St. Jerome in his "Homily on Psalm 1" says that the river flowing from the Throne with the Lamb standing by it, which is mentioned in the Book of Revelation (22:1), are the graces of God (i.e., the graces of the Spirit); and so, the biblical text in Revelation is not talking about the origin of the Spirit as person, but is instead referring to the grace of God flowing out to the blessed [see "The Fathers of the Church," volume 48, pages 8-9].
Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father. Filioque emerged in Eastern Syrian Church in Persia. It's invention that doesn't correspond with original dogma but heresy, it is not logical due to the common sense that if Holy Spirit needs two of the Holy Trinity to come out and act, then He is a minor deity, making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The problem with this is that it confuses consubstantiality with co-personality, namely doctrine of triune God as one substance (ousia) and three persons (hypostaseis) which is crucial for distinction of orthodox trinitarial theology from polytheism arianism. The Father remains the sole principle, because the Son has nothing he has not received from this source. Hence while the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father, he proceeds energetically from Father and Son , which brings us to the the doctrine of perichoresis,that the different hypostases of the Trinity eternally co-inhere in one another. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
@@Straw1321 St John of Damascus stated that the spirit of the son proceeded through the son from the father. It is only from the father. Try to refute a literal saint.
The Book of Revelation DOES describe the Spirit proceeding from the Father AND from Christ. Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the RIVER of the WATER OF LIFE, bright as crystal, flowing (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the throne of God AND of the Lamb. It even uses the terminology of 'procession' with the Greek word ἐκπορεύομαι. If you're wondering what the 'water of life' refers to, St. John tells us. John 7: 38-39 "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, RIVERS of LIVING WATER will flow from within them." By this HE MEANT THE SPIRIT, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.
@@BingusBongus362 Isn't that still the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Son as well as from the Father as the Father as the primary principle and the Son as the proximate principle which is still the Father and the Son? And isn't this what the Latin Church teaches?
@@TheCoachsCoach933 the Late Bishop Ware isn’t the final authority in the Orthodox Church and there is a lot more problems wrapped up in the addition to the Creed than just semantics.
Thank you for the good synthesis! It could have been helpful to present St Augustine's position as well, see if it fits into the Orthodox paradigm or not. We know Augustine did not mean to impose his personal speculation as dogma, and wished to be corrected by the Church if he was to be wrong on something, but I wonder if Craig is right to say the augustinian view is compatible with energetic procession, since the essence/energy distinction seems completely foreign to his theology (heavily influenced as it is by neoplatonism).
@@eabm1984 I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The only way you can think this way is by not having studied their theology as a whole properly and just reading quotemines out of context (and that goes also for some Western Fathers, like St Hilary or St Ambrose, often used to support the Filioque though they do not speak about the eternal procession of the Spirit's very hypostasis). Affirming the procession "through the Son" is not equivalent with the Filioque doctrine as defined in RC dogma, unless your theory is that the "true Western understanding" is not what the RCC has taught in general councils like Lyons II and Florence (which would be interesting, but fatal to Catholicism). The procession "through the Son" is not that of the Spirit's hypostasis, but that of the gift of the Spirit (often also called "Spirit" by way of metonymy), eternally proceeding energetically from the Father through the Son (a doctrine impossible in RC dogma, because of ADS, which is the true big theological problem behind the controversy). I know it is a very complex debate, but I think it is worth investigating by reading recent scholarship like Edward Siecienski and studying the Fathers "holistically" and not just quotemines. The Eastern Fathers usually make the EED and do not have the same triadological conception and presuppositions as Augustine and his followers (though I believe even St Augustine's triadology is a complex matter to discuss).
@@theophan9530 it will surprise you, though it is fact, and there are enough studies done on the subject by scholars much more knowledgeable than I, that your arguments are all later creations promoted by individuals who are more anti-Catholic than they are, truly Orthodox. The vast majority of arguments made against the filioque, the way that the Orthodox of today, repeat it, are all Photios arguments posited by Aryans. Prior to this, most Orthodox in both East in West, understood eternal procession (generation) to be from the Father through the Son and were perfectly comfortable with this.
@@theophan9530 you can't deny Eastern fathers like Didymus the Blind (380 AD), St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374 AD), St. Cyril of Alexandria (425 AD), all accepted and recognized, by their own written words, the eternal generation from the Father through the Son.
@@eabm1984 I suppose you mean "eternal procession", not "generation", which is the mode of the Son. Well, as a mater of fact, I deny that both St Epiphanius of Salamis and St Cyril of Alexandria taught the double procession of the Spirit's very hypostasis (= the taking of his being/essence) from the Father and the Son as a sole principle of its existence, which is the RC dogma. Didymus the Blind is not a Father of the Church ans was even anathematized for origenism at the Vth Ecumenical Council, so his view is not really relevant (I mean dogmatically, not historically of course). In fact it is even certain that St Cyril did not teach the Filioque doctrine, since this question came up in his discussions with blessed Theodoret of Cyrus in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus, during which the latter called him up precisely on this question, saying it was inacceptable to think that the Spirit's hypostasis is from both the Father and the Son, and St Cyril replied by saying that the Spirit is from the Father (on the one hand) and not alien to the Son's substance (on the other hand), which means that St Cyril only meant that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial, and that the Son and the Spirit share the same energies, etc. St Epiphanius only says that the Father and the Son "breathe" the Holy Spirit, which refer obviously to energetic procession (the famous procession "through the Son", confessed without any problem by the Church, as made clear at the Council of Blachernea in 1285 in response to Lyons II).
First I wanna say welcome! If you have any questions feel free to ask. I say you should pray! And if God sees good will in you he will bring something your way..
Depending on your country, some countries have Greek or Russian embassies with Churches inside, or there might be small home churches in your country (that do services), I would recommend looking into these options, generally looking on google or maybe joining Orthodox facebook groups from your country could help you find solutions as-well, God sees and recognises your efforts.
Papist here. What's the problem here? Your arguments are based on texts. The same texts have been used by very many smart people to argue for and against the Filioque. You can keep the argument going till the cows come home, because text interpretation is neither an exact science that can be categorically refuted with a theorem or syllogism nor an empirical science that can be verified or disproven by a scientific prediction or experiment. Therefore, it all comes down to a question about authority, as it's the case with any arguments based on text interpretation. Any moderately smart founder knows that a document meant to guide belief and behavior for generations to come knows that a provision must be made for an organ of authoritative interpretation, a living organ that will hold the authority of a final say that should last for as long as the guiding text and the structures it supports are meant to last. Knowing this, the US founding fathers made a provision, contained in the same text of the Constitution, for the formation of such an organ with final say in its interpretation such as is the Supreme Court of Justice. One would like to believe that the Founder of Christianity was at least as smart as the US founding fathers. So, there are two sets of questions to be answered: Set A 1. Was he? (as smart as the Founding Fathers) 2. What is that authority? 3. Has that authority made any definitive pronouncement for or against the disputed doctrine? Set B 1. Would it be better for the unity of the organization and the smoothness of its operation and its chances of survival if that authority were invested with the power of infallible pronouncements? The founding fathers did not have the power to guarantee an infallible interpretive organ and that's why the Supreme Court of Justice must correct its jurisprudence from time to time. But, 2. Could the Founder of Christianity claim to have the power to invest the organ of authoritative interpretation with this kind of infallibility? If yes, 3. Are there any valid and cogent reasons for Him not to have exercised such power? Then, to finalize, a set of one question must be answered: Which is that organ of infallible interpretation with final authority over the universal Church that must last as long as the Church itself? A hint to begin answering this last crucial question: start by asking if there's anyone around who claims to have that authority. If the Founder of Christianity was as smart as the US founding fathers, we should easily find the answer to this question.
@@DoomerDoxywhat's ironic is EO treating the forgery claim (which I don't think is official) with scorn when that's their bread and butter argument against Patristic consensus for the Filioque
He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into the entire world. 7 He came forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne.
Exactly. The Son sends the Holy Ghost from the Father. From the Father through the Son. But belonging to both in the act of the Ghost proceeding from both.
All politics aside, I was just hit with a philosophical realization about the matter. How could the spirit proceed from the son if the son is begotten? Although the son is eternally begotten, he is still begotten of the father. The spirit couldn’t possibly proceed through the son, unless it was through the father because the characterization of the logos as being “eternally begotten” shows the dependency the logos has towards the father. If the father is almost essentially “non existent” (which is actually hilariously ironic to atheism), due to being completely outside of space and time, this than leaves Christ as the incarnate image of the said unseen nearly nonexistent father. If the logos is the viewable image of the father in “existance”, than the Holy Spirit couldn’t possibly proceed from the son, as the son is simply the viewable incarnate image of the father.
Hi, everyone 👋 I’m not Orthodox, but I’m currently inquiring and I believe the Lord may be leading me (and my budding family) to join the Church, but I’m still praying and seeking His face and humbling myself and seeking Him as He is and on His terms as best as I can. Please pray for me in this regard 🙏 As for the video, you mentioned that Peter and Paul are not differentiated by their essence (both human) but by their hypostases (persons), but God is three in persons but one in essence. But I can’t help but see a HUGE problem with this formulation as it stands! Which is thus: if Paul and Peter, and why not John too, as human beings share one essence but are three persons, and furthermore any group of three humans can be described as one in essence and three in persons. Clearly a group of three is not the same thing as the Trinity, so this must need be elucidated. Speaking of Christ, don’t we say that He had two _natures_ of which one is uncreated and divine (the Logos of God) and the other created and human given Him at the incarnation? Is “nature” in this sense interchangeable with “essence” so that we could say that Christ has two essences, a divine essence and a human essence, or are they fundamentally different from each other? The reason I ask about nature vs essence is because my first intuition is to try to find the resolution there. For example, if nature and essence are not entirely one and the same and wholly interchangeable, then one could argue that while Peter and Paul and John are three persons that share one nature that would not necessarily make them three persons that share one essence. (the definition of the Trinity?) Is it that the definition of the Trinity as “three in persons, one in essence” (Tri-unity) is incomplete? Something must be missing here. Surely the Godhead doesn’t share an essence in the same way that men do. Without a resolution to this, one may conclude that God is only one in the sense that three beings share the same essence in the way that the two beings Bob and Steve share an essence, which would be Tritheism, right? I know each member of the Godhead has unique roles (for example, the Father as Father of the Son and proceeder of the Spirit, or the Son as the Lord and Savior, or the Holy Spirit as the Parakletos and the Spirit of Truth, and so on. Are all these aspects of the Trinity necessary to define it such that these are what solve the problem above, because Peter and Paul and John don’t proceed from each other or things like that? And how does this not also exclude the human nature of Christ from the Trinity? (Thereby separating it also from His humanity, hence even Nestorian?) because if Christ’s human nature is human in essence and created and not shared with the rest of the Godhead, then they cannot be one in essence in terms of the Son other than His divinity. But isn’t the human nature of Christ in the Trinity too and cannot be separated from His divinity as if there were different entities? I realize this is probably all over the place and so full of error that it would probably tedious to reply to the whole thing, but if someone could help me out here I’m trying to understand 🙇♂️ Orthodoxy is really deep and rich, which is great, but it can also make it a bit difficult to grasp at first for those unfamiliar.
The solution to the problem of Christology is that His two natures are unified in His person. He is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His divinity, and one with His Mother and us in His humanity. While the Son indwells the Father and the Holy Spirit in His divinity, His human nature is not shared with them. Neither does Jesus share His divinity with us by nature(The faithful will be deified by His grace in the eschaton).
@littlefishbigmountain Hi! The way I understand it, as a Catholic is, first of all, that neither "begotten" nor "proceeding" are appropriate, in the sense that no human word can accurately depict the infinite being of the divinity. That said, and following Augustine, I understand the relations in the Trinity as the necessary presuppositions for possibly the only (for sure the best) attempt at defining the divinity, which is fundamentally undefinable. This attempt is John's, who in his first letter wrote: "God is Love." John wasn't into bumper stickers, so there has to be a very profound meaning to these three words. G.K. Chesterton understood that the Trinity is nothing other than humanity's clumsy ways to explain this definition. (By the way, I firmly believe that, if you make this "indefining definition," the honest and uncompromising center, source, and conclusion of all theological elucubrations, you will be able to answer virtually all the questions and challenges that can be made to our faith. But I'm a little rushed right now, so allow me to copy and paste the comment I made somewhere else to this UA-cam. If you get to read this and find it useful, you can ask me any questions, and I'll try my best to answer them, including my thoughts on your very interesting and searching question about the difference between the Divine Trinity and any group of three human persons. Here's the plagiarism of myself: "The word "cause," if understood in the traditional sense as whatever contributes necessarily to the being or mode of being of another reality, is not very helpful to understand the Trinity. In an ontological sense, you could say that the Father is the only One cause, because, if there wasn't a Father, there couldn't be a Son. But in an identitarian sense, the Son is also cause of the fatherhood of the Father, since neither can there be a Father if there's no Son. Because identities are the substance of personality and identities are relational, it follows that, without the Son, the Father could not even be a person, because he can only find his identity in his relationship with the Son. However surprising this may sound, the real kicker comes next, when we consider the essence of the divinity. What causes the Father and the Son to be not just persons but divine persons? The essence of the divinity, it's been said to nauseam, is being itself. However, being calls for, can not stand without unity (arguably the primary transcendental of being). The perpetuation of being, what we call life, cannot take place if it is made of disintegrated parts. And what is it that causes Father and Son to be One, hence to perpetuate in a living being, hence to be divine? Because there's no divinity without unity, if the Father and the Son were not united by an indestructible and eternal bond, they could not have life, much the less, divinity. This bond is the bond of Love we call the "Holy Spirit." This bond is a person, because it is the fruit of love between two persons (like the fruit of the love between a man and a woman is also a person). This fruit of love, this Third Person, is not only a "new life" but it's also the cause of the life of the other two, since it's the cause for them to be one in each other, a unity without which there can be neither life nor divinity. This is why God is most properly described by the apostle John as "Love". This Third Person is the substance of the divinity. Father and Son are one substance because they share this one love. I guess one could say that the Father causes in being both Son and Holy Spirit; the Son causes the paternity of the Father; and their mutual love causes the living unity whereby both Father and Son are one God. As for the "Filioque" one must wonder if it's possible for the Father to generate the Holy Spirit _without_ the Son. The answer is obviously no. I guess you could say that the generation of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but necessarily through the Son. God is a relationship of persons because they are united by a bond of love. Now, a unidirectional love, an unrequited love, doesn't generate a bond. A bond is generated only when the love goes both ways, only when there's reciprocity. Therefore, you cannot take the love of the Son for the Father entirely out of the generation of the Holy Spirit. The loving full self-giving of the Father to the Son is insufficient to cause the unity necessary for life, which is necessary for the ineluctable perpetuation in boundless being of the divinity. The loving full self-giving of the Son to the Father is necessary to "clinch the deal" of perfect unity. The love of the Father causes him to be and live in the Son. The reciprocation of that love from Son to Father causes him to be and live in the Father. Thus, through this mutual perfect full self-giving for love, they become indistinguishable from each other in their life and their divinity, the only remaining difference being that of their relational identities as Father and Son. Without this relational differentiation, love wouldn't be possible. That's why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The diversity in the Trinity is a necessary condition for love to take place, hence also a condition for the Trinity's unity, its life, and divinity."
For the Florentine Council I do want to just raise a couple of queries. When it says: "We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as the cause and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father." [I] Does the text not imply that there are Greeks that hold that the Son is in fact a cause of the Holy Ghost? Which means it is not only Latins teaching the Son as a possible "cause" of the Holy Ghost like the Father is? [II] And if so in what manner of cause? Is Florence stating that the Son is a PRIMARY cause as would be the case with the Father according to forementioned slides OR as a PROXIMATE cause? Cause doesn't necessarily and always mean primary cause any student of Aristotle would know. There are primary causes as in the exact source and then there are secondary or proximate causes through which the primary cause may act. It's important to note that the quote says the Son is the cause "like the Father" but not "as the Father". A subtle distinction but an important one. I.e. the Son is LIKE the Father through being a secondary or proximate cause of the Spirit (the Spirit proceeding THROUGH Him but not begetting from Him as a primary source) rather than AS the Father (the Son begetting the Spirit with the Father in exact manner). The text in this video on this point doesn't make it exactly clear. In and of itself, if Florence doesn't mean that the Son is THE cause in the same exact manner AS the Father is THE cause, then no contradiction between the belief of the Christians of the first millenium and the Catholic Church exist. I do believe that even Aquinas (despite the point raised in this video) states that the Spirit proceeds FROM the Father as primary cause THROUGH the Son as proximate cause, which bares no contradiction to anything the Church Fathers have said (other than possibly Three Persons of the Trinity equally having the quality of "begetting" but I have to research that. It's possible Thomas means distinct types of begetting unique to each Person or he's mistaken. But that's a different topic altogether).
Thank you for this video! But what exactly does it mean that the Son is of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit from the Father? Could you please explain this in more detail? That would be very helpful! Kind regards, A.
The St John Damascus actually perfectly aligns with the Catholic teaching. From the father through the son, for the Father alone is cause. Yes perfect from one principle, namely the father, through the son. Not from two sources but from the father and through the son. Father alone is prime caues since he is first in order. Father sends out his Logos(mental thought spoken word) who is second in order. Father with his mental thought sends out his spirit, who is third in order of causality. For Father to send out the spirit from him without the co-operation of his Logos is plainly ridiculous.
Actually filioque goes against the one hypostatic idiomat each persons has of the Trinity. Each person is essence with it"s hypostatic idiomat that is unique to each person.
@@Jhostly because each person is unique .in the way it is .That is showed by its hypostatic idiomat ,that shows it is as a person unique ,and distinct in personal hood to the other persons. The Father is not Born αγέννητος in greek the Son is γεννητος the Holy Spirit is εκπορευτο. Τhat way one persons is made as unique to the other persons. If we put two hypostatic idiomats to one person, it is like saying it is not a person . Actually what the persons is the one common essence they have ,and the different hypostatic idiomat that actually it shows how each person is.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Sorry I should have been more clear about what I meant, I understand what Hypostatic "idiomatics" are, I meant how does the Filioque violate this principle. Each person is still really distinct in their origin.
@@Jhostly no they are not, because to make them unique as an individual person is the one individual idiomat,each person has .That is what it make it a person in distinction in person hood to the other persons. Person hood is not communicatable to each other
I understand the importance of this. But having understanding of ‘where’ or ‘who’ or ‘how’ the Holy Spirit comes, is sent, proceeds from, descends from, etc.. Is NOT relevant to your salvation or your relationship with God. If you think Jesus is going to let you be ‘fooled’ by this topic and reject you because of that, we do not worship the same God. I hope this division will go away one day as I love all my orthodox and catholic brothers and sisters. My only response to ALL churches of Christ in His Words: Matthew 23:8-12.
To preach the HG proceeds from 2 sourses is to preach, that is has no simple natur, thus cannot be God. This is blasphemy against HG and this has matter in salvation.
@@stassdanielsons4850 Jesus told you to preach the good news. Not theology of where the Holy Spirit comes from. He clearly tells us in John 14 where the Holy Ghost comes from, and in John 15 He tells us that HE will send it from the FATHER. Any person with even half of a brain that reads the Bible can figure out that, the FATHER, and the SON are ONE. TO PREACH THE HG COMES FROM ANYONE BUT BOTH JESUS AND THE FATHER IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONENESS OF GOD AND UN-TRINITARIAN!
I MOSTLY agree with this, and this is why I think the papacy issue is a more important one to work through, especially for the average layman. However, I do think that theological errors lead to poor societies.
@@iamjustjoshin You just made an anti-Christian argument that leads to a modalist collapse. We are strictly trinitarian and not unitarian, and thus, it does not logically follow that bringing up the BIBLE’S OWN distinctions between Father and Son instantly means we are rejecting the oneness of God. Trinity 101: One essence, three persons. Did you forget?
Naively, perhaps, I can’t help but return to the analogy of a prism. Light or spirit emanates from the Father through the person of Christ (the prism) and projects the Holy Spirit (the rainbow which emerges). A crude analogy which nevertheless depicts a case where the Father remains the source, but Christ is integral to the projection of the Holy Spirit which cannot be expressed without flowing through him. But the prism, though essential, is not the source of the light it mediates.
I like to think of the two attributes of our physical universe, which are space and time, neither of which can exist apart from a first cause. The problem in all such analogies is that they imply a beginning for those Persons in the Godhead that are equally eternal, a mystery beyond human grasp.
@@Val.Kyrie. Yes, it yes, if you, if one understand that, with cause (aitia) taught in the Florence COuncil *does not refer to the Greek Theologia Father of the catholic Church* but to the *Ancient Pagan Greek Phylosophers* from the ancient Greek Pagan times, before Christ, such as like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, *which have the same meaning of Principle tht the Florence Council conceives and the Greek Catholic Orthodox that signed it too. Otherwise they would be signing their own testament of Apsotasy. The own Cathlic Church consideres aitia (cause) not like this Erthan guy is thinking, neither like the Greek Christians do, but *like the Greek Pagan Phylosophers* if I uderstood everything correctly.
The 1484 Council of Constantinople declared itself to be Ecumenical and declared the "meeting" at Florence of 1439 and its decisions to be void. An Ecumenical Council has to meet on territory controlled by the Emperor hosting it. Florence, though once part of the Roman Empire, had clearly long ceased to be controlled by the Roman Emperor, or, indeed, by any Emperor. So Florence 1439 has, in fact, been condemned by an Ecumenical Council, that of 1484, which met 5 years after the very last remnant of the Roman Empire, the Despotate of Epirus, fell (in 1479). It is noteworthy that the Ottoman Turkish sultans of the time continued to style themselves as Emperors of the Romans, with the Rum Millet being the Orthodox Christian Romans or Rum who spoke what they called Romaiki (not Helleniki) as their mother tongue. Representatives of the Orthodox from beyond the borders of the Ottoman Empire would have needed the permission of that Empire and its Emperor to cross over the border and attend the Council. The final independent Romaiki state which was a fragment of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, the Desperate of Epirus, fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1479, and the West had clearly not managed to liberate or restore any of it by the time of the Council, which destroyed the argument that compromise was necessary to secure effective military aid that could restore the (Eastern) Roman Empire. It is also well known that quite a number of the Ottoman officials were crypto-Christians (confirmed by a number of Russian sources, this still existed in the 1920s when Russian survivors from the Bolsheviks fled to Turkey). A met a young Turkish lady in London, England, about 20 years ago or so who revealed herself to be so.
@@matthewbroderick6287 Sending ≠ Eternal procession. The Filioque isn’t biblical, why bother spreading lies? It had no biblical basis when the West added it to the Creed, why would it have basis now?
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:” Colossians 2:8-10 In Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of deity! Therefore there is no other god. He is the head of ALL principality and power! Therefore there is no power greater. Jesus is the Lord Almighty: the Most High God. The LORD our God is one LORD and He is Jesus LORD of lords! The LORD is king over heaven and earth, and He is Jesus King of kings! Jesus Christ is the Father Jesus Christ is the Son Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit
@malachi7948 Uh no. That’s a heretical statement because Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit but is the Son. The Father is not Holy Spirit nor the Son. The Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father
Hi mr. Erhan, I would like to better understand the term causality in the context of the most holy Trinity. The term does not seem to be in conciliation with the eternity and non-createdness of both Spirit and Word. With the terms "proceeding" and "begetting" I can better fathom it, but not with causing. Thank you for the eventual clarification
The word "cause," if understood in the traditional sense as whatever contributes necessarily to the being or mode of being of another reality, is not very helpful to understand the Trinity. In an ontological sense, you could say that the Father is the only One cause, because, if there wasn't a Father, there couldn't be a Son. But in an identitarian sense, the Son is also cause of the fatherhood of the Father, since neither can there be a Father if there's no Son. Because identities are the substance of personality and identities are relational, it follows that, without the Son, the Father could not even be a person, because he can only find his identity in his relationship with the Son. However surprising this may sound the real kicker comes next, when we consider the essence of the divinity. What causes the Father and the Son to be not just persons but divine persons? The essence of the divinity, it's been said to nauseam, is being itself. However, being calls for, can not stand without unity (arguably the primary transcendental of being). The perpetuation of being, what we call life, cannot take place if it is made of disintegrated parts. And what is it that causes Father and Son to be One, hence to perpetuate in a living being, hence to be divine? Because there's no divinity without unity, if the Father and the Son were not united by an indestructible and eternal bond, they could not have life, much the less, divinity. This bond is the bond of Love we call "Holy Spirit." This bond is a person, because it is the fruit of love between two persons (like the fruit of the love between a man and a woman is also a person). This fruit of love, this Third Person, is not only a "new life" but it's also the cause of the life of the other two, since it's the cause for them to be one in each other, a unity without which there can be neither life nor divinity. This is why God is most properly described by the apostle John as "Love". This Third Person is the substance of the divinity. Father and Son are one substance because they share this one love. I guess one could say that the Father causes in being both Son and Holy Spirit; the Son causes the paternity of the Father; and their mutual love causes the living unity whereby both Father and Son are one God. As for the "Filioque" one must wonder if it's possible for the Father to generate the Holy Spirit _without_ the Son. The answer is obviously no. I guess you could say that the generation of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but necessarily through the Son. God is a relationship of persons because they are united by a bond of love. Now, a unidirectional love, an unrequited love, doesn't generate a bond. A bond is generated only when the love goes both ways, only when there's reciprocity. Therefore, you cannot take the love of the Son for the Father entirely out of the generation of the Holy Spirit. The loving full self-giving of the Father to the Son is insufficient to cause the unity necessary for life, which is necessary for the ineluctable perpetuation in boundless being of the divinity. The loving full self-giving of the Son to the Father is necessary to "clinch the deal" of perfect unity. The love of the Father causes him to be and live in the Son. The reciprocation of that love from Son to Father causes him to be and live in the Father. Thus, through this mutual perfect full self-giving for love, they become indistinguishable from each other in their life and their divinity, the only remaining difference being that of their relational identities as Father and Son. Without this relational differentiation, love wouldn't be possible. That's why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The diversity in the Trinity is a necessary condition for love to take place, hence also a condition for the Trinity's unity, its life, and divinity.
Thank you for this video! But what exactly does it mean that the Son is BEGOTTEN of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father? Could you please explain this in more detail? That would be very helpful! Kind regards, A.
@@Anna-mc3ll "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. - John 15:26 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. - John 1:18
@@nicodemuseam Thank you for your reply! I’m honestly sorry, but I still haven’t understood why the concept of the so-called Filioque is-according to the orthodox Christian view-incorrect or “false”. What precisely is the problem with both the Catholic as well as the “Protestant” notion of the Trinity? (By “Protestant” I’m referring only to the more traditional denominations, such as the Lutherans or the Anglicans.) Could you possibly point out the reason for the disagreement between these different (Christian) groups? Thank you!
@@Anna-mc3ll We begin our Theology in the East with the Person of the Father, who is God, and the very source of all Persons and all things. He is the Monarch, or "one source." The Son and Word of God is the only-begotten of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the Scriptures, and it is said that He rests in the Son. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwell one another. Now, the "Filioque" addition to the Creed distorts this Theology, making the Son a co-Cause or second Source of the Spirit. Simply put, it alters the Faith, it alters the Trinity; making it a Dyad. A book you might read on this subject is "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)" a.co/d/6zZFUiM There is also, from St. Photios, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" a.co/d/gEqgL8M
Thank you. Short & concise description of differences. Talked too fast in places & had to go back multiple times. Thanks for the references to the Early Church fathers. Of all the descriptions in Sacred Scripture of the Trinity, I've always been drawn to: John 14:15-17 "If you love Me, you will keepe My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocatef to be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you." John 16 Unless I go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8And when He comes, He will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world has been condemned.
Thank you, once again! But, according to a Protestant I’ve been listening to recently, the problem with this view is that there would be no connection between the Son and the Holy Spirit. Besides this, he argues that the Orthodox Christians never explain what the difference is between proceeding, on the one hand, and being begotten, on the other. Therefore, in this model the Holy Spirit ends up being a kind of “second son”. And I have to admit that, so far, I haven’t found any clear explanation for what these two terms-proceed and being begotten-exactly mean, nor in what way the Son and the Holy Spirit are connected to each other. Could you possibly suggest a good explanation for both of these essential issues? This would be very helpful! Thank you! Kind regards, A.
"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" - St. Gregory the Great, Fifth Oration, ch 7-8. "We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand." - St. John Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, ch 8-9
@@johnnyd2383 Thank you for these two quotes. Are there any passages in the Bible where the distinction between begetting and procession is being made explicitly? If so, could you please indicate where they are, i.e., in which books, chapters, and verses? Thank you.
All that Father posses,the Son posses too, except Father is Unbegotten.All that Son posses Spirit posses too except the Spiration ❤❤St Gregory Nazianzen
It still does not imply causation of the Spirit, which is clearly expressed in the last words "except the Spiration". Son is simply not cause of the Spirit. Heresy of Filioque still reigns over the heretical Latins.
I still don't understand how human beings using legalese can accurately and reliably describe things that are beyond their comprehension? For over 30 years I've been attracted to apophatic theology (which Eastern Orthodoxy tends to support more than the Western church does in it's proceedings). That's one reason though that I've never been able to cross over to Eastern Orthodoxy - I find most Orthodox sanctuaries are overwhelming to me and get in the way of contemplative experience. I should add, perhaps heretically, that I always liked the line from the Tao te Ching, "those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know"...but then, Christian mystics happen trying to describe their ineffable experiences for millennia...
What is your stand about Revelations 22:1 "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb". Isn't this the basis of Filioque? I'm not trying to argue with anyone. Just please enlighten me. Thank you!
The idea of a Pope is Good. But the Pope we have now is lost and confused. He keeps modernizing the Catholics belief to appeal to all the degenerates of this generation. When the Pope said we all worshiped the same God, I was shocked. Allah is not my God, bhuda is not my God. Heresy.
My brother, he is not the real pope. We had a Pope once by grace of God, now we must do without one. The real Pope of God would not advocate insane heresy like filioque, and a whole host of other heresies. Therefore, the throne of Peter must be sede-vacant. Let us pray one day that we may have a Pope again, as Jesus had ordained; that He will cause a bishop to sit in Peter's throne, teaching Orthodox Catholic doctrine once again.
X creates the rule "When X and Z there must exist a Y" X creates Z. And because X and Z are existing, there must exist Y. -> Filioque is valid Can we now please move on and unite our big church with all of your little churches???
Basically, there has to be an understanding of why the Father is the Father. It is because He "Father's" or causes the Son & Spirit. The Spirit can come through the Son but the Father is the source.
Sorry for the wall of text. I am aware that the code of internet conduct requires all replies to be as short and pithy as possible. A goal which I am in the state of failing, and, indeed, have failed. Such is the curse of man. Anyways, the tldr is the Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that the Filioque and “through the Son” describe the same mystery. “At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he ‘who proceeds from the Father’, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, ‘legitimately and with good reason’, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle’, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.” - The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 248.
I feel like you just quoted church fathers and made an argument from tradition which is fine but I was hoping for logical issues with the Filioque maybe I misheard tho I was driving
Knowledge of God comes from the revelation of God, which is passed on by tradition. There is no purely "logical" reason that the Spirit could not proceed from the Father and Son together, except that what God has revealed to us in tradition (which includes scripture) is logically incompatible with it, which David has demonstrated in this video.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM There are purely logical problems if you compare with the truth revealed to us by divine revelation. If your entire "knowledge" of God would be that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, and no other concepts besides those, then there are no logical inconsistencies. Without additional knowledge about God, there is no logical argument to be made against this, because you only have a single premise that is equal to the conclusion. My point is not that the filioque makes sense. It is that any statement about God must come from divine revelation, and therefore from tradition. I say this in response to OP, who said that he wanted an argument that is not from tradition. That is not possible. Even direct new revelation from God could not contradict with the previous revelation that has been preserved in tradition. Additionally, it would only take a short time for this new revelation to also, necessarily, become tradition, which swiftly makes it an argument from tradition as well. PS: UA-cam silently hides comments that contain links. I cannot see the comment you are talking about.
The filioque was in practice by both the West and East for 400 years without conflict. There filioque settled a heresy and rightfully so. It was only until photius wanted to separate from the Church did it become an issue.
even then, so what? if we look throughout Church History the creeds were changed in the presence of a council, the bishop of Rome added it without the consent of the other bishops throughout the proveniences and holy places of God, the bishop of Rome was never above the councils in fact some actually condemned the bishops of Rome for heresy, until a proper council is called I won't believe it
6:27 If you define hypostasis as a essence which Peter and Paul (i.e. separate humans) would share (namely being human) -> that would mean, that you still have two separate humans - consistently you would have to say that three persons in one essence would mean three gods (since they only share the essence of being God, not which specific God through your analogy of Peter and Paul sharing the essence of being human, not which soecific human) This would be tritheism. Why do you name this analogy? The analogy doesn't make sense.
The concept of the Holy Trinity is oneness in God. The term bore and cause are not of any importance but rather the term essence. The Holy Trinity is one in essence to God.
Thus saith the LORD: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24 And it is made clear that God is “ONE SPIRIT” (Ephesians 4:4) and that this Spirit is “THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST”(Romans 8:9) The LORD declares that He Himself is the comforter: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” John 14:18 And The LORD refers to the Comforter as such: “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:17 Truth is JESUS, and it is the Sprit of Truth which resides in believers. It is HE HIMSELF who is in His believers: “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20 And in the final revelation of scripture we hear: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” Revelation 22:23 And what saith the Spirit? “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” Revelation 22:16 THE SPRIT calls himself “I JESUS”! The apostles plainly testify JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT: JESUS IS THE LORD (1 Corinthians 12:3) AND THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT (2 Corinthians 3:17) Remember: God is a Spirit, and the LORD our God is one Lord. JESUS CHRIST IS HOLY SPIRIT! THERE IS NO OTHER SPIRIT WHICH IS HOLY!
God is Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Also Jesus saying that he has the Spirit is in fact, by Economic and eternal Manifestation, not BY "Manifestation" That's what exactly the Orthodox Church teaches brother.
@@apr5458 it is not a heresy to believe the Son & Spirit eternally proceed from the Father. The Father is the unbegotten font of the Trinity. It's why Jesus calls the Father the Father.
Do you guys (on both sides) really believe that one's salvation or rightness with God or sanctification or eternal destiny in any way, shape, or form depends on one's theological precision, to this extreme degree, concerning matters which human beings can't really understand anyway? (I'd love someone to try to explain in human terms the difference between creation through "begetting" vs. through "procession.")
Let me explain to you something. Precision is crucial, why? Because if it's not it can lead to sects and sects can lead ppl astray. And it did lead to sects. For example, this demotion and heresy of the Holy Spirit is present in the Quran that Mohamed wrote by entering in contact with heretics that believed the Holy Ghost is an angel...a messenger of sorts and then you see Mohamed claiming Gabriel the Holy Ghost told him what to write in the Quran. And by the same contact with those heretics he thought the Trinity is the Father, Son and Mary! The Holy Ghost is just an angel... Islam is the most blatant false religion there is because the foundation is false. So you see how important precision is ?
@@matium1528 Have you heard of "legalism"? It's a charge that Christians often throw at Jews or at Christians whom they think take certain practices too seriously. Well, Christians are just as "legalistic" as Jews supposedly are-they just apply it to the minutia of belief systems and theological doctrines. Instead of arguing about what tithe to take on dill, you argue about how and from where the Holy Spirit proceeds, as if you could even understand such things. You don't think theological "precision" led to making different sects? All the time.
@@KingoftheJuice18 No i don't believe precision created sects, it's exactly the opposite. If God said - i'm the truth, the way and the life - then it's not about half truths, half ways and half lives. If christianity is based on the Trinity, i would want to know who are those three. Study to see who is each of them. I can't be Agnostic about it...
@@matium1528 Ok, then why didn't Jesus give detailed lectures on the nature of the trinity in his sermon on the mount? If Christianity is "based on the trinity," why is there so little discussion of it in the NT and none in the Hebrew Bible? When Jesus was asked what the most important commandments are, why didn't he say, "Be sure to have a very precise theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit"?
@@KingoftheJuice18Read Torah, you will find Trinity since Genesis and the making of man. All over the NT you have these 3 persons why? For you to discover them since you should not worship idols and love God. Check out what Jesus said about baptism, Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. Who gives you the Holy Spirit? The Father.Who gives you the Word of God? The Son. Who gives you the grace? The Holy Spirit. Every man/woman should search for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If one demotes one of them then there is a problem. This understanding is crucial, otherwise you end up with a deformed view of what's happening. For example Islam.
...This whole ordeal feels like hairsplitting about things that are ultimately incomprehensible (as if the Trinity is not already mind-boggling enough to believe, even though we do), and ultimately don't affect our salvation. Are you truly a Christian if you haven't engaged with the Filioque clause? Is someone's salvation under threat unless they don't know the Filioque? If not, is their salvation suddenly in peril because they now stand in a position where they might choose something not reflecting the character of God? Better still, if they do happen to make the wrong choice, and the Spirit dwells within them, has Jesus suddenly died for naught in their case, and has the Holy Spirit suddenly left?
Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Catena on John, Chapter 15, Lecture 7. I don't know where Thomas Aquinas received this quote but you can find it in there.
@@Dilley_G45 you are a bit late, but the reason it's an argument for silence is because it never says the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son, it just says that it does from the Father, which everybody affirms.
My uneducated view is this: Orthodox believe that the Son proceeded from the father, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father. Roman Catholics believe that the Father begot, not created, the Son and The Holy Spirit proceeded from the love between the Father and the Son. My conclusion is this: The Orthodox position says that God the Father will have no one equal or greater than Him. That means that God the Father is full of pride, and the Roman Catholic definition of the Trinity dis-proves that to be the case.
the position of the Church is always correct. But heresy always has a place and time of occurrence, and it arose in the Roman Patriarchate. And if Rome went into schism and fell away from the one Body of the Church from Christ, you cannot be saved without Him in His only Body.
Отец это Истина, Сын это Мысль Истины, Дух Истины это материализованная Мысль Истины! Истина рождает Мысль и от Истины через рожденную Мысль Истины исходит Дух Истины до рождения Мысли Истины. Дух Истины воздействует морально и физически чтоб ты Мысль Истины воплотил в жизнь. если Мысль Истины не рождается не будет исхождение Духа Истины Никто не приходит к Истине ,как только через мысль Истины ! Дух Истины исходит от Истины через рождённую мысль Истины. Не надо голову маслом мазать и корону одевать-смертный человек делает так. Надо изменить себя,чтобы Истина была дороже всего и вся и самого себя. Бессмертие даёт, рождение и воплощение мысли Истины во спасение!
Roman Catholic Dogma power has been anchored. Kings, Lords, Emperor - temporal power has yielded to it - something great and “rock” firm about it has prevented its often wayward clerics from fissure, i.e. regardless of the concupiscence of its Patriarchs.
Your best argument is that several of the Fathers were wrong. But you can't say that because they are saints and doctors of the church and could not be heretics. The Filioque is correct, changing the creed was what was wrong. Get over it, it isn't heresy and it isn't a primary or gospel issue.
Many early orthodox Eastern and Western Church fathers attested to procession (generation through the Son). It was Aryans who started having issues with it
Why can't the EO understand something so simple? If there exists any orthodox way of understanding "and the son" (which by the admission of virtually every EO, there does) it doesn't matter how much Greek you know or how much tendentious reading of dead ancient texts you perform; what matters is if you're going to give due charity to the church that FATHER GOD established in his loving Spirit, through his Son, which serves to visibly make the gospel known until the second coming of Christ.
The thing is, the saints who maintained the church and its dogmas, along with clarifying them, have said that no one shall add anything to the creed afterwards. The pope at the time said or at least agreed with this idea when making those plaques stating the creed. Rome addes this to the creed to push their misunderstood and mistaken view of the trinity. Even if it can be justified as St Maximus the Confessor said, at this point it would be useless or have no real point anymore, since if it was removed it would, in the EO view of it being temporal proccesion, really change nothing, if not be beneficial since the fathers outright said not to add anything to the creed.
@@stefanspinu434 No one can add or remove the creed by way of content of its message, not by way of explication, which is what the filioque is. It's perfectly legitimate.
@account2871 you dont understand what the RCC official dogma is about the filloque,it clearly states that the holy spirit eternally proceeds from the father AND the son, which is heresy.
@@SimonSlPlexactly. It's as if the Roman Catholics strip the meaning of The Father and Him as the source, which is what makes Him the Father. They basically have two Father's in their double procession model.
Acts 2:33 Now he is exalted to the place of highest honor in heaven, at God's right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today. John 15:26 26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. Galatians 4:6 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” Catholics got it right.
“Catholics” got it wrong, those quotes all prove Orthodoxy’s catholicity, the spirit originates in the Father, and can be sent through the son. According to the Latins themselves there are multiple causes of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son, breaking the Trinity and turning it upside down. Not only that but it also makes the Holy Spirit a creature and a subordinate of the Father and the Son. It also confuses the Father and the Son and makes them indistinguishable.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM You are a broken record here dude. The quote from Thomas Aquinas in this video is affirming that the Father is the principle cause of both, and the Son can only be referred to as a cause with the Father, not apart from the Father. And Florence affirms that the Father is the principle cause. Further the Catechism, which is the official teaching of the church, says exactly this. That the Father is the "the principle without principle", and references directly from Florence when it says this. "By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father', it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son."
@@CHURCHISAWESUM From Florence Session 11 "First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. 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." Father is principle without principle. Son is principle from principle. They are all three coeternal. This is teaching the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.
@thepokkanome "the Holy Spirit proceeds *at once* from the Father and the Son." This view isn't from the Father through the Son, it's from both simultaneously. It places the Holy Spirit below the Son when both should be equally beneath the Father.
@@SquidShield That is not what the passage is saying. It is not putting the Son on a hierarchy level above the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is instead the result of the interaction between the Father and the Son. The Father and Son cannot exist together without the Holy Spirit, and likewise the Father and Holy Spirit cannot exists together without the Son. The Father is the principle of both, but the three cannot be separated. They are co-equal and co-eternal.
They share the same essence. Sharing the same essence doesn't mean the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son too. The Son is NOT the head of the monarchy.
@@awake3083 Sure, but I think Jesus made it very clear when He said that Abraham gladdened at His sight and the Pharisees were shocked Jesus claimed to know Abraham is pretty clear proof Jesus was revealing the unity of the Trinity. Then again The Son sits at the right side of the throne of The Father, so both aspects are equally true.
@@nicknickson3650 Jesus himself says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not himself in John 15:26. All the Son does is SEND the Spirit FROM the Father. The Holy Spirit in terms of procession eternally proceeds from the Father **alone,** not the Son. Saying the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son AND Father deconstructs the *TRI* nity into a Dyad.
@@awake3083 good point, friend. Thank you for clarifying this. I think it's important we signify the entirety of the Holy Trinity, but never forget The Father is the Patriarch. He is Our Father who Art in Heaven after all. We should also never forget Jesus is our mediator: 1 Timothy 2:5
In the East, where they don’t recognize the pope, people tend to recognize themselves as their own pope. Respect the office of the papacy and look through the sins of any one pope to see the institution for what it is. ❤
Nuh... what you described applies to your own poop - Protestants. We, Eastern Orthodox recognize authority of the Lord's Orthodox Church and endorse its teachings and practices that heretical Latins once also endorsed, prior to going delusional and dreaming about the supremacy over the entire Church.
As soon as you can get around the Catholic and Biblical evidence that Jesus started the Office of Peter and the holder of the Keys (Matthew 16), I’ll listen to your secondary argument about this controversy. You can’t, so I won’t. Case closed.
Honey! New David Erhan video just dropped!
Be right there dear.
St. Jerome in his "Homily on Psalm 1" says that the river flowing from the Throne with the Lamb standing by it, which is mentioned in the Book of Revelation (22:1), are the graces of God (i.e., the graces of the Spirit); and so, the biblical text in Revelation is not talking about the origin of the Spirit as person, but is instead referring to the grace of God flowing out to the blessed [see "The Fathers of the Church," volume 48, pages 8-9].
Excellent!
Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father. Filioque emerged in Eastern Syrian Church in Persia. It's invention that doesn't correspond with original dogma but heresy, it is not logical due to the common sense that if Holy Spirit needs two of the Holy Trinity to come out and act, then He is a minor deity, making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The problem with this is that it confuses consubstantiality with co-personality, namely doctrine of triune God as one substance (ousia) and three persons (hypostaseis) which is crucial for distinction of orthodox trinitarial theology from polytheism arianism. The Father remains the sole principle, because the Son has nothing he has not received from this source. Hence while the Spirit proceeds hypostatically from the Father, he proceeds energetically from Father and Son , which brings us to the the doctrine of perichoresis,that the different hypostases of the Trinity eternally co-inhere in one another. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Truth
@@foundsoul5024 false he said multiple times "the holy spirit in my name" "the spirit of the Christ" etc
@@Straw1321 St John of Damascus stated that the spirit of the son proceeded through the son from the father. It is only from the father. Try to refute a literal saint.
The Book of Revelation DOES describe the Spirit proceeding from the Father AND from Christ.
Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the RIVER of the WATER OF LIFE, bright as crystal, flowing (ἐκπορεύομαι) from the throne of God AND of the Lamb.
It even uses the terminology of 'procession' with the Greek word ἐκπορεύομαι.
If you're wondering what the 'water of life' refers to, St. John tells us.
John 7: 38-39 "Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, RIVERS of LIVING WATER will flow from within them." By this HE MEANT THE SPIRIT, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.
@@BingusBongus362 Isn't that still the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Son as well as from the Father as the Father as the primary principle and the Son as the proximate principle which is still the Father and the Son? And isn't this what the Latin Church teaches?
There's a youtuber named Dwong, in my opinion he has some good arguments in favor of Filioque. Would be interesting to see some debate.
He isn’t the debate type. He is more of a debunking video type of person
@@TheCoachsCoach933 the Late Bishop Ware isn’t the final authority in the Orthodox Church and there is a lot more problems wrapped up in the addition to the Creed than just semantics.
Love it! ☦
Thank you for the good synthesis! It could have been helpful to present St Augustine's position as well, see if it fits into the Orthodox paradigm or not. We know Augustine did not mean to impose his personal speculation as dogma, and wished to be corrected by the Church if he was to be wrong on something, but I wonder if Craig is right to say the augustinian view is compatible with energetic procession, since the essence/energy distinction seems completely foreign to his theology (heavily influenced as it is by neoplatonism).
It doesn't. In fact many notable Easter fathers addirmed the procession through the Son, which
coincides with true Western understanding.
@@eabm1984 I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The only way you can think this way is by not having studied their theology as a whole properly and just reading quotemines out of context (and that goes also for some Western Fathers, like St Hilary or St Ambrose, often used to support the Filioque though they do not speak about the eternal procession of the Spirit's very hypostasis). Affirming the procession "through the Son" is not equivalent with the Filioque doctrine as defined in RC dogma, unless your theory is that the "true Western understanding" is not what the RCC has taught in general councils like Lyons II and Florence (which would be interesting, but fatal to Catholicism). The procession "through the Son" is not that of the Spirit's hypostasis, but that of the gift of the Spirit (often also called "Spirit" by way of metonymy), eternally proceeding energetically from the Father through the Son (a doctrine impossible in RC dogma, because of ADS, which is the true big theological problem behind the controversy). I know it is a very complex debate, but I think it is worth investigating by reading recent scholarship like Edward Siecienski and studying the Fathers "holistically" and not just quotemines. The Eastern Fathers usually make the EED and do not have the same triadological conception and presuppositions as Augustine and his followers (though I believe even St Augustine's triadology is a complex matter to discuss).
@@theophan9530 it will surprise you, though it is fact, and there are enough studies done on the subject by scholars much more knowledgeable than I, that your arguments are all later creations promoted by individuals who are more anti-Catholic than they are, truly Orthodox. The vast majority of arguments made against the filioque, the way that the Orthodox of today, repeat it, are all Photios arguments posited by Aryans. Prior to this, most Orthodox in both East in West, understood eternal procession (generation) to be from the Father through the Son and were perfectly comfortable with this.
@@theophan9530 you can't deny Eastern fathers like Didymus the Blind (380 AD), St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374 AD), St. Cyril of Alexandria (425 AD), all accepted and recognized, by their own written words, the eternal generation from the Father through the Son.
@@eabm1984 I suppose you mean "eternal procession", not "generation", which is the mode of the Son. Well, as a mater of fact, I deny that both St Epiphanius of Salamis and St Cyril of Alexandria taught the double procession of the Spirit's very hypostasis (= the taking of his being/essence) from the Father and the Son as a sole principle of its existence, which is the RC dogma. Didymus the Blind is not a Father of the Church ans was even anathematized for origenism at the Vth Ecumenical Council, so his view is not really relevant (I mean dogmatically, not historically of course). In fact it is even certain that St Cyril did not teach the Filioque doctrine, since this question came up in his discussions with blessed Theodoret of Cyrus in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus, during which the latter called him up precisely on this question, saying it was inacceptable to think that the Spirit's hypostasis is from both the Father and the Son, and St Cyril replied by saying that the Spirit is from the Father (on the one hand) and not alien to the Son's substance (on the other hand), which means that St Cyril only meant that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial, and that the Son and the Spirit share the same energies, etc. St Epiphanius only says that the Father and the Son "breathe" the Holy Spirit, which refer obviously to energetic procession (the famous procession "through the Son", confessed without any problem by the Church, as made clear at the Council of Blachernea in 1285 in response to Lyons II).
Excellent resource to make it all cut and dry. Thank you.
I'm baptized Catholic, how long is the orthodox conversion process?
Asking for a friend
I just started my journey to Orthodoxy, but there are no churches in my country. What must I do to become saved?
First I wanna say welcome! If you have any questions feel free to ask.
I say you should pray! And if God sees good will in you he will bring something your way..
I'd call your closest Orthodox Church, even if it's 1000 miles away.
The Orthodox Church has a simple and oft repeated prayer... Lord Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner.
St Theophan the Recluse community! Google it my friend.
Depending on your country, some countries have Greek or Russian embassies with Churches inside, or there might be small home churches in your country (that do services), I would recommend looking into these options, generally looking on google or maybe joining Orthodox facebook groups from your country could help you find solutions as-well, God sees and recognises your efforts.
Very good ! Thanks David !
Papist here. What's the problem here?
Your arguments are based on texts. The same texts have been used by very many smart people to argue for and against the Filioque. You can keep the argument going till the cows come home, because text interpretation is neither an exact science that can be categorically refuted with a theorem or syllogism nor an empirical science that can be verified or disproven by a scientific prediction or experiment.
Therefore, it all comes down to a question about authority, as it's the case with any arguments based on text interpretation. Any moderately smart founder knows that a document meant to guide belief and behavior for generations to come knows that a provision must be made for an organ of authoritative interpretation, a living organ that will hold the authority of a final say that should last for as long as the guiding text and the structures it supports are meant to last. Knowing this, the US founding fathers made a provision, contained in the same text of the Constitution, for the formation of such an organ with final say in its interpretation such as is the Supreme Court of Justice. One would like to believe that the Founder of Christianity was at least as smart as the US founding fathers. So, there are two sets of questions to be answered:
Set A
1. Was he? (as smart as the Founding Fathers)
2. What is that authority?
3. Has that authority made any definitive pronouncement for or against the disputed doctrine?
Set B
1. Would it be better for the unity of the organization and the smoothness of its operation and its chances of survival if that authority were invested with the power of infallible pronouncements? The founding fathers did not have the power to guarantee an infallible interpretive organ and that's why the Supreme Court of Justice must correct its jurisprudence from time to time. But,
2. Could the Founder of Christianity claim to have the power to invest the organ of authoritative interpretation with this kind of infallibility? If yes,
3. Are there any valid and cogent reasons for Him not to have exercised such power?
Then, to finalize, a set of one question must be answered: Which is that organ of infallible interpretation with final authority over the universal Church that must last as long as the Church itself?
A hint to begin answering this last crucial question: start by asking if there's anyone around who claims to have that authority. If the Founder of Christianity was as smart as the US founding fathers, we should easily find the answer to this question.
Under 30 minute gang let's GOOOO
David , you ever heard the argument of the papists that Saint Maximus letter to marinus is a forgery ?😂
papists? too far bro repent of this
@@Ilovewateriamwater nah
@@theorthoguy9345 Jesus would not go calling people papist then laughing you are a embarrassment to the church
Ironic of papists to call something a forgery 💀
@@DoomerDoxywhat's ironic is EO treating the forgery claim (which I don't think is official) with scorn when that's their bread and butter argument against Patristic consensus for the Filioque
He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into the entire world. 7 He came forward and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne.
based
You can only "send" what comes from you.
Exactly. The Son sends the Holy Ghost from the Father. From the Father through the Son. But belonging to both in the act of the Ghost proceeding from both.
is the act of spirating the Holy Spirit a characteristic of essence or hypostasis?
All politics aside, I was just hit with a philosophical realization about the matter. How could the spirit proceed from the son if the son is begotten? Although the son is eternally begotten, he is still begotten of the father. The spirit couldn’t possibly proceed through the son, unless it was through the father because the characterization of the logos as being “eternally begotten” shows the dependency the logos has towards the father. If the father is almost essentially “non existent” (which is actually hilariously ironic to atheism), due to being completely outside of space and time, this than leaves Christ as the incarnate image of the said unseen nearly nonexistent father. If the logos is the viewable image of the father in “existance”, than the Holy Spirit couldn’t possibly proceed from the son, as the son is simply the viewable incarnate image of the father.
@@kodokanshiai2143 we believe the Son derives the Spiration from the Father
Hi, everyone 👋 I’m not Orthodox, but I’m currently inquiring and I believe the Lord may be leading me (and my budding family) to join the Church, but I’m still praying and seeking His face and humbling myself and seeking Him as He is and on His terms as best as I can. Please pray for me in this regard 🙏
As for the video, you mentioned that Peter and Paul are not differentiated by their essence (both human) but by their hypostases (persons), but God is three in persons but one in essence. But I can’t help but see a HUGE problem with this formulation as it stands!
Which is thus: if Paul and Peter, and why not John too, as human beings share one essence but are three persons, and furthermore any group of three humans can be described as one in essence and three in persons. Clearly a group of three is not the same thing as the Trinity, so this must need be elucidated.
Speaking of Christ, don’t we say that He had two _natures_ of which one is uncreated and divine (the Logos of God) and the other created and human given Him at the incarnation? Is “nature” in this sense interchangeable with “essence” so that we could say that Christ has two essences, a divine essence and a human essence, or are they fundamentally different from each other?
The reason I ask about nature vs essence is because my first intuition is to try to find the resolution there. For example, if nature and essence are not entirely one and the same and wholly interchangeable, then one could argue that while Peter and Paul and John are three persons that share one nature that would not necessarily make them three persons that share one essence. (the definition of the Trinity?)
Is it that the definition of the Trinity as “three in persons, one in essence” (Tri-unity) is incomplete? Something must be missing here. Surely the Godhead doesn’t share an essence in the same way that men do.
Without a resolution to this, one may conclude that God is only one in the sense that three beings share the same essence in the way that the two beings Bob and Steve share an essence, which would be Tritheism, right?
I know each member of the Godhead has unique roles (for example, the Father as Father of the Son and proceeder of the Spirit, or the Son as the Lord and Savior, or the Holy Spirit as the Parakletos and the Spirit of Truth, and so on. Are all these aspects of the Trinity necessary to define it such that these are what solve the problem above, because Peter and Paul and John don’t proceed from each other or things like that?
And how does this not also exclude the human nature of Christ from the Trinity? (Thereby separating it also from His humanity, hence even Nestorian?) because if Christ’s human nature is human in essence and created and not shared with the rest of the Godhead, then they cannot be one in essence in terms of the Son other than His divinity. But isn’t the human nature of Christ in the Trinity too and cannot be separated from His divinity as if there were different entities?
I realize this is probably all over the place and so full of error that it would probably tedious to reply to the whole thing, but if someone could help me out here I’m trying to understand 🙇♂️ Orthodoxy is really deep and rich, which is great, but it can also make it a bit difficult to grasp at first for those unfamiliar.
Nature and essence are synonyms for the purpose of this discussion; They are used interchangeably.
The solution to the problem of Christology is that His two natures are unified in His person. He is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit in His divinity, and one with His Mother and us in His humanity.
While the Son indwells the Father and the Holy Spirit in His divinity, His human nature is not shared with them. Neither does Jesus share His divinity with us by nature(The faithful will be deified by His grace in the eschaton).
@littlefishbigmountain Hi! The way I understand it, as a Catholic is, first of all, that neither "begotten" nor "proceeding" are appropriate, in the sense that no human word can accurately depict the infinite being of the divinity. That said, and following Augustine, I understand the relations in the Trinity as the necessary presuppositions for possibly the only (for sure the best) attempt at defining the divinity, which is fundamentally undefinable. This attempt is John's, who in his first letter wrote: "God is Love." John wasn't into bumper stickers, so there has to be a very profound meaning to these three words. G.K. Chesterton understood that the Trinity is nothing other than humanity's clumsy ways to explain this definition. (By the way, I firmly believe that, if you make this "indefining definition," the honest and uncompromising center, source, and conclusion of all theological elucubrations, you will be able to answer virtually all the questions and challenges that can be made to our faith.
But I'm a little rushed right now, so allow me to copy and paste the comment I made somewhere else to this UA-cam. If you get to read this and find it useful, you can ask me any questions, and I'll try my best to answer them, including my thoughts on your very interesting and searching question about the difference between the Divine Trinity and any group of three human persons.
Here's the plagiarism of myself:
"The word "cause," if understood in the traditional sense as whatever contributes necessarily to the being or mode of being of another reality, is not very helpful to understand the Trinity. In an ontological sense, you could say that the Father is the only One cause, because, if there wasn't a Father, there couldn't be a Son. But in an identitarian sense, the Son is also cause of the fatherhood of the Father, since neither can there be a Father if there's no Son. Because identities are the substance of personality and identities are relational, it follows that, without the Son, the Father could not even be a person, because he can only find his identity in his relationship with the Son.
However surprising this may sound, the real kicker comes next, when we consider the essence of the divinity. What causes the Father and the Son to be not just persons but divine persons? The essence of the divinity, it's been said to nauseam, is being itself. However, being calls for, can not stand without unity (arguably the primary transcendental of being). The perpetuation of being, what we call life, cannot take place if it is made of disintegrated parts.
And what is it that causes Father and Son to be One, hence to perpetuate in a living being, hence to be divine? Because there's no divinity without unity, if the Father and the Son were not united by an indestructible and eternal bond, they could not have life, much the less, divinity. This bond is the bond of Love we call the "Holy Spirit." This bond is a person, because it is the fruit of love between two persons (like the fruit of the love between a man and a woman is also a person). This fruit of love, this Third Person, is not only a "new life" but it's also the cause of the life of the other two, since it's the cause for them to be one in each other, a unity without which there can be neither life nor divinity. This is why God is most properly described by the apostle John as "Love". This Third Person is the substance of the divinity. Father and Son are one substance because they share this one love. I guess one could say that the Father causes in being both Son and Holy Spirit; the Son causes the paternity of the Father; and their mutual love causes the living unity whereby both Father and Son are one God.
As for the "Filioque" one must wonder if it's possible for the Father to generate the Holy Spirit _without_ the Son. The answer is obviously no. I guess you could say that the generation of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but necessarily through the Son. God is a relationship of persons because they are united by a bond of love. Now, a unidirectional love, an unrequited love, doesn't generate a bond. A bond is generated only when the love goes both ways, only when there's reciprocity. Therefore, you cannot take the love of the Son for the Father entirely out of the generation of the Holy Spirit. The loving full self-giving of the Father to the Son is insufficient to cause the unity necessary for life, which is necessary for the ineluctable perpetuation in boundless being of the divinity. The loving full self-giving of the Son to the Father is necessary to "clinch the deal" of perfect unity. The love of the Father causes him to be and live in the Son. The reciprocation of that love from Son to Father causes him to be and live in the Father. Thus, through this mutual perfect full self-giving for love, they become indistinguishable from each other in their life and their divinity, the only remaining difference being that of their relational identities as Father and Son. Without this relational differentiation, love wouldn't be possible. That's why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The diversity in the Trinity is a necessary condition for love to take place, hence also a condition for the Trinity's unity, its life, and divinity."
For the Florentine Council I do want to just raise a couple of queries.
When it says: "We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as the cause and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."
[I] Does the text not imply that there are Greeks that hold that the Son is in fact a cause of the Holy Ghost? Which means it is not only Latins teaching the Son as a possible "cause" of the Holy Ghost like the Father is?
[II] And if so in what manner of cause? Is Florence stating that the Son is a PRIMARY cause as would be the case with the Father according to forementioned slides OR as a PROXIMATE cause?
Cause doesn't necessarily and always mean primary cause any student of Aristotle would know. There are primary causes as in the exact source and then there are secondary or proximate causes through which the primary cause may act.
It's important to note that the quote says the Son is the cause "like the Father" but not "as the Father". A subtle distinction but an important one. I.e. the Son is LIKE the Father through being a secondary or proximate cause of the Spirit (the Spirit proceeding THROUGH Him but not begetting from Him as a primary source) rather than AS the Father (the Son begetting the Spirit with the Father in exact manner).
The text in this video on this point doesn't make it exactly clear. In and of itself, if Florence doesn't mean that the Son is THE cause in the same exact manner AS the Father is THE cause, then no contradiction between the belief of the Christians of the first millenium and the Catholic Church exist. I do believe that even Aquinas (despite the point raised in this video) states that the Spirit proceeds FROM the Father as primary cause THROUGH the Son as proximate cause, which bares no contradiction to anything the Church Fathers have said (other than possibly Three Persons of the Trinity equally having the quality of "begetting" but I have to research that. It's possible Thomas means distinct types of begetting unique to each Person or he's mistaken. But that's a different topic altogether).
Thank you for this video! But what exactly does it mean that the Son is of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit from the Father? Could you please explain this in more detail? That would be very helpful!
Kind regards,
A.
The St John Damascus actually perfectly aligns with the Catholic teaching. From the father through the son, for the Father alone is cause. Yes perfect from one principle, namely the father, through the son. Not from two sources but from the father and through the son. Father alone is prime caues since he is first in order. Father sends out his Logos(mental thought spoken word) who is second in order. Father with his mental thought sends out his spirit, who is third in order of causality. For Father to send out the spirit from him without the co-operation of his Logos is plainly ridiculous.
Very helpful, thank you 👍
Actually filioque goes against the one hypostatic idiomat each persons has of the Trinity.
Each person is essence with it"s hypostatic idiomat that is unique to each person.
In what way does it go against this?
@@Jhostly because each person is unique .in the way it is .That is showed by its hypostatic idiomat ,that shows it is as a person unique ,and distinct in personal hood to the other persons. The Father is not Born αγέννητος in greek the Son is γεννητος the Holy Spirit is εκπορευτο. Τhat way one persons is made as unique to the other persons. If we put two hypostatic idiomats to one person, it is like saying it is not a person . Actually what the persons is the one common essence they have ,and the different hypostatic idiomat that actually it shows how each person is.
@@Jhostly Also in the west the confusion started because they confuse the theology with the economia οικονομία .
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Sorry I should have been more clear about what I meant, I understand what Hypostatic "idiomatics" are, I meant how does the Filioque violate this principle. Each person is still really distinct in their origin.
@@Jhostly no they are not, because to make them unique as an individual person is the one individual idiomat,each person has .That is what it make it a person in distinction in person hood to the other persons. Person hood is not communicatable to each other
I understand the importance of this. But having understanding of ‘where’ or ‘who’ or ‘how’ the Holy Spirit comes, is sent, proceeds from, descends from, etc.. Is NOT relevant to your salvation or your relationship with God. If you think Jesus is going to let you be ‘fooled’ by this topic and reject you because of that, we do not worship the same God. I hope this division will go away one day as I love all my orthodox and catholic brothers and sisters. My only response to ALL churches of Christ in His Words: Matthew 23:8-12.
To preach the HG proceeds from 2 sourses is to preach, that is has no simple natur, thus cannot be God. This is blasphemy against HG and this has matter in salvation.
@@stassdanielsons4850 Jesus told you to preach the good news. Not theology of where the Holy Spirit comes from. He clearly tells us in John 14 where the Holy Ghost comes from, and in John 15 He tells us that HE will send it from the FATHER.
Any person with even half of a brain that reads the Bible can figure out that, the FATHER, and the SON are ONE.
TO PREACH THE HG COMES FROM ANYONE BUT BOTH JESUS AND THE FATHER IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONENESS OF GOD AND UN-TRINITARIAN!
I MOSTLY agree with this, and this is why I think the papacy issue is a more important one to work through, especially for the average layman.
However, I do think that theological errors lead to poor societies.
@@OrthoLou AMEN. At the end of the day. We have ONE GOD and we are ONE CHURCH.
@@iamjustjoshin You just made an anti-Christian argument that leads to a modalist collapse. We are strictly trinitarian and not unitarian, and thus, it does not logically follow that bringing up the BIBLE’S OWN distinctions between Father and Son instantly means we are rejecting the oneness of God.
Trinity 101: One essence, three persons. Did you forget?
Naively, perhaps, I can’t help but return to the analogy of a prism. Light or spirit emanates from the Father through the person of Christ (the prism) and projects the Holy Spirit (the rainbow which emerges). A crude analogy which nevertheless depicts a case where the Father remains the source, but Christ is integral to the projection of the Holy Spirit which cannot be expressed without flowing through him. But the prism, though essential, is not the source of the light it mediates.
I like to think of the two attributes of our physical universe, which are space and time, neither of which can exist apart from a first cause. The problem in all such analogies is that they imply a beginning for those Persons in the Godhead that are equally eternal, a mystery beyond human grasp.
Even if your analogy is correct, that’s not catholic filioque.
@@Val.Kyrie. Yes, it yes, if you, if one understand that, with cause (aitia) taught in the Florence COuncil *does not refer to the Greek Theologia Father of the catholic Church* but to the *Ancient Pagan Greek Phylosophers* from the ancient Greek Pagan times, before Christ, such as like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, *which have the same meaning of Principle tht the Florence Council conceives and the Greek Catholic Orthodox that signed it too. Otherwise they would be signing their own testament of Apsotasy.
The own Cathlic Church consideres aitia (cause) not like this Erthan guy is thinking, neither like the Greek Christians do, but *like the Greek Pagan Phylosophers* if I uderstood everything correctly.
Yes, Brilliant! The reply to Valkirie is also for you @DH-iw5bp .
Please, David Erhan, correct me if I'm wrong.
It’s so over for papism
its so over
THEY ARE SO DONE
The Pope has fallen
Billions must convert
Erick Ybarra already refuted this nonsense ua-cam.com/video/M4U-sJ_pnDo/v-deo.html
Skittles is A ok with the pope
The 1484 Council of Constantinople declared itself to be Ecumenical and declared the "meeting" at Florence of 1439 and its decisions to be void. An Ecumenical Council has to meet on territory controlled by the Emperor hosting it. Florence, though once part of the Roman Empire, had clearly long ceased to be controlled by the Roman Emperor, or, indeed, by any Emperor.
So Florence 1439 has, in fact, been condemned by an Ecumenical Council, that of 1484, which met 5 years after the very last remnant of the Roman Empire, the Despotate of Epirus, fell (in 1479).
It is noteworthy that the Ottoman Turkish sultans of the time continued to style themselves as Emperors of the Romans, with the Rum Millet being the Orthodox Christian Romans or Rum who spoke what they called Romaiki (not Helleniki) as their mother tongue. Representatives of the Orthodox from beyond the borders of the Ottoman Empire would have needed the permission of that Empire and its Emperor to cross over the border and attend the Council.
The final independent Romaiki state which was a fragment of the (Eastern) Roman Empire, the Desperate of Epirus, fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1479, and the West had clearly not managed to liberate or restore any of it by the time of the Council, which destroyed the argument that compromise was necessary to secure effective military aid that could restore the (Eastern) Roman Empire.
It is also well known that quite a number of the Ottoman officials were crypto-Christians (confirmed by a number of Russian sources, this still existed in the 1920s when Russian survivors from the Bolsheviks fled to Turkey). A met a young Turkish lady in London, England, about 20 years ago or so who revealed herself to be so.
Papists been real quiet since this dropped
@@matthewbroderick6287 John 15:26
@@matthewbroderick6287 Your church doesn’t even allow you to commune the Blood
Nah they're every bit as annoying as before.
@@matthewbroderick6287 John 15:26 literally says it proceeds from the Father.
@@matthewbroderick6287 Sending ≠ Eternal procession. The Filioque isn’t biblical, why bother spreading lies? It had no biblical basis when the West added it to the Creed, why would it have basis now?
I believe it would be helpful to discuss how other theologies have developed from the filioque that further corrupt the Orthodox Christology.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”
Colossians 2:8-10
In Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of deity! Therefore there is no other god.
He is the head of ALL principality and power! Therefore there is no power greater.
Jesus is the Lord Almighty: the Most High God.
The LORD our God is one LORD and He is Jesus LORD of lords!
The LORD is king over heaven and earth, and He is Jesus King of kings!
Jesus Christ is the Father
Jesus Christ is the Son
Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit
@malachi7948 Uh no. That’s a heretical statement because Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit but is the Son. The Father is not Holy Spirit nor the Son. The Holy Spirit is not the Son nor the Father
Thank you
Great channel!
beautiful presentation
👑
Hi mr. Erhan, I would like to better understand the term causality in the context of the most holy Trinity. The term does not seem to be in conciliation with the eternity and non-createdness of both Spirit and Word. With the terms "proceeding" and "begetting" I can better fathom it, but not with causing. Thank you for the eventual clarification
The word "cause," if understood in the traditional sense as whatever contributes necessarily to the being or mode of being of another reality, is not very helpful to understand the Trinity. In an ontological sense, you could say that the Father is the only One cause, because, if there wasn't a Father, there couldn't be a Son. But in an identitarian sense, the Son is also cause of the fatherhood of the Father, since neither can there be a Father if there's no Son. Because identities are the substance of personality and identities are relational, it follows that, without the Son, the Father could not even be a person, because he can only find his identity in his relationship with the Son.
However surprising this may sound the real kicker comes next, when we consider the essence of the divinity. What causes the Father and the Son to be not just persons but divine persons? The essence of the divinity, it's been said to nauseam, is being itself. However, being calls for, can not stand without unity (arguably the primary transcendental of being). The perpetuation of being, what we call life, cannot take place if it is made of disintegrated parts.
And what is it that causes Father and Son to be One, hence to perpetuate in a living being, hence to be divine? Because there's no divinity without unity, if the Father and the Son were not united by an indestructible and eternal bond, they could not have life, much the less, divinity. This bond is the bond of Love we call "Holy Spirit." This bond is a person, because it is the fruit of love between two persons (like the fruit of the love between a man and a woman is also a person). This fruit of love, this Third Person, is not only a "new life" but it's also the cause of the life of the other two, since it's the cause for them to be one in each other, a unity without which there can be neither life nor divinity. This is why God is most properly described by the apostle John as "Love". This Third Person is the substance of the divinity. Father and Son are one substance because they share this one love. I guess one could say that the Father causes in being both Son and Holy Spirit; the Son causes the paternity of the Father; and their mutual love causes the living unity whereby both Father and Son are one God.
As for the "Filioque" one must wonder if it's possible for the Father to generate the Holy Spirit _without_ the Son. The answer is obviously no. I guess you could say that the generation of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, but necessarily through the Son. God is a relationship of persons because they are united by a bond of love. Now, a unidirectional love, an unrequited love, doesn't generate a bond. A bond is generated only when the love goes both ways, only when there's reciprocity. Therefore, you cannot take the love of the Son for the Father entirely out of the generation of the Holy Spirit. The loving full self-giving of the Father to the Son is insufficient to cause the unity necessary for life, which is necessary for the ineluctable perpetuation in boundless being of the divinity. The loving full self-giving of the Son to the Father is necessary to "clinch the deal" of perfect unity. The love of the Father causes him to be and live in the Son. The reciprocation of that love from Son to Father causes him to be and live in the Father. Thus, through this mutual perfect full self-giving for love, they become indistinguishable from each other in their life and their divinity, the only remaining difference being that of their relational identities as Father and Son. Without this relational differentiation, love wouldn't be possible. That's why the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. The diversity in the Trinity is a necessary condition for love to take place, hence also a condition for the Trinity's unity, its life, and divinity.
Thank you for this video! But what exactly does it mean that the Son is BEGOTTEN of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS from the Father? Could you please explain this in more detail? That would be very helpful!
Kind regards,
A.
The difference between the two is ineffable; We don't know. This is what has been revealed to us.
@@nicodemuseam Could you possibly indicate (or quote) the passages and/or verses where this difference is explicitly mentioned?
@@Anna-mc3ll
"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. - John 15:26
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. - John 1:18
@@nicodemuseam Thank you for your reply! I’m honestly sorry, but I still haven’t understood why the concept of the so-called Filioque is-according to the orthodox Christian view-incorrect or “false”. What precisely is the problem with both the Catholic as well as the “Protestant” notion of the Trinity? (By “Protestant” I’m referring only to the more traditional denominations, such as the Lutherans or the Anglicans.)
Could you possibly point out the reason for the disagreement between these different (Christian) groups?
Thank you!
@@Anna-mc3ll
We begin our Theology in the East with the Person of the Father, who is God, and the very source of all Persons and all things. He is the Monarch, or "one source."
The Son and Word of God is the only-begotten of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, according to the Scriptures, and it is said that He rests in the Son. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit indwell one another.
Now, the "Filioque" addition to the Creed distorts this Theology, making the Son a co-Cause or second Source of the Spirit.
Simply put, it alters the Faith, it alters the Trinity; making it a Dyad.
A book you might read on this subject is "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)" a.co/d/6zZFUiM
There is also, from St. Photios, "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" a.co/d/gEqgL8M
Hey if its possible could you explain a bit more in depth the meaning of "Procession" and "Cause/Causality"
Thank you. Short & concise description of differences. Talked too fast in places & had to go back multiple times.
Thanks for the references to the Early Church fathers.
Of all the descriptions in Sacred Scripture of the Trinity, I've always been drawn to: John 14:15-17
"If you love Me, you will keepe My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocatef to be with you forever- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you."
John 16
Unless I go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
8And when He comes, He will convict the world in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because they do not believe in Me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see Me; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world has been condemned.
Thank you, once again! But, according to a Protestant I’ve been listening to recently, the problem with this view is that there would be no connection between the Son and the Holy Spirit. Besides this, he argues that the Orthodox Christians never explain what the difference is between proceeding, on the one hand, and being begotten, on the other. Therefore, in this model the Holy Spirit ends up being a kind of “second son”. And I have to admit that, so far, I haven’t found any clear explanation for what these two terms-proceed and being begotten-exactly mean, nor in what way the Son and the Holy Spirit are connected to each other. Could you possibly suggest a good explanation for both of these essential issues? This would be very helpful!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
A.
"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" - St. Gregory the Great, Fifth Oration, ch 7-8.
"We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand." - St. John Damascene, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, ch 8-9
@@johnnyd2383 Thank you for these two quotes. Are there any passages in the Bible where the distinction between begetting and procession is being made explicitly? If so, could you please indicate where they are, i.e., in which books, chapters, and verses?
Thank you.
@@Anna-mc3ll John 15, 26
@@Anna-mc3ll John 15, 26
@@johnnyd2383 Thank you.
All that Father posses,the Son posses too, except Father is Unbegotten.All that Son posses Spirit posses too except the Spiration ❤❤St Gregory Nazianzen
It still does not imply causation of the Spirit, which is clearly expressed in the last words "except the Spiration". Son is simply not cause of the Spirit. Heresy of Filioque still reigns over the heretical Latins.
@@johnnyd2383 Read my post again 🤩🤩🤩
We must send this message to all the papists.
it really didnt debunk as at all. Scholastic answers already made a video on it
I still don't understand how human beings using legalese can accurately and reliably describe things that are beyond their comprehension? For over 30 years I've been attracted to apophatic theology (which Eastern Orthodoxy tends to support more than the Western church does in it's proceedings). That's one reason though that I've never been able to cross over to Eastern Orthodoxy - I find most Orthodox sanctuaries are overwhelming to me and get in the way of contemplative experience.
I should add, perhaps heretically, that I always liked the line from the Tao te Ching, "those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know"...but then, Christian mystics happen trying to describe their ineffable experiences for millennia...
Stopped reading at “legalese”
What is your stand about Revelations 22:1 "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb".
Isn't this the basis of Filioque?
I'm not trying to argue with anyone. Just please enlighten me. Thank you!
David made a video on that verse. Go give it a look on both the Catholic and Orthodox side.
John 15, 26
Bravo......nice explanation based on our east orthodox fathers....
The idea of a Pope is Good. But the Pope we have now is lost and confused. He keeps modernizing the Catholics belief to appeal to all the degenerates of this generation. When the Pope said we all worshiped the same God, I was shocked. Allah is not my God, bhuda is not my God. Heresy.
My brother, he is not the real pope. We had a Pope once by grace of God, now we must do without one. The real Pope of God would not advocate insane heresy like filioque, and a whole host of other heresies. Therefore, the throne of Peter must be sede-vacant.
Let us pray one day that we may have a Pope again, as Jesus had ordained; that He will cause a bishop to sit in Peter's throne, teaching Orthodox Catholic doctrine once again.
just become Orthodox my friend.
X creates the rule "When X and Z there must exist a Y"
X creates Z. And because X and Z are existing, there must exist Y. -> Filioque is valid
Can we now please move on and unite our big church with all of your little churches???
John 15, 26
That's amazing, I still don't get it
Basically, there has to be an understanding of why the Father is the Father. It is because He "Father's" or causes the Son & Spirit. The Spirit can come through the Son but the Father is the source.
@@jameswebb321 so it's just titles they give each other?
So would the Filioque be correct if you changed it to proceeds from the father through the son? Not proceeds from the father and the son?
Then it would no longer be the filioque.
Then that wouldn’t be filioque 😊
Sorry for the wall of text. I am aware that the code of internet conduct requires all replies to be as short and pithy as possible. A goal which I am in the state of failing, and, indeed, have failed. Such is the curse of man.
Anyways, the tldr is the Catechism of the Catholic Church holds that the Filioque and “through the Son” describe the same mystery.
“At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he ‘who proceeds from the Father’, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, ‘legitimately and with good reason’, for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as ‘the principle without principle’, is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.” - The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 248.
Proceeds from the father through the son is the Catholic Church teaching
@@sentjojoit actually isnt though. Read Florence
I feel like you just quoted church fathers and made an argument from tradition which is fine but I was hoping for logical issues with the Filioque maybe I misheard tho I was driving
Knowledge of God comes from the revelation of God, which is passed on by tradition. There is no purely "logical" reason that the Spirit could not proceed from the Father and Son together, except that what God has revealed to us in tradition (which includes scripture) is logically incompatible with it, which David has demonstrated in this video.
Since the Father is the only source of divine causality it is impossible for the Son to also cause the Holy Spirit
@@SimpleAmadeus There are purely logical problems with the doctrine actually. Read the link I posted above
@@CHURCHISAWESUM There are purely logical problems if you compare with the truth revealed to us by divine revelation. If your entire "knowledge" of God would be that God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, and no other concepts besides those, then there are no logical inconsistencies. Without additional knowledge about God, there is no logical argument to be made against this, because you only have a single premise that is equal to the conclusion.
My point is not that the filioque makes sense. It is that any statement about God must come from divine revelation, and therefore from tradition. I say this in response to OP, who said that he wanted an argument that is not from tradition. That is not possible. Even direct new revelation from God could not contradict with the previous revelation that has been preserved in tradition. Additionally, it would only take a short time for this new revelation to also, necessarily, become tradition, which swiftly makes it an argument from tradition as well.
PS: UA-cam silently hides comments that contain links. I cannot see the comment you are talking about.
@@CHURCHISAWESUMI’m not seeing the link
The filioque was in practice by both the West and East for 400 years without conflict. There filioque settled a heresy and rightfully so. It was only until photius wanted to separate from the Church did it become an issue.
even then, so what? if we look throughout Church History the creeds were changed in the presence of a council, the bishop of Rome added it without the consent of the other bishops throughout the proveniences and holy places of God, the bishop of Rome was never above the councils in fact some actually condemned the bishops of Rome for heresy, until a proper council is called I won't believe it
6:27 If you define hypostasis as a essence which Peter and Paul (i.e. separate humans) would share (namely being human) -> that would mean, that you still have two separate humans - consistently you would have to say that three persons in one essence would mean three gods (since they only share the essence of being God, not which specific God through your analogy of Peter and Paul sharing the essence of being human, not which soecific human)
This would be tritheism.
Why do you name this analogy? The analogy doesn't make sense.
You have made a video on the Filioque in English without mentioning the Council of Hatfield.
Where is that council in orthodoxy
It was held in 680 under the presidency of St Theodore of Tarsus.
@@david_porthouse 680_81 was the six ecumenical council
The concept of the Holy Trinity is oneness in God. The term bore and cause are not of any importance but rather the term essence. The Holy Trinity is one in essence to God.
Thus saith the LORD:
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:24
And it is made clear that God is “ONE SPIRIT” (Ephesians 4:4)
and that this Spirit is “THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST”(Romans 8:9)
The LORD declares that He Himself is the comforter:
“I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
John 14:18
And The LORD refers to the Comforter as such:
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
John 14:17
Truth is JESUS, and it is the Sprit of Truth which resides in believers.
It is HE HIMSELF who is in His believers:
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”
John 14:20
And in the final revelation of scripture we hear:
“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
Revelation 22:23
And what saith the Spirit?
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.”
Revelation 22:16
THE SPRIT calls himself “I JESUS”!
The apostles plainly testify JESUS CHRIST IS THE HOLY SPIRIT:
JESUS IS THE LORD (1 Corinthians 12:3)
AND
THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT (2 Corinthians 3:17)
Remember: God is a Spirit, and the LORD our God is one Lord.
JESUS CHRIST IS HOLY SPIRIT!
THERE IS NO OTHER SPIRIT WHICH IS HOLY!
1 John 5, 7-12
God is Spirit is the Holy Spirit.
Also Jesus saying that he has the Spirit is in fact, by Economic and eternal Manifestation, not BY "Manifestation" That's what exactly the Orthodox Church teaches brother.
The Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son. For example, the Lord calls the Holy Spirit His Holy Spirit, meaning it is of and comes from Him.
But the Father is the origin or cause, it is why He is the Father. Otherwise you would have double procession...basically 2 Father's.
@@jameswebb321 that's an old condemned heresy called Monarchianism
@@apr5458 it is not a heresy to believe the Son & Spirit eternally proceed from the Father. The Father is the unbegotten font of the Trinity. It's why Jesus calls the Father the Father.
John 15, 26
@@johnnyd2383 Juan 16, 13-15
Is this all about God as being rather than existence ?
Papists be coping.
St Photius is recognized by eastern rite Catholics as a saint
Do you guys (on both sides) really believe that one's salvation or rightness with God or sanctification or eternal destiny in any way, shape, or form depends on one's theological precision, to this extreme degree, concerning matters which human beings can't really understand anyway? (I'd love someone to try to explain in human terms the difference between creation through "begetting" vs. through "procession.")
Let me explain to you something. Precision is crucial, why? Because if it's not it can lead to sects and sects can lead ppl astray. And it did lead to sects. For example, this demotion and heresy of the Holy Spirit is present in the Quran that Mohamed wrote by entering in contact with heretics that believed the Holy Ghost is an angel...a messenger of sorts and then you see Mohamed claiming Gabriel the Holy Ghost told him what to write in the Quran. And by the same contact with those heretics he thought the Trinity is the Father, Son and Mary! The Holy Ghost is just an angel... Islam is the most blatant false religion there is because the foundation is false. So you see how important precision is ?
@@matium1528 Have you heard of "legalism"? It's a charge that Christians often throw at Jews or at Christians whom they think take certain practices too seriously. Well, Christians are just as "legalistic" as Jews supposedly are-they just apply it to the minutia of belief systems and theological doctrines. Instead of arguing about what tithe to take on dill, you argue about how and from where the Holy Spirit proceeds, as if you could even understand such things. You don't think theological "precision" led to making different sects? All the time.
@@KingoftheJuice18 No i don't believe precision created sects, it's exactly the opposite. If God said - i'm the truth, the way and the life - then it's not about half truths, half ways and half lives. If christianity is based on the Trinity, i would want to know who are those three. Study to see who is each of them. I can't be Agnostic about it...
@@matium1528 Ok, then why didn't Jesus give detailed lectures on the nature of the trinity in his sermon on the mount? If Christianity is "based on the trinity," why is there so little discussion of it in the NT and none in the Hebrew Bible? When Jesus was asked what the most important commandments are, why didn't he say, "Be sure to have a very precise theology of the procession of the Holy Spirit"?
@@KingoftheJuice18Read Torah, you will find Trinity since Genesis and the making of man. All over the NT you have these 3 persons why? For you to discover them since you should not worship idols and love God. Check out what Jesus said about baptism, Mark 16:16 and John 3:5. Who gives you the Holy Spirit? The Father.Who gives you the Word of God? The Son. Who gives you the grace? The Holy Spirit. Every man/woman should search for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If one demotes one of them then there is a problem. This understanding is crucial, otherwise you end up with a deformed view of what's happening. For example Islam.
...This whole ordeal feels like hairsplitting about things that are ultimately incomprehensible (as if the Trinity is not already mind-boggling enough to believe, even though we do), and ultimately don't affect our salvation. Are you truly a Christian if you haven't engaged with the Filioque clause? Is someone's salvation under threat unless they don't know the Filioque? If not, is their salvation suddenly in peril because they now stand in a position where they might choose something not reflecting the character of God? Better still, if they do happen to make the wrong choice, and the Spirit dwells within them, has Jesus suddenly died for naught in their case, and has the Holy Spirit suddenly left?
This is good
What‘s the source for the quote of St. Theophilus of Antioch?
Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, Catena on John, Chapter 15, Lecture 7.
I don't know where Thomas Aquinas received this quote but you can find it in there.
Short answer....John 15:26 says clearly it proceeds from the father.....full stop
Fallacious reasoning. Argument from silence.
@@JhostlyJesus says.... best argument possible
@@Dilley_G45 you are a bit late, but the reason it's an argument for silence is because it never says the Spirit doesn't proceed from the Son, it just says that it does from the Father, which everybody affirms.
@@Jhostly nice try but not good, show me where its said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son?
@@Jhostly AHHH GEEEEEEZ DOOODE JESUS LIKE FORGOT TO SAY SOME THING DOOOODE. Imagine Jesusplaining HAHAHAHA
It makes no difference if they are the one and the same. Three parts of the whole of the Father.
Nah I’m sticking with the trinity and you can have your own religion.
My uneducated view is this: Orthodox believe that the Son proceeded from the father, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the father. Roman Catholics believe that the Father begot, not created, the Son and The Holy Spirit proceeded from the love between the Father and the Son. My conclusion is this: The Orthodox position says that God the Father will have no one equal or greater than Him. That means that God the Father is full of pride, and the Roman Catholic definition of the Trinity dis-proves that to be the case.
There is an opening in the kindergarten in your town. Are you interested.?
@@johnnyd2383 why insult instead of actually diologing
@@johnnyd2383answer rather than ad homieming people
the position of the Church is always correct. But heresy always has a place and time of occurrence, and it arose in the Roman Patriarchate. And if Rome went into schism and fell away from the one Body of the Church from Christ, you cannot be saved without Him in His only Body.
♡
Отец это Истина, Сын это Мысль Истины, Дух Истины это материализованная Мысль Истины!
Истина рождает Мысль и от Истины через рожденную Мысль Истины исходит Дух Истины
до рождения Мысли Истины.
Дух Истины воздействует морально и физически чтоб ты Мысль Истины воплотил в жизнь.
если Мысль Истины не рождается не будет исхождение Духа Истины
Никто не приходит к Истине ,как только через мысль Истины !
Дух Истины исходит от Истины через рождённую мысль Истины.
Не надо голову маслом мазать и корону одевать-смертный человек делает так.
Надо изменить себя,чтобы Истина была дороже всего и вся и самого себя.
Бессмертие даёт, рождение и воплощение мысли Истины во спасение!
THE VERSE DOSE NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT
Roman Catholic Dogma power has been anchored. Kings, Lords, Emperor - temporal power has yielded to it - something great and “rock” firm about it has prevented its often wayward clerics from fissure, i.e. regardless of the concupiscence of its Patriarchs.
Except it itself has yielded to temporal power and fallen into heresy
It is lgbt blessing, man
Your best argument is that several of the Fathers were wrong. But you can't say that because they are saints and doctors of the church and could not be heretics.
The Filioque is correct, changing the creed was what was wrong. Get over it, it isn't heresy and it isn't a primary or gospel issue.
Who cares. Pope said all faith leads to salvation. RCs literally pray in Mosque now.
Many early orthodox Eastern and Western Church fathers attested to procession (generation through the Son). It was Aryans who started having issues with it
Generation and procession are different things. Historically the Filioque was developed in the western church DUE to the growing Arianism in Iberia.
Why can't the EO understand something so simple? If there exists any orthodox way of understanding "and the son" (which by the admission of virtually every EO, there does) it doesn't matter how much Greek you know or how much tendentious reading of dead ancient texts you perform; what matters is if you're going to give due charity to the church that FATHER GOD established in his loving Spirit, through his Son, which serves to visibly make the gospel known until the second coming of Christ.
The thing is, the saints who maintained the church and its dogmas, along with clarifying them, have said that no one shall add anything to the creed afterwards. The pope at the time said or at least agreed with this idea when making those plaques stating the creed. Rome addes this to the creed to push their misunderstood and mistaken view of the trinity. Even if it can be justified as St Maximus the Confessor said, at this point it would be useless or have no real point anymore, since if it was removed it would, in the EO view of it being temporal proccesion, really change nothing, if not be beneficial since the fathers outright said not to add anything to the creed.
@@stefanspinu434 No one can add or remove the creed by way of content of its message, not by way of explication, which is what the filioque is. It's perfectly legitimate.
@account2871 you dont understand what the RCC official dogma is about the filloque,it clearly states that the holy spirit eternally proceeds from the father AND the son, which is heresy.
@@SimonSlPlexactly. It's as if the Roman Catholics strip the meaning of The Father and Him as the source, which is what makes Him the Father. They basically have two Father's in their double procession model.
@@jameswebb321 i agree.
Acts 2:33
Now he is exalted to the place of highest honor in heaven, at God's right hand. And the Father, as he had promised, gave him the Holy Spirit to pour out upon us, just as you see and hear today.
John 15:26
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
Galatians 4:6 4
But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Catholics got it right.
This all proves the economic procession ☦️
“Catholics” got it wrong, those quotes all prove Orthodoxy’s catholicity, the spirit originates in the Father, and can be sent through the son. According to the Latins themselves there are multiple causes of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son, breaking the Trinity and turning it upside down. Not only that but it also makes the Holy Spirit a creature and a subordinate of the Father and the Son. It also confuses the Father and the Son and makes them indistinguishable.
You're misrepresenting what Thomas Aquinas actually says here. And misrepresenting how the Catholic Church actually teaches the filioque.
Read Florence
@@CHURCHISAWESUM You are a broken record here dude. The quote from Thomas Aquinas in this video is affirming that the Father is the principle cause of both, and the Son can only be referred to as a cause with the Father, not apart from the Father. And Florence affirms that the Father is the principle cause.
Further the Catechism, which is the official teaching of the church, says exactly this. That the Father is the "the principle without principle", and references directly from Florence when it says this.
"By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father', it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son."
@@CHURCHISAWESUM From Florence Session 11
"First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. 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."
Father is principle without principle. Son is principle from principle. They are all three coeternal. This is teaching the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.
@thepokkanome "the Holy Spirit proceeds *at once* from the Father and the Son." This view isn't from the Father through the Son, it's from both simultaneously. It places the Holy Spirit below the Son when both should be equally beneath the Father.
@@SquidShield That is not what the passage is saying. It is not putting the Son on a hierarchy level above the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is instead the result of the interaction between the Father and the Son. The Father and Son cannot exist together without the Holy Spirit, and likewise the Father and Holy Spirit cannot exists together without the Son. The Father is the principle of both, but the three cannot be separated. They are co-equal and co-eternal.
Rome is the harlot church
So are protestant "churches".
Israel is the harlot, cope harder.
Ok cool...but what's the argument?
No correct theology no salvation.
I think " I and the Father are one" is pretty clear
They share the same essence. Sharing the same essence doesn't mean the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son too. The Son is NOT the head of the monarchy.
Mamma mia my fellow human, you had a mamma mia moment
@@awake3083 Sure, but I think Jesus made it very clear when He said that Abraham gladdened at His sight and the Pharisees were shocked Jesus claimed to know Abraham is pretty clear proof Jesus was revealing the unity of the Trinity.
Then again The Son sits at the right side of the throne of The Father, so both aspects are equally true.
@@nicknickson3650 Jesus himself says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, not himself in John 15:26. All the Son does is SEND the Spirit FROM the Father. The Holy Spirit in terms of procession eternally proceeds from the Father **alone,** not the Son. Saying the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Son AND Father deconstructs the *TRI* nity into a Dyad.
@@awake3083 good point, friend. Thank you for clarifying this.
I think it's important we signify the entirety of the Holy Trinity, but never forget The Father is the Patriarch. He is Our Father who Art in Heaven after all.
We should also never forget Jesus is our mediator: 1 Timothy 2:5
In the East, where they don’t recognize the pope, people tend to recognize themselves as their own pope. Respect the office of the papacy and look through the sins of any one pope to see the institution for what it is. ❤
Nuh... what you described applies to your own poop - Protestants. We, Eastern Orthodox recognize authority of the Lord's Orthodox Church and endorse its teachings and practices that heretical Latins once also endorsed, prior to going delusional and dreaming about the supremacy over the entire Church.
As soon as you can get around the Catholic and Biblical evidence that Jesus started the Office of Peter and the holder of the Keys (Matthew 16), I’ll listen to your secondary argument about this controversy. You can’t, so I won’t. Case closed.