Видео

Theology is revealed, it does not rely on philosophy or philosophical arguments. Power and potency are the same word with the same meaning and the same root. "Being beyond Being" requires potency... And non-dualism requires God's potency to be greater than His act, His essence to be greater than His energies... Otherwise God would have no essence as we Orthodox understand it and He would be absolutely divinely simple in the same manner that Thomas Aquinas taught. You are a thomist who doesn't understand they're a thomist, or at best a scotist. *The essence and energies distinction is real, not virtual nor formal.* Orthodoxy starts from revelation, from multiplicity moving into unity, from the persons moving to the Godhead, not the other way around. We don't know God's essence. By reducing God's essence to unrealized energies you performatively reduce God's transcendence and denature God's essence as such. You don't know God's essence or what it consists of. Also, you're probably wrong about the "potential logoi". God's essence is not the "potential logoi", but something else entirely. Logoi are by definition both uncreated and created, and uncreated logoi are different from potential logoi, and they are not logoi. Your spergy speculation is Western and not Orthodox. It's also obsessed with creation, trying to look at God's essence from within creation. Reminds me of Roman Catholic's analogia entis. You are not understanding the meaning of the words you are using in your abstract reasoning. Logoi means purpose. There can't be different counterfactual and disparate purposes, even if God's mind could in theory contemplate them, because such things would entail contradiction in God. You are theorizing the devil, not our God from Revelation who created a good world. By saying there could be counterfactual purposes you are giving Being in God to non-being... and also ironically, reducing God to Being instead of the utterly transcendent non-dualism of Being beyond Being. Like Dyer has said, "this doctrine leads to the Origenist and Platonic conception of “creation” as an essentialist emanation of God, and not an ex nihilo, free creation of God. Since, in Western theology, God’s will is His essence, and God’s divine patterns and archetypes are also His essence, the created patterns are therefore just as necessary as the Divine Essence. Because God is the origin of all things as First Cause in Thomism, the created effects bear some likeness to their Origin - which, unfortunately in Thomism is the essence of God, as God is Actus Purus, with no potentiality. In Thomism, the “natural knowledge of God” which is had by reflection upon creatures back to their “First Cause” must later be supplemented by “supernatural grace” and revelation, built upon the foundation of “natural knowledge.” "

Bro, you can't even grow a beard. Who gave you their blessing to teach your theological speculations?

Pelagius makes more sense

As someone who was a cradle Catholic and currently an Orthodox catechumen... I do not think a reunion is possible, knowing the differences in theology and ideas of authority. One church would have to completely cease being what it is and fall in line with the other.

YOU HEARD MY FAMILY SAY... IM REAL MAN... DON'T THINK IM LOSE

YOU HEARD MY FAMILY SAY... IM REAL MAN... DON'T THINK IM LOSE

Nothing Orthodox or Christian here…just more Greek Platonist , Aristotle, stoicism and other word salad philosophy…saying you are Orthodox, doesn’t make one Orthodox…have you thought about renaming this blog “The Philosopher’s Hour”

whether or not someone IS a saint, is only up to God.

There are multiple sources (which are not forgeries) that undoubtedly prove the filioque. A RUclipsr named dwong proves this in several of his videos.

Catholic here, this was a very well made and informative video. Thank you! ✝️🤝☦️

I am extremely suspicious of many of the recent canonizations.

Isn't papal supremacy just a follow on from the tradition of ancient Israel? Like moses was their leader and when others challenged his supremacy they were punished by God

Lmfao it’s like half the people here read the title, left a comment listing all their favorite philosophers and/or insults to Žižek, and left. The specific claim being made here is that *Žižek is the end of the line for the Cartesian philosophical tradition.* That’s a much more particular stance than replies like “but lol I don’t understand Žižek so he’s dumb” or “but boo hoo what about this random niche guy whose books I read” are addressing. I think the Ljubljana School in general has really pushed Cartesian thinking to its limit. I love the work of Alenka Zupančič, who’s a close colleague of Žižek. She has a few recent lectures on RUclips about Lacanian readings of the Cartesian Cogito, and they’ve been really exciting to come across. :)

I am no theologian, but I don't get why the Filioque is such a problem. If The Son inherits all that is of The Father, and the Son is one with the Father, how can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and have nothing to do with the Son. Obviously, The Father is the principal source, and all things come from The Father. This primacy is clearly reflected in the language of the Filioque. It is one thing to not include it, but it is another to reject it. Rejecting the Filioque is like saying The Son is almost one with The Father, and The Son does not participate fully joined to The Father. In that case, how can Christ breathe upon his Apostles and say, "Receive The Holy Spirit". Would He have not asked His Father to breathe The Holy Spirit upon them? Clearly, both sides need to hammer out the theology together to assess the Truth of the Filioque and bind all believers to the outcome. If they find that the Filioque is True, then that would add weight to the claim of Papal infallibility. The reverse I suppose might prove the claim false. However, I do not assert anything and leave it to the Whole Church with The Holy Spirit to clarify. This is just my understanding of the issue, and I await the day both sides can come to a formal consensus. In my opinion, I think the barriers of coming together have more to do with the legalistic language that the West uses to explain the faith where the East prefers a more organic and spiritual language. If both sides can cross that bridge, I think that all the perceived differences in doctrine can be reconciled, and healing can start. I believe we are one Church, East and West, divided only by human nature. I think we need each other more than ever if we are to effectively fight the heresies of the modern world and the complacency in faith of those who call themselves Catholic or Orthodox yet live fully in the secular world and pay Christ no mind until it suits them.

As a Catholic, I would say that what keeps us apart (Papal Primacy aside) is mainly (a) a misunderstanding of what the Filioque clause is, which shouldn't be a real problem since Florence; (b) Resentments as a result of some historical mistakes on both sides (but I would say this cuts deeply into the Orthodox side, in general the Latins no longer hold grudges over the massacre of the Latins, for example, but I feel there is an ongoing resentment in relation to the Sack of Constantinople in the Orthodox community).

We Orthodox love Teresa of Jesus and John of the Cross 🙏🔥☦️🪔📜🙏

Unless the Orthodox recognize their errors and humble themselves, they will never return to the Roman Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ. Or if God Almighty forces them to return also.

Also I believe the Philioque should be stopped because Scripture doesn't teach this, in fact Jesus Christ himself teaches in more then one passage that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and he will ask the Father and the Father will send him to us.

I wish that the Schism could be healed but the papacy issue would need to first be resolved. Because One Man should not have soul authority over all the church besides Jesus Christ. The Bishops should rule over their regions

Giving the mess Christianity is in now that protestantism has happened, the Orthodox and Catholic Church need to come together again. Now more then ever.

The only things that the Orthodoxy would have to accept is the authority of the papacy with acceptances to infallible dogma and minor adjustments to palamist theology. They wouldn’t have to speak the Filioque in the creed, rather accept the theology behind it while keeping the cultural traditions that they safeguard

Unity will never happen. Because the pope will never give up his power to become a patriarch. The Roman Catholic Church will never admit they're wrong about how they baptize, or the teachings of purgatory. They'll never give up the many clearly prelest saints that they have. Instead they will demand that the one true Church of Christ leave everything behind to worship the Pope instead. And God will never allow this to happen. A better goal is to convert more Catholics. And I know, I used to be one of them. A lot of catholics are waking up to just how evil The Roman Catholic Church truly is.

Idk if Orthodox know this, all the Orthodox would have to do is: - Recognize the Rome’s unique authority - Not reject the Filioque (don’t have to accept it, but can reject it) - Not reject Immaculate Conception - Not reject the Assumption There’s a lot of differences that in the Catholic mind are a difference in emphasis. And in the Orthodox mind (from my understanding) those differences are a difference in doctrine. A key thing for the Orthodox would be to take a look at those differences and sift through to see what things are doctrine and what things are emphasis. Often, from what I have found, is that the doctrine is the same in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but the expression and articulation is different. Both Churches recognize that man’s nature has been tainted since the Fall. But the articulation of what that actually means is different. And having access to both articulations of the one truth opens the door to a better understanding of the whole Truth. The idea that one articulation is the best and only articulation neglects the other legit and historical articulation(s). Kinda went in a tangent. But basically, the Catholic and Orthodox believe the same stuff in essence, while the expression is different. And the Orthodox sees the expression as believing a different thing. Maybe we can say it this way, the expression (and articulation) of Mary’s sinlessness is secondary to her sinlessness, because the two articulations come from the common belief that she is sinless. And the two articulations have grown in their own way over time. In different languages, cultures, civilizations, and so on.

Why does every Ortho skip the part of the schism that actually triggered it? The Easter Patriarchs were promised land grants in Rome. The Pope revoked them. Then schism. So it was really caused by human greed. The fillioque is a non-issue. The Latin Rite is in communion with many formerly Orthodox Church and they don't have to accept the fillioque. They drop it from the creed. The only real issue is Orthos coming back to viewing the See of Rome as the top bishop with the final word on morals and doctrine. Read the early councils, they all affirmed it.

Where is Jesus Christ in this CC dogma?

All the religions in the world are going to be joined together as one, with one leader, the false prophet! there will be one political leader, the man of perdition! There will be one language.. (english).. there will be one to rule over all! "The devil!".. by 2026/2027, the world will see this come to pass..

No

The trinity is 'triple standard' to reinforce the double-standards of Christ and 'Christian living'.

I don't understand how the choice of creating isn't a movement from potentiality to actuality. I can understand how the act of creation isn't a movement from potentiality to actuality. Yet i cannot see how the choice of this act is not a movement from potentiality to actuality. To me it seems that God had to change in order to choose something that he previously didn't choose

Why would the predicate not be the Father? If anything, the subject reveals the predicate, and the copula unites them. I think this works better, as the predicate is abstract principle only revealed through a subject. The subject being primary substance comes from Aristotle's Categories, but Aristotle actually changes his mind in Metaphysics because the subject or matter is dependent on the predicate for its structure, making the predicate the begetter of the subject rather than the other-way around. Subject is first to us, but the same way that the Son is the way to the Father, not because the Son is more primary than the Father. I would argue that Aristotle gets closer the Orthodox Trinity with his view in Metaphysics.

We should rebuild the Pentarchy as it was before the Council of Chalcedon. The Churches of the three Council need to be add in this serious discussion and we should know what they think about a possibility of reunion...

If both want reunion both will have to make some compromises . The Catholics more compromise , the papal infallibility must be gone , the original definition of the bishop of Rome and the first among equals being more of an honorary title and I think the bishop of Rome , even as a honorary title there should be a vote like the conclave for it by all the united . Orthodox and Catholics have writings on the original together church and that’s what must be adhered to as a starting point . Technically we are unified under the council of Florence .

Thank you from a catholic in Scotland ✝️☦️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇷🇸

Makes sense, i get it. The trees roots must first reach down to hell before it grow up to heaven.

Is there even time? It seems that we are in eternity now, but our memories and the cycle of day and night create the illusion of time. I feel that our experience of time is proportional to our distance from Christ.

Remember Athenagoras moved to Paul 6 in the first place and I congratulate him for his courage and determination during this huge and historical step. I am sure that he was lead by the Holy Spirit.

as a Catholic all I mainly care about is we keep the filouqe and the pope

If under one baptism , no problem

All I can say is let us walk in christ and not in ego. This ego is a human trait and nothing to do with God . Let us one day rejoin together again

Regarding Saint Joseph Kuntsevych, the reason why the Orthodox believe he was a murderer is because of a supposed letter from a Polish royal. Ironically that same Polish royal was the one to recommend him for canonization. That letter is probably inauthentic.

The Filioque is Orthodox.

The schism WAS solved at Florence.

Saint Josaphat Kuntsevich, Martyr for the Holy Union.

I pray that one day Jesus's desire for unity will be made manifest. for more than a thousand years there was one church. the east started is tip toe out of the west in the 11th century, but after the council of Florence it was completely severed. the west takes for granted the notion that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. but the breaking point was when the east mate out clear that they only believe that holy spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

Your comments are excellent.

Francis of Assisi claimed he was Christ´s physical brother. Clearly in spiritual delusion (aka prelest). All errors must be condemned in the reunion. No-one can be a saint who died in a heresy, such as Romanism. God is, in the ultimate analysis, solution-focused, solving problems and giving the opportunity of salvation. So, how will the current divisions be resolved? Prophecies help to highlight this. It is with the fulfilment of the final parts (20-24) of the Anonymous Prophecy of Mount Athos of 1053 that : the Latins (i.e. the West) will return to Orthodoxy; the Roman Papacy will cease; there will be one Patriarchate for all of Europe; Constantinople will already have been returned to the Greeks (which means, from other prophecies, such as from an Eldress of Georgia of mixed Greek, Russian and Georgian Royal descent, that they will have returned to the Patristic (aka Old) Calendar by then, because without this reversion Greece will be destroyed, in accordance with her Prophecy); and finally, they will be, amidst rejoicing, united under one flock under one True Orthodox shepherd . We have already seen the fulfilment of parts 1-12 of this prophecy in its entirety. Part 12 is Revolution in India and the expulsion of the English (1947), for example. Part 13 England for the Saxons only, is unfolding now (Brexit, etc). This clearly involves World Orthodoxy repenting and becoming True Orthodox as part of the process.

I get that this is a hypothetical, and just an interesting display of thought but I hope none of you think this would or even want for this to occur. Rome created a tangibly different religion that trickles down to the most fundamentally important facets, anyone who says otherwise is woefully ignorant of the two religions. on the tragic day that a branch of the Church seeks to unify with Rome - whatever sensible branches remaining will cut it off - a more interesting practice of thought is the question of - what happens in that situation? how do you reconcile canonicity of those cut themselves free from the apostates, how do we answer the question of the ecumenical patriarchate(the most likely branch of the Church to attempt heresy)?

Rome wants unity only if it is under her.

Apophaticism is a very limited view of infinity. Kant held a similarly limited view, with his famous boundaries of human reason. But he wrote a book toward the end of his life where he realized he actually was able to explore outside those bounds. Rabbinic philosophy is so much better than most western philosophy on this. My all time favorite philosophical essay is “The God Who Comes to Mind” by Levinas, where he talks about the positive aspect of infinity, infinity as a verb. In fact, infinity as a verb is exactly why infinity *must* denote a personal being. It’s fantastic stuff, and I’ve never read anything as eloquent on the subject among Christian thinkers.

In Levinas’ pluralistic ontology, where infinity is a verb, radical openness-in the form of continual deconstruction-is necessitated. Take the mind as the “one-for-the-other” and you have the bondage to metaphysical freedom that the Bible advocates. It’s funny to me that it was up to rabbinic philosophy to offer me a decent explication of Christianity.