches” and how St. Theodore “convened an assembly of venerable bishops and many learned men.” Furthermore, note how in Chapter 18 Venerable Bede says, “The synod we have spoken of having been called for this purpose in Britain, the Catholic faith was found untainted in all, and a report of the proceedings of the same was given him to carry to Rome.” So, clearly Venerable Bede is a Filioquist and thinks it is the faith of the Fathers. Furthermore, he says, “yet the testimony of the Catholic faith of the English nation was carried to Rome, and received with great joy by the Apostolic Pope, and all those that heard or read it.” So, Pope St. Agatho received this, meaning he is a Filioquist as well and thinks it is the faith of the Fathers. Furthermore, St. Bede in the same chapter calls Pope St. Agatho the successor of "the most blessed chief of the Apostles."
Patriarch St. Tarasius’ Confession at N [Mansi 12, 1222D]
gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k51594s/f566.item#
Pope Adrian’s Letter Defending St. Tarasius, translated by Adam Groves
adamgroves.net/letter/?fbclid=IwAR2B7ENrulzB-N0xB2PkaTR0AkgjAwoFWNKGyRRz0wI9Jvd862TIGtLBUmU
West Syriac Anaphoras - Liturgiarum Orientalium collection Volume 2 pages 136,191, and 348,
www.google.com/books/edition/Liturgiarum_Orientalium_collectio/1bwPAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover
St Jacob of Sarugh - Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, pg 302
www.google.com/books/edition/_/emRoAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
St Paulinus of Nola Poem 27 (this source is not free, but you can use Google preview to view page 273 by searching “The Holy Spirit proceeds” in the search in book box)
www.google.com/books/edition/Gedichte_engl/T2pNj8rVeAUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=The%20Holy%20Spirit%20proceeds
St Ildephonsus [PL 96, 113B]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/sH_YAAAAMAAJ?hl=en
St Prosper - Liber sententiarum, 371
www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0610/_PAB.HTM
St Maximus Quaestiones Ad Thalassium 63 [PG 90, 672C]
www.google.com/books/edition/Opera_omnia/8a0WAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
St. Fulgentius [PL 67, 797]
www.google.com/books/edition/Patrologiae_cursus_completus/bxJ_2gOJZpYC?hl=en&gbpv=1
Pope St. Gregory the Great - Homily 26
sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/gospel-of-john-commentary/gregory-the-great-homily-26-on-the-gospels
St. Faustus of Riez - De Spiritu Sancto, I
erickybarra.org/2017/10/14/filioque-in-the-west/
St. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 17, 3
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103317.htm
St. Gregory the Wonderworker - Declaration of Faith
www.newadvent.org/fathers/0601.htm
St. John Damascene - Holy Images
www.gutenberg.org/files/49917/49917-h/49917-h.html
Legal free books on the Procession of the Holy Spirit
Edward Pusey - On the Clause "and the Son" in Regard to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference
www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Clause_and_the_Son_in_Regard_to_t/EtcCAAAAQAAJ?hl=en
Henry Barclay Swete - On the Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Early_History_of_the_Doctrine_of/mdoCAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
St Thomas Aquinas, De Potentia, ST, and ScG
aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDePot.Q10.A3.Rep5
Pohle Preuss - Divine Trinity
archive.org/details/V02TheDivineTrinity
Books on the Filioque and Latin Trinitarianism that cost money but are 100% worth buying
Sacrae Theologiae Summa 2A On the One and Triune God
www.amazon.com/Sacrae-Theologiae-Summa-IIA-Triune/dp/0991226801
Gilles Emery - The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas
www.amazon.com/Trinitarian-Theology-St-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0199582211
Erick Ybarra’s Filioque book
www.amazon.com/Filioque-Revisiting-Doctrinal-Catholics-Orthodox/dp/B09TF1JZVH
Siecienski’s Filioque book
www.amazon.com/Filioque-Doctrinal-Controversy-Historical-Theology/dp/0199971862/
Bernard Lonergan Triune Doctrines
www.amazon.com/Triune-God-Doctrines-Collected-Lonergan/dp/0802096670/
Bernard Lonergan Triune Systematics
www.amazon.com/Triune-God-Systematics-Collected-Lonergan/dp/0802094333/
Pray the Rosary
Any chance you could pin this comment?
Little Root Town ABSOLUTELY affirms the Filioque
You are the most based man in the comment section sir 💯💯💯
@@dwong9289 lol I really appreciate the comment. The filioque has been a topic I’ve never completely understood as to whether there was a substantial dogmatic difference or merely a semantic difference but this helped clarify a lot the difference between the 2 positions so this video is actually very revelatory and the amount of evidence from the Fathers is also quite amazing. What was also very new for me was the connections that can be drawn from the Filioque to various other things instituted by God like the family structure and the Church. This is definitely a topic of study I’m interested in reading about to refute the Ortho position and understand as many arguments that Orthos make to better refute them because disproving their position on this disproves all of their legitimacy
Dwong, I know your list is by no means exhaustive, but if you haven’t read the morals of Job by Gregory the Great then your in for a treat. He explicitly rejects a distinction between Gods “Light” seen in the eschaton and His “Essence.” He also rejects Chrysostom for saying the angels don’t see the Divine Essence. Also, He predicates all attributes as an “aspect” of the divine Essence so clearly that nobody could reject that he informed Thomas Aquinass ADS.
Thanks for pointing out Leo’s 15th letter in favor of Thomism. Always makes me smile when I hear of new proofs.
Thanks for the share! That’s such a wonderful find. Yes Leo letter 15 is really good. In the previous video, I showed how the Church Fathers believed Exodus 3:14 was about God’s Essence (showing God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens) - which debunks the Neo-Palamite claim that Existence is an uncreated energy of God that is really distinct from His Essence
@@dwong9289 I’ll have to check out that video too. I can definitely say (having read the Fathers for about 4 years straight) that I recall many of them saying that “I Am” being subsisting Essence. In fact, I even recall Damascene and Chrysostom saying something of the sort.
Mt Athoas and Aquinas Fellowship.... What a nick. Haha.
@@namapalsu2364 Yeah, it gets a lot of traction. Mostly positive but some would prefer I delete my account and stop hoping for the impossible. But my spiritual director has my heart and ears and so I will continue to make videos for the time being.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Don't listen to the haters (some will come from the Thomist camp surely).
I’ve see you commenting on a bunch of channels. You make really good content. Keep up the great work 👏👏
Thank you for the kind words! God bless you brother
@@dwong9289 God bless you my brother!
Please debate an orthodox on this its kinda hard to get a responds video on this since you only have 600 subs and if you make it it would be content ;D also a live debate would be nice
I would pay to see him debate Craig Truglia
Jay Dyer
1:52:45 "All roads lead to Rome" hahaha nice
The so-called (and so often invoked) Consensus of the Fathers, we Catholics possess it. We are not Western nor Eastern alone (as the Pseudo-Orthodox identify themselves as, "Eastern") but we have both with us. From Hesychasm to Scholasticism, from Mount Athos to the Chartreux, all that is True has been given to our disposal by the Lord through his Church. The schismatics however, have to be content with half of the Lord's gift (and an incomplete and mutilated half at that).
Dwong, is there some way I can contact you, your work is super great and I had a proposition for you
He's leaving for monastery and joining Maronite Monks of Adoration
All the best for him! 🙏☦️✝️🙏
@@slqinferno123 blessed be God
The "Orthodox" are definitely heretical on this point.
I have no idea what Little Root Town is, but after all this evidence, if you say it is pro Filioque, I'll surely trust you about it.
You sir are based
On the whole, this is the best presentation I have seen. At a minimum you show solid support for the Filioque in Latin fathers, with eastern fathers tending to support procession through the Son, and eminent theologians Cardinal Bessarion and John Bekkos coming to support the Filioque after further review.
I've been trying to get a hold of you for years about your ancient papacy website. Is it ok that I reproduced some of your articles on my channel and blog from that site ? I tried emailing your years ago. Thanks
@@OrthodoxCatholic1 Be of good cheer. My new book, Keys Over the Christian World, incorporates that content, and it's on the Robert Sungenis site. The co authors did not even object when it was made a free download, because we want to convert people. I think what you did was okay, enjoy the book and go convert somebody. God love you.
John you’re a beast man, love your papacy work
You are a Legend, amazing Work. May God bless you.
Thank you brother. God bless you as well
Let it be know that the Pseudo-orthodox Greeks diverge from the Christian Tradition of the Holy Fathers of the Church on the matter of Filioque and do so in particular because of their pride and rebellion against the rightful authority of the Roman Pontiff, another matter in which they diverge from the Tradition of the Fathers.
It would be useful if you did a similar video on this latter point, as it is really the crux of the problem (their pride and insubordination, combined with their political pretensions and their subservience to secular interests in their caesaropapism), and if you want material on it I recommend the book called "The Eastern Churches and the Papacy".
Caesaropapism is really the scourge of their schismatic Church, as it rendered them hostage and bound to worldly interests for their whole existence, and it's a shame that not more Catholics point that out.
Y do you only post bangers?
Because Mother Mary helps my videos by praying for me. Glory to the Triune God!
Thank you so much for your videos they are one of the best Catholic apologetics, and especially this one
Thank you, God bless bro!
Absolutely love your video man. Do you think you can do a video on the Church Father's defending Peter as the Rock and disproving Orthodoxy?
Thanks for the kind words brother. I can’t make the video since I’m leaving soon for the Monastery!
@@dwong9289
Wish you luck my friend and I do hope in the future that you can make that video.
God bless
St Peter founded the churches of Antioch and Alexandria (through St Mark).
@@thane816but he died at Rome so that's where his authority as Chief Apostle will be passed down
@@dwong9289you're becoming a monk? Is this a permanent move?
I don't think we have to rely on letter 171. St Cyril doesn't secure with Theodoret's rejection of the hypostatic filioque in his replies to the Theodoret's objections to the 12 chapters. Instead, he blames him for misinterpreting his words and says that he was simply emphasizing that the Holy Spirit was not separate from Christ (since if he were, Christ would be a mere man receiving grace, rather than the Word of whom the Spirit is)
Ninth Anathema:
If any suggest that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the
Spirit by making use of a power that came through the Spirit,
a power that was something other than his own, and that he
received from the Spirit the ability to overcome evil spirits and
perform divine miracles for people, instead of saying that the
Spirit by which he wrought the miracles was his very own, let
them be anathema.
Excerpt from Theodoret's response:
We would agree with him that the Spirit is the Son’s
own, and would accept his formula as a godly one, so long as he
also says that the Spirit is of one nature with the Son and pro-
ceeds from the Father. But if he is suggesting that the Spirit de-
rives his existence from or through the Son, such a doctrine we
would reject as entirely blasphemous. For we believe the Lord
when he speaks of “the Spirit which proceeds from the Father”75
and similarly the most divine Paul when he says that “we have
received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of
the Father.”
Excerpt from St Cyril's reply to Theodoret:
"I explained beforehand that the meaning of the anathemas
is directed specifically against Nestorius’s stuttering and careless
explanations. When he referred to the Holy Spirit as “this thing
which bestowed such a great glory upon Christ, which caused
the demons to fear him and which granted him to be taken up
into heaven,” and spouted such garbage as if Christ were a per-
son just like the rest of us, the anathema became absolutely nec-
essary, not to exclude people who say that Jesus, namely, God
the Word made man, was glorified by the Holy Spirit, but in op-
position to those who openly claim that he made use of a power that came through the Spirit and was something other than his
own. After all, remember how he said quite clearly about the
Holy Spirit, “He shall glorify me,”77 and by this we know that it
was because the Holy Spirit was at work within him that he could
shatter evil, unclean powers; what we deny is that he made use
of a power that he had through the Spirit as something that did
not belong to him, just as a saint would do. No, the Spirit was
and is his own, just as he in turn belongs to the Father. This is
what the god-inspired Paul makes abundantly clear to us when
he wrote, “Those who are in the flesh are not able to please
God; but you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed
the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not possess
the Spirit of Christ, then he does not belong to him.”78 As our
Savior said, the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and
is not foreign to the Son, since everything is with the Father. He
also taught about the Holy Spirit, “All that the Father possesses
is mine; because of this I said to you that he would take from me
and make it known to you.”79 The Holy Spirit, then, glorified
Jesus by enacting miracles, but he did so as his own Spirit, not
as some power over and above him, seeing as he is reckoned to
be God"
Secure should say argue
If one watches this they cannot deny the Filioque, great work!
Little root town is pro Filioque!!!
awesome!
Orthodoxy exposed
Pseudo-orthodox.
Hi Dwong I’m new to your channel but already this one video has gotten me very interested in your channel and you explain stuff with an easier way of understanding. I love how you always show the sources and bring up pictures of the actually quotes which actually makes it easy to see what you are saying is completely true🙌🏾 thank you for this truly. I hope to see more uploads which also tackles different areas of the dispute between the east and west as I can’t wait for more of your videos to enlighten me. I’m currently writing almost every quote and reasoning you use in this video in my notebook so that everytime I encounter an orthodox who wants a discussion about this I am prepared because of you. Thank you Dwong. Gloria in excelsis Deo🙌🏾 the peace of Christ be with you🙌🏾
Glory to God! Thank you for the kind words brother. I am writing a book on this topic, and it will be out in a month or so, so you can use that for your notes as well
@@dwong9289 im looking forward to it😁🙌🏾
Simple question:
Is being cause a hypostatic property of the Father or an essential one?
It seems to me, if I’m understanding you correctly that your logical basis for saying he proceeds from both is based on the idea that the Father communicates all that he has to the Son, which seems to indicate you would answer that it’s an essential one.
Your question is like asking "is being caused an hypothetic property of the Son or an essential one since both the Son and Spirit are caused".
From catholic perspective, the hypostatic properties of the Father would include things like : Fatherhood ( generation of the Son), being uncaused, being the source of Godhead, being the ultimate cause in the Godhead.
Being simply "cause" is not an absolute property in the Trinity but more like a relative one. To the Son, the father is the cause and to the Spirit, the Son and the Father are the cause.
I’ll lay some things out.
The Father is the *primordial* principle, being cause isn’t a property per se. The idea of being cause or uncaused is notional and can apply to anyone who spirates the Spirit. The Father’s hypostatic property is paternity which denotes his role in relation to the Son (i.e., begetting). The Son’s property is filiation (i.e., being begotten). The Spirit’s property is passive spiration (i.e., proceeding). Now, active spiration is shared by the Father and the Son which is proper because it does not constitute either of their persons. The two processions are proper to the essence, of the nature, so it’s not an act of will by the Father to beget the Son, rather either of them are constituted by their relation of origin with the other. Likewise, the Spirit proceeds from both by nature. We know there is a third category of property because there are some which can be predicated to one or two, but not three, that are not constitutive nor essential.
The Father communicates active spiration to the Son by begetting, yes. Does the Spirit then cause another? No. He is the terminus of the second procession.
Good evening brother and Long Live Christ the King. Thank you for this video. It’s going to help me a lot with my video coming out this weekend on the Filioque and Papacy
God bless! Hope it converts souls
@@dwong9289 Amen brother, may we bring about the salvation of every man whom God has elected from before the Foundations of the Earth
Thank you so much for that, keep up the good works.
Could you make a video about papal supremacy and infallibility please
I’m studying that topic right now
@@dwong9289 Will this include pope honorius I?
@@AdesteFideles. if I make the video then most probably. There is still a lot I have to research. I’m totally new to historic Papal Apologetics
@@dwong9289 Thank you!
@@AdesteFideles.I'm also looking forward to that, as dwong doesn't disappoint. What I found the most interesting about Honorius' case is that his successor Pope that condemned him posthumously did so because "he let the heresy of monothelitism spread and did not condemn it" which implies that Rome had in fact power to pass judgment over other Churches and it even was expected that it did so and, more importantly, emphasis on the fact that he was reproached for not condemning the Patriarch of Constantinople of all people. A great book on the subject that I recommend is "The Eastern Churches and the Papacy".
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
You’re welcome, God bless
Did you know ? :
The same disputed verb "ekpoureitai" in John is used by Christ in another passage about expelling (&$#%&) 🫢 from the human body!!!
ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα 🔺️ἐκπορεύεται🔻, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα;
- Mark 7:19
"Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?"
We must reconsider the debate on Filioque in another total way.
The verb is neither theological nor sophisticated; it simply means : to go out.
Thus, it can have many synonymes.
If Saint Cyril of Alexandria, for instance, said that the Holy Spirit "comes from" or "flows from" or "goes out" the Son , they are all identical and proove the filioque.
Hello Dwong!
Regarding your second quote about St Maximus The Confessor:
“For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendour of the Fathers and sacred dogmas…For ever since the Incarnate Word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Saviour , but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the most High“.
(Opuscula 11, PG 91.137-140; trans. Cooper 2005:181; taken from Oxford Handbook, 552)
Here's the Eastern Orthodox Objection - Pro-Roman Rhetoric & Flowery Language
EO apologists like Ubi Petrus cites our Catholic yet liberal scholar Fr Richard Price (he's credible overall) in his translation and commentary on the Acts of Lateran 649, Fr. Price notes the following about St. Maximus’ views of Rome:
“But this same faction [Palestinian monks] also now realised that their personal and doctrinal fates depended upon the continuous support of the Roman popes, whose abrogation of Monothelitism and support for the doctrinal resistance had saved it from irrelevance. This inspired a distinctly pro-Roman rhetoric in Maximus’ output of the 640s, as the fates of his Palestinian faction and the Roman popes became ever more closely intertwined. Around 641 he composed a defence of Pope Honorius’ orthodox credentials in his First Letter to Sergius, arguing that the pope’s ‘one will’ had in fact designated the divine will (and indeed, in a desperate addendum, that he had not stated ‘one will’ in the first place); and, later in the same decade, he composed from Carthage a letter in which he defended, against detractors at Constantinople, Pope Theodore’s use of the Filioque formula (that is, the Latin doctrine that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father ‘and the Son’). At the same time, throughout this decade Maximus in several texts celebrated Roman pre-eminence within the Christian Church, and acknowledged three distinct bases for it: Rome’s status as the guardian of the orthodox faith, its inheritance through the promise of Christ to St Peter (Matt 16:18-19) and its recognition in canonical decrees. […] Maximus cannot, of course, be considered a proto-champion of the later, monarchic claims of the post-Gregorian popes: the principal criterion for Rome’s pre-eminence remained its commitment to orthodox doctrine. But although the Palestinian allies of Maximus had much to gain by upholding long-standing papal claims to special status - which reinforced its own doctrinal stance while also challenging the right of the eastern authorities to intervene in matters of the faith - their pro-Roman rhetoric in this period did not represent some gross deviation from their earlier output. It was instead a further extension of that previous emphasis on eucharistic communion as the inviolable bedrock of divine illumination, irrespective of reversals within the terrestrial sphere. From this earlier position, it was but a short a leap into an assertion of ecclesial independence which complemented the rhetoric of Rome.”[11]
In other words,EOs argues that quote is truly an example of “flowery” language which is so commonly used in the classical world. A great example of which is when Pope St. Celestine, when writing to Nestorius, describes how the See of Constantinople had been pure up until Nestorius.[12] They argue it is flowery language because Rome simply could not “shut up and lock every heretical mouth” as despite decree after decree from Rome, it was not until an Orthodox emperor took the throne that progress began to be made, decades after St. Maximus wrote this. They also argue that Rome had its own sullied history with Popes such as Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius (whose defense St. Maximus quietly abandons) so that quote is a pure hyperbole. They also argue that Popes Eugenius and St. Vitalian compromised the Faith when they forbade speech on whether there was one or two wills in Christ and made that the official position of the Church of Rome. They also argue that how, when pressed on the issue, St. Maximus shows he is more than willing to ditch Rome,and they cite Fr. Price again,who gives a fuller background to the view St. Maximus had:
"The role of the papacy in the monothelete controversy raises important questions of its involvement in the empire and its position as leader of the universal church. […] The involvement of successive popes in the controversy reflected the position of the Roman church as leader of the universal church and the special prestige of Rome in matters of doctrine articulated in ideas of papal primacy. Peter’s confession of faith at Matthew 16:18-19 was the basis for the idea that the popes had a special authority in matters of doctrine and teaching because they had gained their understanding through St Peter directly from Christ. This primatial position was acknowledged throughout the eastern and western churches and, while there could be tensions, Constantinople recognised that in upholding orthodoxy the Roman church was but fulfilling its duty. However, this did not mean that in the east papal pronouncements on matters of doctrine were regarded as automatically definitive and necessitating acceptance. Papal prestige was enhanced by the growing importance of Rome as a centre of martyr cults and as a place of pilgrimage. […] Relic cults heightened the prestige of the popes who promoted them, and highlighted Rome’s apostolic inheritance and primatial status through its possession of the remains of St Peter. When Pope Theodore set out ritually to depose Patriarch Pyrrhus after the latter’s return to monotheletism, he was said to have done so at the tomb of Peter, an act which underlined his own exercise of apostolic authority, connecting it directly with the living presence in his tomb of the prince of the Apostles.”[13]
Their references
[11] Price, Acts of Lateran 649 p.36-37
[12] “Know therefore, clearly, that our sentence is this, namely, that unless thou preach those very doctrines concerning our God Anointed, which both the Church of the Romans, and the Church of the Alexandrians, and all the Universal Church holds fast, and as the holy Church in the great city of Constantine very well held fast until thee…” www.historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/pope-celestines-letter-to-nestorius.html
[13] Price, Acts of Lateran 649 p.40-41
How would we respond to this objection? Thank you so much in advance!
So the objector's reasoning is that this is an example of flowery language and therefore cannot be used as a proof text for Vatican 1 Papacy. And their comparison was that "Pope St. Celestine, when writing to Nestorius, describes how the See of Constantinople had been pure up until Nestorius." Alright let's first acknowledge that this comparison is so dissimilar at first, since St. Maximus is clearly asserting that the see of Rome is given supreme power (universal jurisdiction over the entire Church), and that this power to Bind and Loose is promised by the Lord and guaranteed by the Councils. And in the other quote St. Maximus says that all Christians from all times believed in this and saw Rome as their sole foundation. So, St. Maximus claims the indefectibility of the See of Rome is based off of the promises of the Lord, and it is not just some contingent accident, or not from a mere correct exposition of the faith. Rome's correct exposition of the faith is grounded in the promise of the LORD. And from this connection that St. Maximus makes, it is clear that the Divine Institution of the Papacy means the indefectibility of the Church is connected with the promise to St. Peter that the Gates of hell shall not prevail, and the indefectibility of binding and loosing is connected with the promise to St. Peter specifically.
Here's Michael Lofton on it, for more information th-cam.com/video/mFvoY5GkO8g/w-d-xo.html
A simple reply is that in the Lateran Council, Pope Martin appointed a papal vicar with authority to appoint entire hierarchies of bishops, priests, and deacons in the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, and required obedience to the vicar. Numerous eastern monks took part in this council, and St Maximus demanded that Constantinople accept it. It is not credible to reduce St Maximus to flowery language regarding the popes. Mansi 10, 806 Sq.
@@johncollorafi257 John the question falls that since Stephen of dora asked rome to intervene in the other episcopates it was only after an invitation to do so?
@@shiningdiamond5046 I will be discussing this in detail on Orthodox Christian Theology, scheduled for December 22. There were certainly requests for Rome's intervention; Stephen of Dora says that St Sophronius commanded him to go to inform Rome. St Martin in the Lateran Council speaks of appeals from multiple places and the Council gathered the best of the orthodox east. It's highly likely that orthodox eastern refugees at Rome drew up the Greek acts of the council, as Fr Price opines in his translation of the conciliar acts.
1:51:03 powerful point on Revelation 22:1 proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. I had never made that connection before.
1. How do you not have 100k subscribers 2. How do you have the incredible time this type of content (I presume) this requires.
Bro... you're hilarious. I caught that little "yes!" edit on the slide at the 0:25 mark, lol Father Mike asks, "Is Judas in hell?"
I like the pokemon intro, wanna play with me ?
St John 8 42
Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God, I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me.
St John 15 26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
From the Douay Rhiems bible.
Jesus said he proceed from the the one who sent me.
And Jesus said that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father.
No, some say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the Son, but that's a different meaning.
And of course we have the council condemning anyone from making changes to the creed. I rather listen to these than people's ideas.
Then you have the Eastern catholics allowed to omit the filioque while the west say it. Unreal. And I could go on abiut many problems with Roman Catholism including prayer meetings in Assisi and a so call saint pope john paul 2. But I don't have the time
1:48:17
@dwong9289 what does that mean?
@dwong9289 that didn't prove anything and there it's nore than one verse and Jesus taught it. So no point is made but what you reference to
1:19:06
@dwong9289 you just send numbers with no answers. I can send you links and links that disproves the whole filioque heresy
What tangible evidence that the Egyptian Letter equals St. Cyril letter to John of Antioch?
I swear this is what happened in the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1431-1449).
Do the Deutrocanonical books and how they are canon.
U killed orthodox cult 😛😛😝😝
Speaking of Kappes, he points out the following in a 2019 article. According to the official acts of the council of Florence, John Montenero, who was the speaker for the Latins at the council, argued that the Son has the power to spirate because there exists dignities in the trinity in his debate with Mark of Ephesus. Montenero justified his heretical position by citing an obviously-interpolated version of Basil's book 3 of Against Eunomius. Although Mark of Ephesus attempted many times to prove to Montenero that his copy was interpolated and that he was reading Basil out of context, he refused to concede. In the end, Montenero's stubbornness caused the Greeks to think that the Latins believed in a subordinationist pneumatology, which would partially explain why the reunion failed. Christiaan Kappes claims that Florence's definition of the Filioque can be "read in light of Montenero's position or in light of "Aquinas’ plausible influence on the formula of the Second Council of Lyon, the very source of contention necessitating the debates at Florence.”
How do we reconcile this with the biblical and patristic fact that the Filioque is true? I’ve read the bull Cantate Domino and Pope Eugene IV is emphatic that “These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes. Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power.” Laetentur Caeli never says that the spirit is ontologically lesser than the son either and only mentions how many texts by both the western and eastern fathers teach that the Holy Spirit receives existence eternally from the Father together with the Son. Both bulls are dogmatically binding. I read Bessarion’s dogmatic speech at the council and nowhere does he state that the spirit is 3rd in dignity (dignitas). In reality, the debate was more about if the Filioque is patristic rather than if its theology is sound. Mark of Ephesus refused to recognize "through the son" as being hypostatic and presumed that texts by the Latin fathers that teach the Filioque had been interpolated. This dilemma has been worrying me for the past few days ever since I read the article.
Three things:
1. St. Basil's use of the word that is translated to "dignity" is disputed. The Author of "Vindicating the Filioque" says he personally doesn't like that translation of the word. I presume St. Basil is just referring to the taxis or order of the Persons, being Third in rank and 'dignity' according to the order. The Father is First because He is from no one, the Son is second because He is from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit is Third because He is from both the Father and the Son, hence Third in rank and 'dignity' (although that translation of the term is disputed.)
2. The Filioque doctrine and the Florentine definition of the Filioque explicitly rejects Subordinationism, in Session 11 Bull with the Copts they affirm "It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. *It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity."*
3. If apologetics is causing you to be worried, I would step away and focus on developing a healthy spiritual life. Prayer and the Sacraments come before apologetics, and apologetics is meant to help guide with union with God. It is easy, even for me, to get distracted with apologetics and not to have it ordered toward Union with God. You should prevent yourself from needlessly scrolling online and finding every argument and trying to resolve every disputation, that is a way to lose the faith if you aren't adequately trained. Stay close to the Rosary if you are experiencing doubts, Our Lady always reassures you.
That’s a relief. Once again, please pardon my poor attention to detail. I guess the sense of worry took over me and messed with my cognition. That's why I didn't notice what was written on the bull of union with the Copts. Are you still active on Discord? I feel like taking these discussions there would be better.
@@williamestrada2201 Yes I am on Discord
What do you say to the objection that Isaiah 48:16 says that the son is being sent by the Father and his spirit?
My reply would be that it is clearly ad extra, and economic. The incarnation is being described and the spirit sending the son is seen in the opening of Luke and Mark’s gospels (eg. Mark 1:12).
But then, how do we distinguish between this instance (Is 48:16) from other instances (john 16/Rev 22) where we wish to say that these instances as extra reflect the tirinity ad intra ? Maybe because Isiah doesn’t use ekporumenon like the Creed, or Revelation 22?
I give a short reply at 1:32:19
If you read Fr Dominic Legge’s book the Trinitarian Consciousness of Christ, I think he does a much better job at explaining how the Holy Spirit’s role in Christology connects with the Immanent Trinity. It’s pretty advanced stuff, so I didn’t fully explain it.
this is incredible work
Thank you!
I love the style you use with the objection
Awesome work you did
47:20 Game, set, match
The 1995 Vatican clarification on Filioque wasn't great as the content of this amazing video... Shame !!!!
Keep doing the work of the Lord, Good Soldier! I will definitely be sharing this as much as I can 👏👏👏
To be completely honest why does the filioque matter to you? Your church already allows palamite theology and no filioque in the creed in the Uniates and once Rome probably reunites with the east in 2025 this debate will be an in house debate so why does this matter so much?
The Eastern Catholics must affirm the Filioque dogmatically, it’s taught in the Universal Catechism and the Ecumenical Council of Florence says all Christians (including Easterners) must affirm it or they’re anathema.
Eastern Catholics can hold to Palamism but not to Neo-Palamism, as it is dogma that all is one in God where there is no relative opposition. Therefore there is no essence-energies real distinction, only a logical or formal distinction.
The picture of Metropolitan Philaret around 1:54:00 is Vladyka Philaret of New York, Metropolitan of ROCOR. He is also considered a saint by many
where does it say that St Augustine said "Accordingly, He shall not speak of Himself; because
He is not of Himself. But whatsoever He shall hear,
that shall He speak: He shall hear of Him from
whom He proceeds. To Him hearing is knowing; but
knowing is being, as has been discussed above.
Because, then, He is not of Himself, but of Him
from whom He proceeds, and of whom He has
essence, of Him He has knowledge; from Him,
therefore, He has hearing, which is nothing else
than knowledge."? Just asking as a Roman Cath
Great work god Bless you
God bless you bro!
You left out that the creed in which the Filioque is added is from Epiphanius in the Ancoratus appendix 1.
what happened to that other shorter video you had on the channel
I unlisted it, since it was simply a preview of the (now) first video. I can link it to you if you want, but everything from it is in the first video.
St. Athanasius, Champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy : "οιδε [Δαυιδ] γαρ παρα τω θεω Πατρι οντα τον Υιον την πηγην του αγιου Πνευματος"
"For he [David] knows that the Son is the Source of the Holy Spirit with God the Father"
I've heard of that one before.
@@dwong9289 Outstanding analysis, brother. God bless.
@@AveChristusRex Thank you brother, God bless you as well!
Do you have the reference?
What is the reference?
Daphney Mills
now thats a video!
Could watch this for pure entertainment - so good
Im catholic but im not sure what type of trinity belief catholic hold to. Is it monarchal trinity?
We believe all 3 Persons are co-equal and that the Father is the source of the Godhead. Monarchy of the Father simply means the Father is the source of life in the Trinity, which Catholics assert. This is not to be confused with Monarchianism which is the heresy that says God is one person. So we do not hold on to monarchianism, rather we believe that all 3 Persons are God.
Anjali Rapids
Koelpin Parkways
What a great work!
What did you convert from?
I was an atheist beforehand
@@dwong9289 :O have you ever shared your conversion story ?
I will share it soon!
@@dwong9289 :D yay!
Walker Row
Fahey Pines
Rosetta Meadows
Selmer Junction
Americo Overpass
Hoyt Crossing
Westley Island
Daniel Cove
Vernon Manor
Mraz Stream
Wilma Mills
Carley Valley
Bradly Mill
Grimes Extension
Dale Gateway
Jewell Mission
Catherine Oval
Carson Circle
Ed Course
Schneider Fort
Kozey Crescent
Marks Mall
Kerluke Turnpike
Schmidt Viaduct
Ellie Turnpike
Based