@@kpn5000 In your opinion, is heresy what is written particularly in John 15:26? "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." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
@@kpn5000 Traits of God's nature are common to all Persons of the Trinity because God's nature is one! Therefore Godhood is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Hypostatic traits are unique to each Person of the Trinity because every Person is a distinct Hypostasis in the Trinity! Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Positing that a Hypostatic trait can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) is to confuse the distinct Hypostatic traits of those two Persons. Thus, the distinction of those two Persons is distorted! The filioque distorts Triadology which 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 by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The Orthodox dogma is precisely what is written particularly in John 15:26: "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." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
@@dimitrispeiraias we don't name God the Father because He has a wife and a son or because He is old. It's because He generates the Son. My point is, the talk is not about who sends who. But who generates who. Think for a second. The Holy Ghost forms Christs image in us through virtues. Does this mean the Holy Ghost generats the Son? No. This is the gate for a lot of mixed weird trinityes. But not the biblical one.
It dawned on me today. The idea was known but today the implications hit me. I'm floored. The very nature of number is precisely what was always taught by the metaphysics only ever attested in the wisdom of scripture, the Fathers and the Church. But these mathematics are the product of many centuries. The ancient Greeks had no idea about this, they didn't even know about the real numbers! But there it is, you won't believe how it works, how the ideas of the Fathers and therefore the liturgy and scripture, are everywhere. It was the answer to number and set the whole time. This was revealed to them. How else could they have such advanced understanding? The infinity of the math here is logical yet incomprehensible ultimately. They are thousands of years ahead of their time. They are still thousands of years ahead of us as well. It's amazing. For the first time I can feel God in creation without not seeing Him as distinct. He is distinct and yet the Source of all just like St Athanasius said. The Uncontained. There is no such thing as holy maths, but mathematics does inform our logic and therefore our metaphysics. I get that. This is as St Maximus said mere human reasoning. But it isn't nothing that the Fathers, scripture, liturgy and the Orthodox Church had it right all along, God speaks through the blessed and the wise.
As an RC who is very disturbed by Francis, my opinion is that the creed should not have been altered without a universal council of the bishops to confirm it. The RC should return to the creed from Nicaea.
"For even though the Spirit exists in His own hypostasis and is viewed moreover in His own right inasmuch as He is Spirit and not the Son, yet He is not therefore alien from Him. He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth , and the Spirit is poured forth from Him, just as indeed from God the Father." St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Third Letter to Nestorius, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD.
Hypostatic origin comes from the Father first and foremost as the only actual being in the Godhead when gone through a fine tooth comb the Filoque is unnecessary.
JOHN 15:26 “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. Check mate Catholics! 😎 Lol
Ultimately it's an affirmation of what Maximus the Confessors and others who taught that "The holy spirit proceeds from the father *through* (not and from) the son."
To be sure, the Holy Spirit is sent by and proceeds from the Father. But notice, in John 15:26, Jesus says he will “send” the Holy Spirit, just as he also says the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” Moreover, Jesus goes on to say: Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I go not away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7, emphasis added). And as the Catholic Catechism points out: “[F]inally it [referring to Revelation 22:1] presents “the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,” one of the most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1137). Indeed, the Bible is very plain: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb” (Rev. 22:1). Here we have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Catechism also references Revelation 21:6 and John 4:10-14, which make clear that this “water of life” is a reference to the Holy Spirit. If you also add John 7:37-39, recalling that it was St. John who wrote both John’s Gospel and the book of Revelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there can be no doubt what-or who-this “water of life” refers to as proceeding from the Father and the Son: “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said about the Spirit.
Regarding the Catholic Dogma, At Florence Eugenius IV's Papal Bull Laetentur Coeli is abundantly clear it's a single spiration. " [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from *one principle and one spiration* ; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."
And thus in light of this we see St. Maximos the Confessor's letter to Marinus recognise this: "Those of the Queen of cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope [Martin I], not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusthai) also from the Son.’ . . . “With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias). . . “One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”
One would also have to call into account the Orthodoxy of a huge number of pre-Schism Holy Latin Fathers that taught this correctly understood as later expounded at Florence; many of whom are recognised as Saints in Eastern Orthodoxy. St. Augustine of Hippo (+354-430 ): “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). Pope St. Leo the Great (+450) : “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another”” (Letter XV, section II) St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454) , writes: “The Holy Spirit is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). (Migne 1.774) St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526) writes: “Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418) St. Isidore of Seville (+600 ) writes: “The Holy Spirit is called God because He prpoceeds from the Father and the Son and has their essence…There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from both” (Patrologia Latina 82.268) Pope St. Gregory Dialogus (+604) writes: “We can also understand His [i.e. the Son’s] being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit… The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” (Homiliarium in Evangelia Libri Duo 2.26 (Eng. Trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst [Kalamazoo, Mich.:Cistercian Publications, 1990], page 202)). St. Theodore of Canterbury (+A.D. 680) : “‘And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified Him, adding nothing, taking away nothing: and we anathematize in heart and word whom they anathematized: we receive whom they received: glorifying God the Father without beginning, and His Only-begotten Son, Begotten of the Father before all ages: and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, ineffably; as those holy Apostles, and prophets, and doctors, whom we above commemorated, have preached‘” (Council of Hatfield, 680 AD).
Based and chungus pilled! Did you have to take some of your videos down and then put them back up? I was looking for your “Eastern Catholicism refutes Rome” video, it was gone and now it’s back.
Yes and no. It proves at the time of St Maximus, they used the Filioque language in a way that did not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. However, later Latin filioquist made the Son a cause of the Spirit, and Florence explicitly said the Son is the cause of the Spirit. This is why the Latins at Florence rejected the letter of St Maximus at Florence as inauthentic, while St Mark of Ephesus continued to use it as one of his main arguments because he believed it was authentic.
As a former bi-itual Eastern Catholic and traditional Latin mass and now home with ROCOR when I read the 8th ecumenical council that both sides --- problem with both sides disagreement--my gut says that's probably was accurate . Just a notion, the same one that I fought that drew me to orthodoxy. Then again I been wrong before and my judgment isn't the best standard of truth.
One thing I am still confused about as a new laymen to Orthodoxy is what we mean exactly by "caused". I know the Son and Spirit are not created so what is the distinction?
If you are asking the distinction between proceeding and begetting eternally, we do not know, other than that they are different. That is what St. John of Damascus writes in on the Orthodox Faith 1.8. Caused meaning where they get their divinity from eternally.
Now is the year 2024 and 8th council is still NOT on a level of Ecumenical Council since 9th one did not happen and only 9th council can elevate 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Those who will say that 9th one was so called "pan-Orthodox" one, keep in mind that what is called "pan" was everything but Pan since less than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented there and decisions of that council are not widely accepted. Wishes of organizer of that council are not sufficient to make it legitimate 9th council. So, at this point in time, Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and one is pending that designation.
How did the Spanish, Portuguese and English delegates vote at this Eighth Ecumenical Council? Addition: Eight months later, I am still waiting for an answer to this question. Might have better luck with submitting dubia.
@@SimonSlPl According to this video, and to the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Fourth Council of Constantinople held in 879 was also the Eighth Ecumenical Council, and it condemned the Filioque. There are naturally lots of questions to ask about this event. They are not getting answered. Spain, Portugal and England were early adopters of the Filioque.
@@david_porthouse Was there western attendance in the second council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical Council recognised by both Orthodox and Catholics)? Answer me.
@@SimonSlPl Not every bishop is going to attend every Ecumenical Council, so by Orthodox thinking they will need to receive the decisions of the EC after the event. The alleged Eighth EC was apparently not attended at all by western bishops. Are you trying to claim it is still valid?
Proceed vs precede There are two different words in Latin, for one word in Greek. It's a language situation. Proceed does not mean who is first or before. Precede is first or before Isaiah 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
@JL-CptAtom You cannot reason with an anti-Catholic. Protestant or Eastern Orthodox. I have said all I want to say. If you love the Lord, I trust He will open your mind.
No he didn't. David actually did a whole video on St. Maximus's letter to Marinus where he covers this topic. The filioque at the time of St. Maximus was not the same as the later developed Filioque doctrine of Florence
Hosea11:9ASV" For I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God,and NOT man..." God and man are mutually exclusive categories. The dogma of the incarnation is an absurdity, not a subtlety.
God and man are mutually exclusive categories according to the scriptures. Christendom's bloodstained history refutes her claim to being in any positive relationship with the risen Christ and his God JEHOVAH.
@@mikeyaz123 what the Bible says is that God cannot change malachi 3:6. So anything the Bible declares to be true about JEHOVAH is permanently true. And anything the Bible declares to be false about JEHOVAH is permanently false. "Is" means is ever "is not" means is never.
Psalms 83:18KJV"That men may know that thou whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH
Your wrong the name Jehovah refers to Father Son and Holy Spirit. The 1 True God. Your teaching the Heresy of Arianism. I encourage you to do some research on church history.
@@mikeyaz123 Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David," John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. " The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one. John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. " According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune. John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”" The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune. Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. " ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God. Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, " Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. " Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service. Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?" The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.
“All the things the Father has belong to the Son, except causality.” -St Gregory the Theologian
@@kpn5000 In your opinion, is heresy what is written particularly in John 15:26? "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." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
@@kpn5000 I think you didn't bother to watch the video!
@@kpn5000 Traits of God's nature are common to all Persons of the Trinity because God's nature is one! Therefore Godhood is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth.
Hypostatic traits are unique to each Person of the Trinity because every Person is a distinct Hypostasis in the Trinity! Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit.
Positing that a Hypostatic trait can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) is to confuse the distinct Hypostatic traits of those two Persons. Thus, the distinction of those two Persons is distorted!
The filioque distorts Triadology which 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 by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity.
The Orthodox dogma is precisely what is written particularly in John 15:26: "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." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
kpn5000 No.
@@dimitrispeiraias we don't name God the Father because He has a wife and a son or because He is old. It's because He generates the Son. My point is, the talk is not about who sends who. But who generates who. Think for a second. The Holy Ghost forms Christs image in us through virtues. Does this mean the Holy Ghost generats the Son? No. This is the gate for a lot of mixed weird trinityes. But not the biblical one.
It dawned on me today. The idea was known but today the implications hit me. I'm floored. The very nature of number is precisely what was always taught by the metaphysics only ever attested in the wisdom of scripture, the Fathers and the Church. But these mathematics are the product of many centuries. The ancient Greeks had no idea about this, they didn't even know about the real numbers! But there it is, you won't believe how it works, how the ideas of the Fathers and therefore the liturgy and scripture, are everywhere. It was the answer to number and set the whole time. This was revealed to them. How else could they have such advanced understanding? The infinity of the math here is logical yet incomprehensible ultimately. They are thousands of years ahead of their time. They are still thousands of years ahead of us as well. It's amazing.
For the first time I can feel God in creation without not seeing Him as distinct. He is distinct and yet the Source of all just like St Athanasius said. The Uncontained.
There is no such thing as holy maths, but mathematics does inform our logic and therefore our metaphysics. I get that. This is as St Maximus said mere human reasoning. But it isn't nothing that the Fathers, scripture, liturgy and the Orthodox Church had it right all along, God speaks through the blessed and the wise.
As an RC who is very disturbed by Francis, my opinion is that the creed should not have been altered without a universal council of the bishops to confirm it. The RC should return to the creed from Nicaea.
why?? - the Church has dozens and dozens of creeds, many of which have been changed in this or that particular...
Thank you for the work you are doing. God bless you.
Thank you for this explanatory video!
"For even though the Spirit exists in His own hypostasis and is viewed moreover in His own right inasmuch as He is Spirit and not the Son, yet He is not therefore alien from Him. He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth , and the Spirit is poured forth from Him, just as indeed from God the Father." St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Third Letter to Nestorius, Council of Ephesus, 431 AD.
Hypostatic origin comes from the Father first and foremost as the only actual being in the Godhead when gone through a fine tooth comb the Filoque is unnecessary.
JOHN 15:26
“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.
Check mate Catholics! 😎
Lol
Ultimately it's an affirmation of what Maximus the Confessors and others who taught that "The holy spirit proceeds from the father *through* (not and from) the son."
To be sure, the Holy Spirit is sent by and proceeds from the Father. But notice, in John 15:26, Jesus says he will “send” the Holy Spirit, just as he also says the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” Moreover, Jesus goes on to say:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I go not away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7, emphasis added).
And as the Catholic Catechism points out: “[F]inally it [referring to Revelation 22:1] presents “the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,” one of the most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1137).
Indeed, the Bible is very plain: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb” (Rev. 22:1).
Here we have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Catechism also references Revelation 21:6 and John 4:10-14, which make clear that this “water of life” is a reference to the Holy Spirit. If you also add John 7:37-39, recalling that it was St. John who wrote both John’s Gospel and the book of Revelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there can be no doubt what-or who-this “water of life” refers to as proceeding from the Father and the Son:
“If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said about the Spirit.
Regarding the Catholic Dogma, At Florence Eugenius IV's Papal Bull Laetentur Coeli is abundantly clear it's a single spiration.
" [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from *one principle and one spiration* ; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."
And thus in light of this we see St. Maximos the Confessor's letter to Marinus recognise this:
"Those of the Queen of cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope [Martin I], not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusthai) also from the Son.’ . . .
“With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias). . .
“One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”
One would also have to call into account the Orthodoxy of a huge number of pre-Schism Holy Latin Fathers that taught this correctly understood as later expounded at Florence; many of whom are recognised as Saints in Eastern Orthodoxy.
St. Augustine of Hippo (+354-430 ): “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
Pope St. Leo the Great (+450) : “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another”” (Letter XV, section II)
St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454) , writes: “The Holy Spirit is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). (Migne 1.774)
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526) writes:
“Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)
St. Isidore of Seville (+600 ) writes:
“The Holy Spirit is called God because He prpoceeds from the Father and the Son and has their essence…There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from both” (Patrologia Latina 82.268)
Pope St. Gregory Dialogus (+604) writes:
“We can also understand His [i.e. the Son’s] being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit… The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” (Homiliarium in Evangelia Libri Duo 2.26 (Eng. Trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst [Kalamazoo, Mich.:Cistercian Publications, 1990], page 202)).
St. Theodore of Canterbury (+A.D. 680) : “‘And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified Him, adding nothing, taking away nothing: and we anathematize in heart and word whom they anathematized: we receive whom they received: glorifying God the Father without beginning, and His Only-begotten Son, Begotten of the Father before all ages: and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, ineffably; as those holy Apostles, and prophets, and doctors, whom we above commemorated, have preached‘” (Council of Hatfield, 680 AD).
Centuries of disputes over one word fiique unbelievable
Very handy summary, thank you.
I have heard that St. Augustine view of the filioque is not the Roman Catholic view since his "filioque" is not the same Greeks condemn.
Where in the 8th council is the Filioquist Pneumotology renounced specifically? Just curious.
nowhere lol
Thanks much for this video.
Wonderful video. It is fantastic to see such excellent defense of our Orthodox faith!
Thank you
Based and chungus pilled! Did you have to take some of your videos down and then put them back up? I was looking for your “Eastern Catholicism refutes Rome” video, it was gone and now it’s back.
No I didn't do anything of that sort
What is "chungus"? I nicknamed one of my friends that but have not seen it elsewhere except for in Vlog Creations
@@alyoshaty8823 lol, it’s a meme name for the fat Bugs Bunny rabbit
Doesn't the quote from St. Maximus the Confessor (15:10) mean that the roman understanding of the Filioque is not heretical?
Yes and no. It proves at the time of St Maximus, they used the Filioque language in a way that did not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. However, later Latin filioquist made the Son a cause of the Spirit, and Florence explicitly said the Son is the cause of the Spirit. This is why the Latins at Florence rejected the letter of St Maximus at Florence as inauthentic, while St Mark of Ephesus continued to use it as one of his main arguments because he believed it was authentic.
As Alexandros said above, the "filioque" at the time of St. Maximus was not the same as it is today in the RCC. It developed more over time obviously
As a former bi-itual Eastern Catholic and traditional Latin mass and now home with ROCOR when I read the 8th ecumenical council that both sides --- problem with both sides disagreement--my gut says that's probably was accurate . Just a notion, the same one that I fought that drew me to orthodoxy. Then again I been wrong before and my judgment isn't the best standard of truth.
Filioque is a serious problem plaguing the church right now
@@RoyalProtectorate lol.
One thing I am still confused about as a new laymen to Orthodoxy is what we mean exactly by "caused". I know the Son and Spirit are not created so what is the distinction?
If you are asking the distinction between proceeding and begetting eternally, we do not know, other than that they are different. That is what St. John of Damascus writes in on the Orthodox Faith 1.8. Caused meaning where they get their divinity from eternally.
Now is the year 2024 and 8th council is still NOT on a level of Ecumenical Council since 9th one did not happen and only 9th council can elevate 8th one to the level of "Ecumenical". Those who will say that 9th one was so called "pan-Orthodox" one, keep in mind that what is called "pan" was everything but Pan since less than 50% of the worldwide Orthodoxy was represented there and decisions of that council are not widely accepted. Wishes of organizer of that council are not sufficient to make it legitimate 9th council. So, at this point in time, Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and one is pending that designation.
whats the book in 16:46 ?
How did the Spanish, Portuguese and English delegates vote at this Eighth Ecumenical Council?
Addition: Eight months later, I am still waiting for an answer to this question. Might have better luck with submitting dubia.
There was no western attendance in the second council of nicea. Is it not the seventh ecumenical council?
@@SimonSlPl According to this video, and to the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Fourth Council of Constantinople held in 879 was also the Eighth Ecumenical Council, and it condemned the Filioque. There are naturally lots of questions to ask about this event. They are not getting answered. Spain, Portugal and England were early adopters of the Filioque.
@@david_porthouse Was there western attendance in the second council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical Council recognised by both Orthodox and Catholics)? Answer me.
@@SimonSlPl Not every bishop is going to attend every Ecumenical Council, so by Orthodox thinking they will need to receive the decisions of the EC after the event. The alleged Eighth EC was apparently not attended at all by western bishops. Are you trying to claim it is still valid?
@@david_porthouse It was accepted by the western church up until the 11th century.
Roman Catholic on Pope John's letters - I don't like what Pope John writes about the filioque. That's proof that his letters are forgeries.
First.
12:15 bookmark
Proceed vs precede
There are two different words in Latin, for one word in Greek.
It's a language situation.
Proceed does not mean who is first or before. Precede is first or before
Isaiah 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.
Last
Were are all equals here.
second
first
third
propaganda without historical basis in the Latin and the GREEK Fathers - Augustine is the star of the filioque, etc - always the same lies
Maximus gave a pretty good argument for the Catholic position.
@JL-CptAtom You just want to argue.
@JL-CptAtom You cannot reason with an anti-Catholic. Protestant or Eastern Orthodox. I have said all I want to say. If you love the Lord, I trust He will open your mind.
@@Thomasrice07 Great job making yourself look stupid
No he didn't. David actually did a whole video on St. Maximus's letter to Marinus where he covers this topic. The filioque at the time of St. Maximus was not the same as the later developed Filioque doctrine of Florence
This presentation is a disappointment. He rambles on about "filioque, filioque" without ever defining it or explaining its relevance here.
Hosea11:9ASV" For I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God,and NOT man..." God and man are mutually exclusive categories. The dogma of the incarnation is an absurdity, not a subtlety.
God and man are mutually exclusive categories according to the scriptures. Christendom's bloodstained history refutes her claim to being in any positive relationship with the risen Christ and his God JEHOVAH.
Yes that was before He became man. Never does the bible say that God “cannot be a man” does it?
@@mikeyaz123 what the Bible says is that God cannot change malachi 3:6. So anything the Bible declares to be true about JEHOVAH is permanently true. And anything the Bible declares to be false about JEHOVAH is permanently false. "Is" means is ever "is not" means is never.
Is it possible that a bunch of guys who knew less about the physical reality made all of this stuff up as they went along?
And some dudes in lab coats don't ever make stuff up don't look up replication crisis
therealMedWhite oh absolutely! Still doesn’t change my original comment though.
You disgrace the name of my great uncle.
Psalms 83:18KJV"That men may know that thou whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH
The name jehovah is normally reserved for the father but I don't see your point
You are in a cult. Come to Christ
My point is that the Father is the most high God
Your wrong the name Jehovah refers to Father Son and Holy Spirit. The 1 True God. Your teaching the Heresy of Arianism. I encourage you to do some research on church history.
@@mikeyaz123 Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"
John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. "
The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one.
John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. "
According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune.
John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”"
The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune.
Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. "
ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God.
Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, "
Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. "
Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service.
Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?"
The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.