Best debate I’ve seen on this topic in a very long time. I have a lot of respect for Wagner and had nothing bad to say except that his St Basil quote is admitted by Catholics to be not original to St. Basil. But a forgery, intentionally or not, is basically the free space in Catholic debate bingo.
@@etaiinn1071 O so the catholic university press translation is wrong and wagner is right , well that settles it then...this debate has been so helpful
With regaurds to Gregory Palamas veneration in the Eastern Catholic Churches, Wagner appealed to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church supposedly speaking against it. However, there are multiple Eastern rites that all have differerent policies. The Byzantine Catholic Church is distict form the Melkite Catholic Church and they venerate Palamas.
Sam has blocked me on his channel even though he's partly why I became Orthodox 😅 He had Jay on and that started my journey from Protestantism to Holy Orthodoxy. Anyway, thank you for the debate, I learned a lot and plan on listening to it a few times to absorb the contents. 🙏🏼☦️
Becoming Orthodox is, primarily, a work of God, and then your personal effort. People can be feeble, flickering and proud, but Orthodoxy is so much more than the individual people. Hope you remain in the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church- The Orthodox Church. ☦️💙
It was lovely debate. Seeing my fellow Turkish Christian on Sam channel was also fun. God bless you. Well chat was as we expected a bit agitated and i had to keep deleting people from chat meantime trying to listen you thanks God we have decend amounth of mods to keep it more clean :D But really some people just don't listen....
What make no sense to me is Wagner is quote mining these Fathers who rebuke the filoque but is saying that they teach it. so they contradict themselves ?🤷🏼♂️🤔
The key word is quote mining. That's what papists do they quote mine out of context. That's why the history of papism descends into multiple schools of theology because it's not a system that you can synthesize within or create a consensus of the fathers. Bernard of Clairvaux and Aquinas who are doctors in the papist church both vehemently denied the immaculate conception. That's why Newman had to come up with the development of doctrine cope because it's been a mess ever since they departed from the mind of the Church.
Where do St. Basil, Cyril, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus rebuke Filioque? I would like some clear quotes on that. Also to quote mine means to pull out a quote without giving it context and explaining what it means in light of broader use of words used etc , he explained both, He also has a whole series explaining the language of the Cappadocian fathers and how they teach the Filioque which I recommend if you want to go deeper into this.
@@silaila3115 None of the Cappadocians or St. John of Damascus speak of the Son as the cause of the person or subsistence of the Holy Spirit. From St. John of Damascus: Book I, Chapter VIII: The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any ways separate from Him, but ever is in Him(6). But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abideth ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct froth that of the Father. The terms, 'Word' and 'effulgence,' then, are used because He is begotten of the Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation(7): and the terms 'Son' and 'impress of the Father's subsistence,' because He is perfect and has subsistence s and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten(9): and the term 'Only-begotten'(1) because He alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. *For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father,* yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son
@@silaila3115 BOOK I CHAPTER VII Concerning the Holy Spirit, a reasoned proof. Moreover the Word must also possess Spirit(8). For in fact even our word is not destitute of spirit; but in our case the spirit is something different from our essence(9). For there is an attraction and movement of the air which is drawn in and poured forth that the body may be sustained. And it is this which in the moment of utterance becomes the articulate word, revealing in itself the force of the word(1).(2) But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and uncompound, we must confess in all piety that there exists a Spirit of God, for the Word is not more imperfect than our own word. Now we cannot, in piety, consider the Spirit to be something foreign that gains admission into God from without, as is the case with compound natures like us. Nay, just as, when we heard(3) of the Word of God, we considered it to be not without subsistence, nor the product of learning, nor the mere utterance of voice, nor as passing into the air and perishing, but as being essentially subsisting, endowed with free volition, and energy, and omnipotence: so also, when we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence. For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, *proceeding from the Father* anti resting in the Word(4), and shewing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness(5), but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees(6), having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.
David when the talk with the catholic was on Saint Gregory Palamas and he said that he is suposed just a local saint and he does not accept him. You should had ask him how he participates in the byzantine catholic eucharist see it as the one true eucharist of his church ,but that eucharist has in it Gregory Palamas as a saint. How he participates then in a eucharist with Palamas that call his church following satan for the filioque. It is not an issue of just a veneration as he drive the talk ... But for Saint Gregory Palamas being in the byzantine catholic eucharist as a saint .
Very true. It is every bit as important to protect the Eucharist from unworthily commemorating heretics as it is to protect the physical chalice from heretics, and for their own good too. If Wagner is being truthful, then he surely must think it cruel that the Pope extends the chalice to “Palamite heretics”. Why let a man risk getting sick and dying partaking unworthily?
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. 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.
Maybe someone else can answer this. I heard Beau Branson and others echo that energies/operations are always done by all three persons, but if that's the case, and if begetting and processing are actions (energetic procession), then how are the Son and HS not causing themselves?
It is an other thing how the three persons are and an other thing what are called energies of God. Those are operations how he communicates with the created world
Because all are participating according to the same formula: From the Father Through the Son and In the Spirit. From = Cause. So Father always = ultimate Cause in any divine action. This is why the fathers semantically equate Father with cause.
![Who Wrote a Short Story That Seriously Disturbed a Teacher? | Dirty Laundry x Smosh [Full Episode]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bvHAy_rKoEI/mqdefault.jpg)
Best debate I’ve seen on this topic in a very long time. I have a lot of respect for Wagner and had nothing bad to say except that his St Basil quote is admitted by Catholics to be not original to St. Basil. But a forgery, intentionally or not, is basically the free space in Catholic debate bingo.
Watch the debate…He talks for a few minutes about how it isn’t a forgery.
The textual scholars (which are only some of them) who disagree are wrong.
@@etaiinn1071 O so the catholic university press translation is wrong and wagner is right , well that settles it then...this debate has been so helpful
With regaurds to Gregory Palamas veneration in the Eastern Catholic Churches, Wagner appealed to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church supposedly speaking against it. However, there are multiple Eastern rites that all have differerent policies. The Byzantine Catholic Church is distict form the Melkite Catholic Church and they venerate Palamas.
You have it backwards. Melkites are pro Palamas veneration and Byzantine aka Ruthenians are against it. Melkites are also Byzantine Rite…
It's also a lie since he's on the melkite calendar
Nice to see a turkish Christian. I just subscribed
as a Turkish Christian myself i'm also happy to see more of us being Christian
Sam has blocked me on his channel even though he's partly why I became Orthodox 😅 He had Jay on and that started my journey from Protestantism to Holy Orthodoxy. Anyway, thank you for the debate, I learned a lot and plan on listening to it a few times to absorb the contents. 🙏🏼☦️
Lol Sam insulted me and blocked me too.
Becoming Orthodox is, primarily, a work of God, and then your personal effort. People can be feeble, flickering and proud, but Orthodoxy is so much more than the individual people. Hope you remain in the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church- The Orthodox Church. ☦️💙
@@JimStream939 Thank you my friend
It was lovely debate. Seeing my fellow Turkish Christian on Sam channel was also fun. God bless you. Well chat was as we expected a bit agitated and i had to keep deleting people from chat meantime trying to listen you thanks God we have decend amounth of mods to keep it more clean :D But really some people just don't listen....
Just subcribed to your channel. May God bless you brother in Christ.
What make no sense to me is Wagner is quote mining these Fathers who rebuke the filoque but is saying that they teach it. so they contradict themselves ?🤷🏼♂️🤔
The key word is quote mining. That's what papists do they quote mine out of context. That's why the history of papism descends into multiple schools of theology because it's not a system that you can synthesize within or create a consensus of the fathers. Bernard of Clairvaux and Aquinas who are doctors in the papist church both vehemently denied the immaculate conception. That's why Newman had to come up with the development of doctrine cope because it's been a mess ever since they departed from the mind of the Church.
Where do St. Basil, Cyril, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, John of Damascus rebuke Filioque? I would like some clear quotes on that.
Also to quote mine means to pull out a quote without giving it context and explaining what it means in light of broader use of words used etc , he explained both, He also has a whole series explaining the language of the Cappadocian fathers and how they teach the Filioque which I recommend if you want to go deeper into this.
@@silaila3115
None of the Cappadocians or St. John of Damascus speak of the Son as the cause of the person or subsistence of the Holy Spirit.
From St. John of Damascus:
Book I, Chapter VIII:
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of the Father and is never in any ways separate from Him, but ever is in Him(6). But whereas the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abideth ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct froth that of the Father. The terms, 'Word' and 'effulgence,' then, are used because He is begotten of the Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation(7): and the terms 'Son' and 'impress of the Father's subsistence,' because He is perfect and has subsistence s and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten(9): and the term 'Only-begotten'(1) because He alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. *For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father,* yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son
@@silaila3115
Neither does St. Gregory of Nazianzus in oration 31, or St. Basil the Great, "On the Holy Spirit," say otherwise.
@@silaila3115
BOOK I CHAPTER VII Concerning the Holy Spirit, a reasoned proof. Moreover the Word must also possess Spirit(8). For in fact even our word is not destitute of spirit; but in our case the spirit is something different from our essence(9). For there is an attraction and movement of the air which is drawn in and poured forth that the body may be sustained. And it is this which in the moment of utterance becomes the articulate word, revealing in itself the force of the word(1).(2) But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and uncompound, we must confess in all piety that there exists a Spirit of God, for the Word is not more imperfect than our own word. Now we cannot, in piety, consider the Spirit to be something foreign that gains admission into God from without, as is the case with compound natures like us. Nay, just as, when we heard(3) of the Word of God, we considered it to be not without subsistence, nor the product of learning, nor the mere utterance of voice, nor as passing into the air and perishing, but as being essentially subsisting, endowed with free volition, and energy, and omnipotence: so also, when we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence. For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, *proceeding from the Father* anti resting in the Word(4), and shewing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness(5), but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees(6), having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.
Great Q&A
39:56 - RE to my question on claim: "St Photius died in communion with Rome under a pope who was a filioque believer, making him a hypocrite"
Would it be possible to reduce the difference in volume between your voice and those of your guests please ?
David when the talk with the catholic was on Saint Gregory Palamas and he said that he is suposed just a local saint and he does not accept him. You should had ask him how he participates in the byzantine catholic eucharist see it as the one true eucharist of his church ,but that eucharist has in it Gregory Palamas as a saint. How he participates then in a eucharist with Palamas that call his church following satan for the filioque. It is not an issue of just a veneration as he drive the talk ... But for Saint Gregory Palamas being in the byzantine catholic eucharist as a saint .
Most intelligent eastern orthodox argument
@@obscuranox😅❤😂🎉😮😅😅
Very true. It is every bit as important to protect the Eucharist from unworthily commemorating heretics as it is to protect the physical chalice from heretics, and for their own good too. If Wagner is being truthful, then he surely must think it cruel that the Pope extends the chalice to “Palamite heretics”. Why let a man risk getting sick and dying partaking unworthily?
@@obscuranox yet you dont refute it, cant even take on the weakest eo arguments 😂
@@obscuranoxEucharist could be referring to the word Liturgy. Because the service is also called Eucharist literally Thanksgiving.
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. 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.
Maybe someone else can answer this.
I heard Beau Branson and others echo that energies/operations are always done by all three persons, but if that's the case, and if begetting and processing are actions (energetic procession), then how are the Son and HS not causing themselves?
It is an other thing how the three persons are and an other thing what are called energies of God. Those are operations how he communicates with the created world
@@ΓραικοςΕλληναςI don't understand what you're saying, looks like a lot of typos.
But it's called "energetic procession."
Because all are participating according to the same formula: From the Father Through the Son and In the Spirit. From = Cause. So Father always = ultimate Cause in any divine action. This is why the fathers semantically equate Father with cause.
@@CHURCHISAWESUM If all are participating, then how are the 2nd and 3rd persons not all the cause of themselves?
@@bradspitt3896 i said the energies
Of God are something other of the way the three person are...
No idea what debate this is about