The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123From your argument about the Filioque, do you also believe that the Holy Spirit and the Father died on the cross, considering the Son died on the cross? When Jesus prayed to his father, does that mean the Father was praying to the father as well? Should we also add to the creed that the Virgin Mary birthed The Holy Spirit, Son, and Father? Jesus was birthed by Mary, so certainly according to your logic the other two were as well. If the argument is just that the Son does everything the Father does, is Jesus his own father? Separating the beings of the trinity is very important, and we can most certainly do so without proclaiming polytheism.
Depending on which side of the fence you are on, the other side will always call the opposing side biased. Not that I'm anything special (I'm not), but what I can say is that Im not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. I dont have any attachment to either. As someone who just sat back and enjoyed as a neutral party, this is what really jumped out to me. I noticed that the Eastern Orthodox position on the filioque (David) relies primarily on philosophy and man made reasoning to either defend their position or to try and explain away the massive inconsistencies in their position. While the Catholic side (Christian Wagner) relies primarily on scripture, sound exegesis of scripture and early church fathers, and correct usage of terms, to show why the filioque is a thing/became a thing. It really jumped out to me how thoroughly Christian Wagner refuted all of David's main points about terms and usage of terms from the very start and yet David never realised it nor ever directly adressed any of it or countered. It was an eye opening experience to say the least. It makes me wonder why the Eastern Orthodox position relies so little on scripture and exegesis. From what I observed, the whole Eastern orthodox "counter arguement" to the filioque essentially boils down to a deflection... "yeah but energy essence"...or "but heres what Palamas said." And last I checked in a professional debate setting which adheres to professional rules, a deflection is grounds for disqualification. I'm actually disappointed because I really do want to see how an Eadterm Orthodox would try to defend their position on the filioque using only scripture. Makes one wonder why they cant take that position in the debate doesnt it? Im open to anything so I really want to see an Eastern Orthodox argue in good faith about terms and use actual exegesis for their arguements Another thing that really jumped out to me is this. In their closing statements David made it all about himself and how he can offer a new perspective on things. Sure, ok. But when Christian Wagner spoke he spoke so passionately about wanting people to simply just do their own research, come to their own conclusions, and love the LORD Jesus beyond all else. When Christian Wagner spoke it hit me in my spirit, he spoke so annointedly. I don't think Christian Wagner was speaking during this debate, he was merely a vessel to send a message. If the Son brings glory to the Father than likewise the Spirit brings glory to the Son, and it became apparent to me the Spirit of Christ was with Christian Wagner. If God preserves His church and His word, than God would make sure to empower people to lead people to the truth. And I saw that so evidently in Christian Wagner. If the filioque were not true the Spirit of Jesus would not so mightily empower Christian Wagner in this debate. It was not the force of arguements that persuaded me. It was not powerful rhetoric. It was not sound logic or human reasoning that caused me to open up my eyes for the first time to this. It was that I saw the work of the Spirit in Christian Wagner and the Spirit would never mislead. Thank you for hosting this Sam. You did an awesome job and I thoroghly enjoyed how civil it was. Im kind of in a similar position to you Sam. I don't know what church to go to. I dont have any fondness or attachment to either. But after what I witnessed today it would be dishonest for me to continue to deny the filioque. It has been made abundantly clear to me that the filioque is beyond biblical, it is pure and true Bible teaching, and it is the best description of Trinitarian doctrine. Because to excluse the line that goes through the Son collapses the Godhead. May the Tribune god bless you and everyone that was involved in this debate. Thank you again Sam. I know that you are a mighty beloved warrior of the all mighty Jesus Christ too. I've had dreams about you. And in these dreams its Jesus and the Catholic church. Maybe I need to stop fighting it and start to take Catholicism seriously. I guess what's left for me now is the papacy. Can you do a debate on that too brother Sam?
@const1453 he is not pro Catholic he is just persuaded by the arguments Catholics make opposed to EO. He still has an issue with the Papacy. I get it we want to eliminate a legitimate 3rd party who doesn't side with what we want or believe. Damge control.
As a formal Zen Buddhist growing up who is now Eastern Orthodox. I can’t even wrap my head around this and why both churches have such drama with something that is considered holy mysteries. Nobody understands because we are like children talking about what happened before the creation of the universe. I’m an engineer who loves overly complex designs but this is just bonkers to argue over.
This is actually extremely important because the Catholics have dogmatically affirmed the filioque and the Orthodox have dogmatically denied the filioque. This is one of the most important hinge points between the debate regarding the Catholic vs. Orthodox churches. It's not terribly important to the laity, but to those trying to discern one church from another, it's crucial. The question is of course "is the filioque true?" but the implications of it being true or false are enough to falsify the Catholic or Orthodox tradition.
The winner was the audience for having two smart guys discuss a contentious issue in great depth. Thank you Sam for hosting it. Let this debate bring us closer to Christ.
Sat here as a new Christian who's currently in a baptist church (not nessicary out of denomination but because it teaches from the bible and is the best options available atm and a result of a protestant education) and just wondering how on earth anyone is supposed to learn all this. These brothers are so wise and learned ahead of myself and where I'm at it feels remarkable. Thank the Lord for uniting us in Christ and I pray He lead us all to the the church that He intended to be His body upon the earth and we all unite behind sound theological ddoctrine.
God revealed the knowledge to them through natural sources and also supernatural revelations through prayer. That’s how St. Thomas Aquinas learned stuff the first time. It comes from Heaven. Man without God or baptism looks like third-world pagans. Educated third-world pagans become like learned muslims who get knowledge from natural sources as well as demonic revelation of truth mixed with lies. The Catholic Church is the only Church of God; the Eastern Heterodox have valid sacraments, but tenuous theology (e.g. Filioque)🔥 ♥️
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123 "if the Son does everything the Father does" While the Son does have all power and authority of the Father, the Son does not do everything the Father does, or else the Son would be the Father. If the Son does everything the Father does, then the Son would beget Himself and eternally sustain the Father. Your presupposition is nonsensical. You call us polytheists but in truth you are a biunitarian (2 in 1) because you can make no distinction between the Father and the Son.
@@ochem123 ORTHODOX THEOLOGY: TRINITY God is One: Our Father God is Triune: Three Persons (Gk: Hypostasis) In One Essence (Ousia) The One Energy and Will proper to that Uncreated, Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is expressed and shared by the Three Divine Persons The Father Son and Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche" The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - But Not Created By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God Ontologically, according to God's Eternal Manifestation, the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit alone Proceeds from the Father Economically, according to the Divine Providence towards and within the Creation, the Spirit is sent from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment ✌️🙏💚
@@shamounian can you add this to the video description? debate timestamps david’s opening statement: 4:36 christian wagner’s opening statement: 21:10 david’s rebuttal: 37:04 christian wagner’s rebuttal: 45:31 david’s first cross examination: 56:51 christian wagner’s first cross examination: 1:12:07 david’s second cross examination: 1:25:00 christian wagner’s second cross examination: 1:38:00 david’s closing statement: 1:52:33 christian wagner’s closing statement: 1:57:00 q&a: 2:01:20
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:27 🎙️ Introduction to the debate format - Format includes 15-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, and 48 minutes of cross-examination. - Introduces key terms like "existence procession" and "energetic procession" to clarify Orthodox positions. 09:08 📜 Illegitimacy of Adding Filioque to the Creed - Argues against the legitimacy of adding Filioque to the Creed based on ecumenical councils. - References Canons 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council and Pope St. Leo III's response to Carolingian theologians. - Explores the idea that the Father is the only cause, a key point in the Filioque debate. - Introduces the concept of energetic procession as a genuine teaching in scripture and the Fathers. - Reiterates the disagreement between the Council of Florence and Orthodox Fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit. - Emphasizes the Orthodox belief that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, with the Son playing a role in energetic procession. - Acknowledgment of time constraints. - Clarification on the debate topic. - Third proof: Controversial claim that the Son is an idea of the Spirit. - Idios defined as a proper characteristic not shared among persons. 25:46 🔄 Distinction Between Spirit and Son - Argues for a real distinction based on mediation of the Son and procession. - Quotes from St. Gregory of Nissa supporting the distinction. - References St. Basil's quote from Contra Eunomium 3:1. - Quotes St. Gregory of Nissa to reinforce the idea of the Son as an idea of the Spirit. 35:57 🗣️ Closing Remarks - Encourages open-mindedness and understanding of both perspectives. - Shiny's work indicates discrepancies in the manuscripts related to the Latin point. - The debate discusses the significance of conclusive evidence from key figures like St. Maximus and St. John Damascus. - Discussion on circumstantial evidence vs. conclusive evidence. - The debate addresses the logical sequence and causality related to the Holy Spirit's procession with the Son. 43:38 🔍 Holy Spirit's Nature: St. Basil and St. Gregory Theologian - Differentiation between begotten, unbegotten, and transcendent relations. - Refutation of the Roman Catholic view based on oppositional relations. - Explanation of the problem with IA and the Orthodox argument. - Introduction to the Latin solution regarding the multifaceted meanings of IA. - Illustration of the river analogy explaining the Latin perspective on IA. - Different senses of IA, emphasizing the primordial cause. - Clarification of the distinction between a general principle and a primordial cause. 53:18 🔗 Filioque and Energetic Procession - Discussion about the manuscripts at the council. 01:02:20 📚 Evidence of Text Versions and Forgeries - Reference to modern patristic scholarship supporting St. Mark's point. 01:03:47 🔍 Examining St. Gregory Theologian's Argument 01:06:44 📜 ACTA and Flip-Flopping Positions - Importance of ACTA in interpreting the Council of Florence's decree. 01:11:52 🗣️ Transition to Personal Reflection - Discussion on St. Gregory of Nissa's statement about extensions in time and their place in eternity. 01:21:30 🌐 Hypostatic Properties and First Cause - St. Gregory of Nissa's writings discussed in relation to the Father's hypostatic property as the first cause. - Emphasis on the term "first cause" and its significance in St. Gregory's writings. - Counterarguments challenging the interpretation of "first cause" and questioning the transferability of hypostatic properties. - Discussion on the transferability of hypostatic properties, particularly focusing on St. Gregory of Nissa's commentary on the Lord's Prayer. 01:23:46 💬 Negations and Descriptive Terms - Comparison with terms like "not unbegotten" and "being from another" to emphasize the descriptive nature. - Discussion on the positive attributes like causality that constitute hypostatic properties. 01:24:39 🔄 Generative and Spirative Powers - Cross-examination on whether the Son contributes to the personal identity of the Holy Spirit. - Clarification on the distinct powers of generation and spiration and their roles in defining the persons. - Discussion on the logical sequence and the relation of opposition as key elements in establishing distinctions. - Further discussion on the relation of opposition and its role in distinguishing persons. - Clarification on the logical priority of the generative power and its correlation with the relation of opposition. - Addressing the argument regarding the necessity of the Filioque to preserve the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit. - Clarification on the attributive and constitutive nature of hypostatic properties. - Counterarguments regarding the completeness of statements about the mode of procession and generation. - Examination of Fourth Constantinople (879) in the context of Creedal changes. - Clarification on the specific context related to the Filioque controversy. - Addressing the question of whether the popes of that time would have agreed with the decisions made at the council. - Reference to the papal magisterium and Pope Stephen V's stance on the authority to add to the Creed. 01:41:14 🏛️ Pope Stephen V's authority and interpretation of adding to the Creed. - Discussion on the role of the Church in guiding the faith and explaining dogmas without changing them. - The pope's directive to missionaries not to add to the Creed but asserting the papal authority to do so if needed. - Clarification on whether the 9th-century popes rejected the dogma of the filioque as defined in Florence. - The significance of waiting until 1014 to officially add the filioque to the Creed is discussed. - The delay in adding to the Creed is attributed to the gravity of the filioque issue. - The distinction between local interpolations and universally binding changes to the Creed is highlighted. - Discussion on the Council of Florence's position that the filioque is a local Latin interpolation. - The acknowledgment that the filioque is a local interpolation within the Creed. - Rejection of the notion that the filioque is universally binding on all traditions within the Roman Catholic Church. 01:54:23 📚 Closing statements on the energetic procession and eternal order. - Reference to the Council of Florence's failure to discuss the energetic procession. - The presentation of the third school and the Orthodox teaching of the energetic procession. - The assertion that the Orthodox position aligns with the natural order within the Trinity, emphasizing the eternal order from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. - The unique approach of not solely relying on theological arguments but focusing on the Council of Florence, Latin fathers, and the Capadocians. - Urges everyone to engage in reading and studying the works of specific authors, Father Ken and Shensky. - The speaker concludes the talk, expressing blessings and acknowledging any timing mistakes made. - Initiates a prayer invoking the Triune God's blessings on the debaters, audience, and the pursuit of truth. - Encourages questions related to the discussion topic and outlines the format for addressing questions to the debaters. 02:02:00 ❓ Question on Filioque for Wagner 02:05:01 📚 Interpretation of Revelation 22:1 - Question about why other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East, reject the filioque. - Wagner provides historical context, mentioning early acceptance of filioque and later divergence in the 11th-12th centuries. - The debate touches on historical shifts in theological positions within these churches. 02:11:37 🤔 Why Early Church Fathers Accepted Filioque - Wagner responds, emphasizing the need for contextual study and understanding the nuances and meanings behind the terms used. - Wagner defends the continuity between Councils of 869 and 879, emphasizing that both are accepted, and there is no dichotomy. - Acknowledges that a declaration of a council as ecumenical can be revisited, presenting historical examples of similar cases. - Recognizes the challenges and complexities of delving into the Western tradition, specifically Augustine, and the need for extensive research. - Discussion on the clarity of points in the context of Latin and Eastern Fathers. - St. Maximus considered a Latin Father; clarification on interpreting Latin positions. - Latin perspective as providing lenses for interpreting dogmatic definitions. - The attractiveness of the Latin position due to coherent readings and minimal cover-ups. 02:22:06 📚 Eastern Catholics and Veneration of Gregory Palamas - Eastern Catholics' varied views on the veneration of Gregory Palamas. - Highlighting the shift in the Roman Catholic Church's perspective on St. Gregory Palamas. - Emphasizing the contradiction in allowing Eastern Catholics to venerate Palamas while maintaining a different stance in the Latin Church. - Explanation of the multifaceted meanings of "through" in theological contexts. 02:29:13 📖 St. Basil's Perspective on "Through" - Encouragement to explore St. Basil's work "De Spiritu Sancto" for insights into the varied uses of "through" in different contexts. - St. Basil's clarity on the causal or derivative relation associated with "through." 02:30:23 🌐 Finding Their Material: RUclips Channels and Content Focus - Christian B Wagner's RUclips channel, covering a range of topics, including scholasticism and ongoing series on the filioque. Made with HARPA AI
Howdy Sam, may God bless your heart and guide you to the fulness of Truth. I'm praying for you and love you my dear friend. I hope this message brings a smile to your face. The Lord never stops loving his children. Dominus Tibi
Thanks for having this debate. I think Wagner had a much better command and interpretation of the Patristic data. While David was trying to focus upon the energetic distinctions that are truly hypostatic and unique, this did not intersect with those contexts where the Fathers are speaking of the hypostatic production of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the EO side has to defend the classical arguments of Photius. And this is an uphill battle when Photius himself was already at large various with the Church Fathers, esp. in his interpretation of John 16:13.
I read your book on the matter, and it was excellent. I learned new approaches to the filioque that I had not noticed before, and the patristic data is very clearly laid out and explained. It left me with this conviction that no greco-slavic christian can condemn the catholic teaching on the filioque without exposing itself to serious theological and patristic deficiencies in its own reasoning. Having dogmatically pronounced a condemnation at Blachernes, the Filioque seems to cause a dead-end for ecumenism with them even more than the papacy. Thank you!
Very heady stuff! But one of the most pious people I’ve known and read about like the great Thérèse of Lisieux had simple and profound OBEDIENT faith. I’m not intellectual enough to debate or understand the filioque but I’m intelligent enough to follow the Church with apostolic succession and unity. If it’s good enough for saints like Therese of Lisieux, Padre Pio and so many more worthy than I, it’s more than enough for a sinner like me.
I am trying to figure out whether I should be baptized Catholic or Orthodox. For me, the truth lies within these two. Protestant isn't an option for me. Thank you for this debate. I just want to emphasize that there is so much information here, and I don't have the biblical vocabulary to understand it all. I have much to learn. ❤
They are two sides to the same coin! I am really glad you are wise enough to not embrace protestantism, as we can see what is has become and how it has corrupted true Christianity and "Christians". You will have to do your own research. But for me as a non-religious person. I side a little but more with the Catholic Church, specifically because of the history of the pentarchy of Church governance, and the 5 patriarchs, which was a system under the ancient unified Church where there were 5 patriarchs; Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, and the Patriarch (Bishop) of Rome was the first among equals (the key disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox is over the power of the Pope, not about if he is the leader of the Church as the Orthodox affirm the Pope as the first among equals but believe his power is not infallible, which it currently is, causing the schism). There are also Oriental Orthodox Churches for example, and they are different from Eastern Orthodox Churches, so you should research the different orthodoxy's. Now for becoming a Christian, to become Orthodox you need to consult a Priest at a Orthodox Church, I recommend St Nicholas Orthodox Church at the World Trade Center as that is the biggest Orthodox Church in NYC. To become a Catholic is a little different, you would have to take part in the "Order of Christian Initiation of Adults" which is a long process of study and discipline that can take up to one year, so the Churches have different initiation methods. Protestants believe in what they call "believers baptism" while the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both believe in "infant baptism" so if you are not baptized as a newborn baby, it will take effort and discipline to get baptized as an adult in Catholicism and Orthodoxy! It's probably easier to become baptized as an Orthodox, but again speak to your Priest and compare your options! Also keep in mind that Orthodoxy has a little bit of an ethnic aspect as most Orthodox Churches are tied to specific ethnic groups homelands, like for example Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, while Catholicism is more universal, but the shouldn't stop you! Goodluck on your journey!
Visit an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy. Come and see, pray and think about what you witnessed. And may God guide you to where you decide to go from there.
A catholic priest explained to me the difference of catholicism and orthodoxy is whether a thought is sin, or must one act upon a thought to become sin, orthodoxy is the latter. Another outstanding lesson, Thanks you gentlemen and Glory to God ❤️🙏
Actually it’s a little more nuanced than that. Thoughts can come externally, internally, or from the spiritual world (probably some other categories as well). We can have thoughts from others, from ourselves, or from demons. We are responsible for most of our thoughts. However, demonic thoughts are often blasphemous and thus mean nothing if not entertained. But all in all, yes sinful thoughts are sins. We confess all thoughts to alleviate ourselves from the burden as well as to confess and repent, though we do not go into depth when it comes to intrusive demonic thoughts that are not entertained.
@@melverys I believe it's possible to even tell what thoughts are your own or not. Like, when you are actively thinking of something relevant to you at the time. But, sometimes, you get those out of character random thoughts that seem to creep out of your subconscious, temptations sometimes even. I think those are the thoughts of the spiritual realm be it good or evil.
This was a good debate and had me be more interested in studying the Filioque controversy. I am Orthodox, but i give credit to Wagner for providing structured arguments and provides justifications for his claims.
I've never seen Orthodox debate a Catholic. I Converted To Orthodoxy from Protestantism, While I Continue Reading About Orthodoxy, I'm now Also Reading Catholicism, I Like Reading Both, Comparing And Contrasting, The Topics Between The Two Churches Are Very Fascinating!!
This is a youtube hall of famer video for me. Instant classic. I will be dissecting this video for much time. Thank you, sam, for hosting this event, Glory be to GOD!!
I am a former Roman Catholic now becoming Eastern Orthodox and debates like this has helped my to have a better understanding. I actually started listen to debates between Orthodox and Roman Catholics to understand why Orthodox are wrong, but instead it brought about my conversion. I like to see debates with mutual respect.
I left RC for Orthodoxy. Best decision for my family and I. It’s the true Catholic Church. The whole and unadulterated faith. It’s especially evident how far removed Rome is from the ancient faith when you become Orthodox.
The Church might still be united if they had said it was a great mystery and not taken a hard stand on something that the greatest minds in history couldn't agree on.
This was so good, so relaxing, it felt more like an academic level lecture/presentation than a debate. Watched it live, and for a second time today. I might even watch again for a third time in the future.
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
I can’t be the only one who hears the Orthodox describe the relationship of the Trinity in almost the same way as a Catholic and then spend enormous effort pointing out how they don’t agree?
@TeslaUsimaVesla7625 Or simply at the beginning of the problem the real cause was political (and cultural) more than theological (or more than theological, semantic), and was used as the great pretext or excuse to formalize a rupture using the most hard reproach in those times: heresy. Since the carolingian times the East Roman Empire was very upset against the papacy and the "latins" for having "forgered" a "new" Roman Occidental Empire that acted has "protector" of the Pope against other powers, including the Roman Emperor of Orient. Evenmore the Patriarchy of Constatinople had very hard feelings in recognizing any primacy on the Patriarchy of Rome, even honorific, because they felt that the actual and legitimate center of the Christiany was in Constatinople, were was the actual seat of the legitimate Roman Empire. There is not theology there. In my opinion the "filoque" debate is a faux debate based in semantic misunderstandings to delegitimate the other (political) part and to legitimate the Patriarchy of Constantinople has the "primus inter pares", because there was the seat of the legitimate Roman empire and was not dependant of those barbarian Franks, "usurpers" (as protectors) of Rome. The posterior gradual rising strength of the West aside the decline of the East only made things worse in the next centuries
The fundamental error of the Orthodox is their reducing the Father's personal property to one thing; Causality. That is wrong. Scripture and Tradition both attribute to the Father two (2) Hypostatic Properties; 1. Fathering the Son and 2. Processing the Holy Spirit. Jesus never refers to the Father as "Cause" (a totally non-Biblical, impersonal and very temporal philosophic term). Would you refer to the Son and Spirit as "Effects"? That doesn't sound very Divine but it follows if you refer to the Father as "Cause."
It's literally in the original Nicene Creed. The Father is the Cause. That doesn't mean that the Son is not begotten of Him or that the Spirit is not proceeding from Him. You've misunderstood the entire Orthodox position. In fact how you presented this, other than mocking a theological concept used by a vast amount of Church Fathers, is rather Orthodox. God bless 🙏
I am a Catholic, so i'm obviously biased. Nevertheless, although both parties made a brilliant work, i must say that the Catholic position look more sound, based on the evidences presented.
Erhan admitted that he doesn't research the Western Fathers for his presentation and argumentation. It shows the inadequacy of the EO position ngl. Good debate though. Thank you Sam for hosting it
Erhan really bends reality to fit his narrative. Same with oriental orthodox. Vs eastern orthodox about the nature of Jesus Christ. A coptic deacon completely de-bunked his hours long video 🙂
@@mattjackson450idk, I find it kinda important to demonstrate that Latin saints weren't promulgating "satanic" and "evil" doctrines, but that's just me 🤷♂️
Who matters more for trinitology, the father's whose writings were relevant for the trinitology council and formed Nicene Creed, or western saints who weren't canonized for their trinitology.
bullseye, they have usurped for themselves the title of 'orthodox', just as the orientals also have, but this is not a mark in the creed, but is to be presupposed of the true Church, one mark is Catholic, and this method is not Catholic, therefore the 'o rthodox church' is not the true Church of the creeds.
I am a cradle bush Catholic revert but spent 40 years as a Protestant and agnostic. I thank the Protestants for keeping me safe from atheism but I love the Orthodox as much as I do Catholics where I find my home.
Dear Sam, love and respect all the way from Ethiopia. The debate was amaizing, blessings to all participants. One of the canonical books in our orthodox church is called 'ሃይማኖተ አበው', meaning true Faith of the father's. It is among the oldest scriptures and everything that you guys touched up on is discussed in details in it. We have it both in Geez (an ancient language) and Amharic. My deepest respect for those fathers who comitted their entier being for the glory of the Lord👍
This debate and discussion came at a right time. I went an Orthodox monastery few weeks ago and I was met with defensive attitude. I read few things on this issue and truly the issue is about the authority.
So let me see if I have got this right: Eastern Orthadox:the unbegotten Father Begets the son and causes the procession of the Holy Spirit as distinct energies within the one aubstance of God. Roman Catholic: The unbegotten father begets the son and then the energies of the father and son cause the Holy Spirit to proceed from them creating the distinctions of the persons. If this is so either way the distinctions, divinity and unity of the persons is upheld. An EO sees one God in 3 distinct persons: unbegotten, begotten and proceeding from the father A Roman Catholic sees one God in three distinct persons unbegotten, begotten and proceeding from the father and son. There can't be any issue here if you believe each person shares the same substance and is co eternal. Surely the Roman Catholic position is only an issue if you reject the persons being co eternal because then you have sabellianism. There seems to be no big deal here, how is this an issue of schism? Am I missing something? This seems about as aignificant as the calvinist debate of faith in or faith of Christ.
We catholics say this issue is really unimportant and it's more of a lunguistic issue. Orthodox say we are heretics for adding the filioque just to the latin and latin languages translations
@@javierduenasjimenez7930bc the creed said that not even a single letters should be added to it. If it really didn't matter that much, you could have removed it and continued, but you didn't. You kept it for some reason.
I agree with you. This clearly drove schism from secondary political causes because the distinction is obviously linguistic in its basis and based on the distinct heresies that east and west were dealing with - the theology is almost identical in practice.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 No, it absolutely does not stop lying it says it doesn't allow a new creed to replace the already formed creed. Furthermore, the creed we've had is only altered, and orthodox use the second creed nicene Constantinoplian creed which is also altered so you would also condem the orthodox church if you were to say we weren't to change a letter because let me tell you the second creed used by the orthodox has a lot of letters added
The issue is that in the west they have more precise definitions of things while in the east they don’t focus much on precise understanding of concepts therefore this is all misunderstanding and miscommunication
Guys, this was awesome and a really respectful debate! I'm EO but in this discussion both sides demonstrated a high level of understanding of the issue, so it is not easy to say who won. Either way, God bless you and a big thank you to Sam for being such a great host!
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@778FraxK The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123 Uh oh. You fell down the hole of heresy. The Father is the monarch; There is one Source and not two Sources; One God and not two Gods. If the Father and the Son share something, but the Spirit does not share this thing with the Father and the Son, then that makes the Spirit ontologically lesser. You have created a Dyad.
I would love to see a prepared crosstalk with references of Eric and Christian This was highly informative and interesting After all I can see it can only be referred as a difference of interpretation. To discuss that it needs a lot of time
Jesus himself said it, the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father. Jesus did not say the Spirit of truth proceeds from himself as well. He only said the Father. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son too, why didn't Jesus say so?
I've never seen a debate where a guy fumbles in the first sentence. Erhan states Catholic doctrine incorrectly right off the top (it's not double procession). Even if we are charitable and say he wasn't trying to build a strawman, he is arguing against a ghost with that error. That isn’t to say all of his points were horrible or poorly explained though. He accorded himself well by and large. Wagner takes the W here.
If the Catholic doctrine isn't double procession, what does this part of the creed mean: "qui ex Patre Filióque procédit" and why was "Filióque" added? I'm not saying you're wrong nor trying to debate you, I'm just confused and hoping to better understand what you mean.
The Eastern Orthodox need to retire the single syllable argument. Ephesus is referring to the Nicene Creed, not the Nicene-Constantinopolatin creed. So both of us read creeds with different syllables then Nicea I.
Christian tries a gotcha around 1:42:00, claiming that Steven V was the pope right after John VIII, but actually there were TWO OTHER POPES (Marinus I and Adrian III) between the two. So perhaps the smirk was unwarranted, eh? Moreover, the two were very differently formed men so treating them as one voice doesn't work so well under scrutiny. Christian fails to share that John VIII's papacy ended in HIS ASSASSINATION (!). One source, citing O'Malley's "A History of the Popes" writes: "Without the protection of powerful magnates or the Carolingian emperor, the papacy after John VIII's reign became increasingly subject to the machinations and greedy ambition of the rival clans of the local nobility."
" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved
I mean, to be honest, it doesn’t solve the problem because it asserts economic procession which for the Orthodox isn’t an issue. The problem is in the idea that the Holy Spirit derives hypostasis from both Father and Son. Wagner is arguing for hypostasic procession.
"[...] [Filioque's] disagreement is, at this point, a question that arises from the different meanings of the Latin word 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰, more generic and indefinite, and the Greek word 𝘦𝘬𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, which in reality designates only the first principle of provenance , which is only the Father, since, as defined in Florence: "that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has it eternally from the Father, by whom He is eternally begotten." (Francisco Canals Vidal, Los Siete Primeros Concilios, C. III) There was a theological issue behind it, but in my opinion, most of it is political, yes...political...because Easterners, like Photius, do not want to interpret Latin Theology with Latin terms - even though they know that Latin is poor compared to Greek -, Then it came to this. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus had understood and said that there was no error with the Filioque, because the whole Church has always professed it. In this book, the author, who is a Thomist, shows that this disagreement began since the Council of Constantinople I, when they wanted to grant an honor given to Rome almost equal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. And this becomes even clearer, and intensifies at the Council of Chalcedon when Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, together with his delegation I presume, added "Canon 28" which granted equal privileges to the See of Rome. It was the only canon denied by Pope Saint Leo the Great. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople in his Epistle 132 apologized to Saint Leo and said that he remained "obliged to avoid the desires of pride and greed". Today, I do not know if this information is true, but this same Canon has since been considered valid by the Orthodox Church and the source of this information: Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Church. New Edition. 1997. p. 26 Lord Have mercy on me. Please don't attack me, I'm just giving an opinion and putting out a view for both sides to read. God bless you all
I've long suspected this as well This is a fairly benign theological issue to schism over especially considering the purpose of the Nicene creed is to combat heresy and the western church was combatting heresy that denied the consubstantiality of the Son and all of the linguistic differences causing confusion.
I will settle myself inside the church that give me, 7 sacraments, the Eucharist and its miracles, the intercession from Mother Mary and lots miracles of her apparation to her children, the rosary, teaching of Divine Mercy from St Faustine..and teaching from church doctors, st Thomas Aquinas, John the Cross, st Theresa avila. The Holy spirit will guide and guard the Holy Roman Catholic Church until the end of time..eventhough the enemy try to destroy it from outside and inside since the beginning..
Amen brother, I especially love the devotions of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, it is unfortunate the East doesn't have the same amount of variety in devotional life. But they do have some very good devotions like the Jesus Prayer which I love.
In regards to St Gregory Palamas: I’m pretty sure St Gregory Palamas never outright called the Latins Satanic Pretty sure this sentiment comes from taking his critique of a “hyper-intellectualization” of faith (which can be considered Satanic)
I enjoyed it tremendously. Yes we have to go and rewatch and re-rewatch there’s so much in there the date is it almost sense what the church fathers had the hatch out, nonetheless enjoyed it Thank you very much Sam God bless.
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est in prophetas.
I watched the debate between Jay Dyer and Preacher P, while I Agree With Preacher P The Gospel Is The Center Of The Bible, he was way off on certain, other things, and he had no information to support his claims. He talked about purgatory in that debate, we don't believe in purgatory. He accused Orthodox of not Knowing The Bible, Saint John Chrysosstom Made his Followers Read The Bible, he Wrote if you don't Read The Bible, you end up in heresy, so quite obviously, Preacher P wasn't Reading Saint John Chrysosstom. He accused Orthodoxy of adding The Apocrypha whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted, but The Apocrypha Was Added In The Council Of Carthage, not later. Before that debate, he clearly didn't take the time to Prepare For That Debate, and he had no supporting argument except, you're wrong!! That's not supporting information!!
As a non religious person who studies religion, I believe the eastern Orthodox Church is more traditional, however what makes me see the Catholic Church as the true church is the fact that, ever since the pentarchy and the 5 patriarchs of the unified Church, the capital with the first among equals in it, the Patriarch (Bishop) of Rome, seems to be the spiritual leader of Christianity, it seems like, with few exceptions, every Church or Christian denomination is an offshoot of the Catholic Church in Rome.
The orthodox people always tells us they are more traditional but if u really look at it (divorce, contraception) you will find that all their patriarchs flip-flopped in a short span of 80 years. I have the feeling, that the Orthodox Church mostly attracts young people as they hear “its most traditional” and “it’s the one, true, never changed church”. But they changed too. Young people just love the most extreme way and Catholicism is a religion of love and in some ways not “extreme”’enough. I like both churches but as more as I’m learning I understand why the Catholic Church had to be the way it is now. So many enemies that it had to defend the faith against that led to councils that have to clear questions that weren’t answered. Not every questions is answered yet. In the Orthodox Church more points were left unanswered and mystical. Chesterton once said that you have to understand the reason why a fence was built before you destroy it. Many young guys attracted to orthodoxy don’t understand the fences that the catholic church had to build to protect the truth and the faith.
@@jaypi1680 just comparing the Masses you can see the Orthodox Church is more traditional. Catholics are traditional and full of truth on paper. when it comes to practice I don't think it's the same.
@jaypi1680 Come visit the Orthodox Church, brother. If you genuinely believe what you have just written, you will be up for a very pleasant surprise. You'll see what truly a more traditional Church is, and it may be te start of the progression in your journey to Christ. Once you become Orthodox, you'll see how much of a strawman your presumptions are, and it'll all come to make sense. Bless you, and I await you to Orthodoxy! ☦✝️❤
Basically they both had good points. In the end Wagner was the more polished debater so he ‘won’ the debate. But doesn’t mean RC is right and EO was wrong. Honestly we’ll be going in circles till Jesus returns imo.
As a Presbyterian listening to the debate, David made good arguments but Wagner did a great job explaining his position from both sides. He articulated his points very well so I think Wagner took this debate.
@@Swerv_ucecatholicism is truly amazing. i recommend you take a look at the neocatechumenal way in the roman catholic church. join one of the communities because it is truly beautiful and will change ur life. my girlfriend introduced me to it and now i’m going to join it. God bless you brother. but remember one thing, religion only helps you to Jesus not brings you. you bring yourself to christ our lord. Love you brother
Jesus never referred to His Father using the impersonal term "cause". "All that the Father has is Mine" The only exception is Fatherhood. (He does not say "Cause") The Father has two (2) Personal properties, not one; He Fathers and He Processes. The Father has Processing and all that the Father has is Mine. Therefore, since I do not have the property of Fatherhood, I must have the Property of Processing the Holy Spirit. Monopatrism contradicts Our Lord's words because If the Son doesn't Process the Holy Spirit (and we know He doesn't Father Himself), then He doesn't have anything that the Father has. Argument solved.
A good way to determine who won a debate is to observe the mental struggle from both of the debaters. That would be like a chess game - one who is worst in the position has the burden of thinking more, and the one who is better can find the answers more easily. David obviously was more tired, forgot words and made confuse statements, and wagner was very sharp and defended his ideas with clarity, not falling into the traps david tried to lure him into. When a debater is cornered, he will often try to make confuse statements in order to hide his difficulties, and that happened in the "energetical interpretation" of david, which he explained nothing for me. Notice in the final declaration how david makes a huge effort to talk and to organize the ideas, as wagner does everything in a very smooth way. Wagner didn't even use the latin fathers to debate. I was hoping for augustine at least, but he "ignored" him too. Wagner won.
Autochepalus churches Like the one in cyprus established as such during the council of ephesus would you concider them heretics the second they become autochepalus? And if so your whole eastern Rite is heretical
David did better than I expected, but Wagner is Wagner, and I do think he took the W. Props to David for being respectful throughout and thanks to Sam for hosting.
Filioque is not ok! The Orthodox Argument wins the debate -> God is one but the 3 persons of God have a characteristic. No one can take away a characteristic from one person to drag it to the other because that means demoting one of the 3 persons (this is heresy). The role of the Father - creator , The role of the Son (Son of God/Son of Man) - incarnation/resurrection , The role of the Holy Spirit - truth proceeding !!! From whom? From the CREATOR! Otherwise you diminish the role of the FATHER by putting the Son right next to it, the Father loses it's unique characteristic ,the Son receives an upgrade and the Holy Spirit gets DEMOTED! Read John 15:26, hard to swallow as a Catholic, but it did not say the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son! It only says proceeds from the Father! There you have it and why Filioque is not ok!
Wagner carried the day in my estimation. Yes, I also agreed with him before going in. However, I was surprised how well Erhan did. I just think his case is clearly at odds with the Fathers and thus a much harder argument substantially. Wagner had a surprising grasp of the nuances of the Fathers. It is clear he does not just study the scholastics. I pray the oriental schismatics will reconcile themselves to the seat of unity.
Great debate from Erhan, and Wagner, and of course wonderful moderation from Sam. As a non-denom with minimal bias it seems like the prima facie winner is Wagner.
I agree, when I was Protestant I didn't really know about the filioque nor the controversy, I just assumed the Holy Spirit could only proceed through the Son from a philosophical stand point because if the Son is not necessary as mediator it means there is contingency in God which is impossible. For example, lets say God made the Holy Spirit proceed without the Son being begotten, would that be possible ? If not, why would it not be possible logically speaking ? Clearly the Son is a mediator cause, or else the Spirit's procession would be contingent which again is impossible. Moreover in the name "Father" it presupposes the Son, so saying that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father is already admitting that the Son is mediator cause because there is no father without a son. That made the Catholic position de facto more rational to me.
We (eastern orthodox christians) say that an realtive apposition (active-passive act) is not necessary in order to make a distinction, there is no logical reason to believe that an relative opposition is necessary. We can make a distinction between the son and the holy spirit even without those relative oppositions, for example 1. there is a difference in spiration and the procession of the holy spirit. saint John of Damascus (an exact exposition of the orthodox faith book 1 chapter 8) „But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.“ So we see that there has to be an distinction between the son and the holy spirit, even without those relative oppositions. 2. form of distinction would be the psychological trinity. The father is the intellect of the trinity, the son is the thought in the the trinity, the thought is the perfect image of the intellect, the intellect (father) loves his perfect image (the son) and this love is the holy spirit, so we can see that even with the psychological trinity there must be an distinction even without those relative oppositions bc the thought cannot be the love at the same time. 3. form of the distinction would be the way of being generated/proceeding We know for a fact that the father causes the son by intellect whilst the father causes the holy spirit by will This again shows a clear distinction between the son and the holy spirit even without those relative oppositions. God bless.
How can you write a "rebuttal" without first hearing the opponent's opening statement? The fact Christian Wagner had his "rebuttal" already prepared in Powerpoint, while David replied to Christian's opening statement off the cuff, makes Christian appear dishonest and intellectually prideful, while David is genuine and sincere.
How? The schism happened like 900 years ago, so I think he has a general idea of the attacks he would face from the EO side. I think this was just as a result of preparation and don't see anything wrong with that
To be honest, there is an inadequacy of the EO to deal with the Western Fathers, Erhan wasn't prepared to deal with them, this isn't just Erhan's failure it is actually a consistent trend with EO. Believe or not just being named (at baptism) with a Western saints name is frowned upon in EO circles often times and you have to explain to them that the name comes from one of their saints. The Western Fathers taught the Filioque clearly, the Eastern Fathers maybe or maybe not according to our interpretations, so the logical solution to this would simply be to make the East coherent with the Western Filioque. The debate should actually have focused on those affirming it clearly in the West because the Eastern Fathers mentioned here can just be harmonized (whereas the Western Fathers cannot be harmonized). Lastly, the distinction between how God works in creation vs how he works in eternity is inadequate here. Because we know that God creates to reflect his own being (logic), so how could he create to reflect his own being (chrono-logic) and have it be non reflective of his inner life ? So the filioque is clearly orthodox, the point on the throne of God in revelation was on point, *yes it is a created reality but that was an image of what God will be doing chronologically for all the rest of eternity guys are you saying God is consistently going contrary to his principle of reflection for all eternity, going against his logical orderning for all eternity?* No it cannot be. The Catholic Church took the W.
Really pathetic and shameless that you are copy pasting this answer on different accounts, 3 different comments on this video saying the exact same thing. Almost like the catholic church didn't take the W, or else you wouldnt have to be doing this
Frankly it wouldn’t matter if the western fathers taught it. The ecumenical councils, which are a higher authority than local teachers, and the relevant fathers in those councils which dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity (most notably, Nicea and Constantinople I), don’t teach the Filioque. They teach the Orthodox monarchical trinity, and their creed does not have the Filioque .The ecumenical councils are binding everywhere in a way that individual saints are not, even if many of them from a particular region agreed on something. And frankly I don’t buy the argument anyway, St. Maximus’s epistle on this topic throws into serious doubt the notion that a Florentine Filioque existed before the 11th century. You should also check out the history of the whole dispute over this issue before the schism, with St. Photios and Pope St. John
I'm sorry it upset you, I used a different account because I thought my main was banned on Sam's channel as I didn't see the comment show up last night it took some time. I've now deleted the other comment. However you should have been charitable with me knowing the habit of Sam, God bless him. Please deal with the comment instead brothers 🙏❤️
@@CHURCHISAWESUM *Saint Hilary of Poitiers - 4th century* “Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father *and the Son, his sources”* (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]). “In the fact that *before times eternal* your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you *through him”* (ibid., 12:56). *Didymus the Blind - 4th century venerated by syriac, coptic and serbian orthodox* “As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. *For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son”* (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]). *St. Basil The Great - 4th century mentions the word monarchy while affirming filioque* *“Through the Son,* who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is *joined* to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]). *“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature,* and the royal dignity *reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit.* Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the *monarchy”* (ibid., 18:47). As you can see you have the filioque clearly taught, Erhan said the filioque is to believe the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father and the Son right ? Then its a done deal. *Now lets see what St. Maximus the Confessor says :* *St. Maximus the Confessor, +650 AD)* “Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope 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 the theology of the Trinity and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shwon that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - *but that they have manifested the procession through him* (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence…. ” (Letter to Marinus - PG 91, 136) --- St. Maximus can be harmonized easily by saying he speaks of the primordial cause as one, which we also affirm, but that the Spirit could not have come before the Son because it is through the Son that the Spirit receives its distinct existence, there is an interaction. Now if you want to say it is a gift from the Father to the Spirit we can agree as long as this gift is necessarily given as the only possible outcome after the generation of the Son (this is our meaning); and not just one of many other gifts that could have been given or that no gift could have been given as if is simply an arbitrary matter (heretical). We affirm that the Holy Spirit receives his existence through the Son in the sense that without the Son it is impossible for the Spirit to proceed, the Spirit could not have proceeded before the Son, the Son must be the condition or the mediator of the Spirit. If we agree on this, then there is no controversy anymore.
It’s not that you can’t make sound & logical arguments about the Filioque. It’s that the Creed should have not been changed in the first place. Pope John Paul II admitted this by reciting the Creed without it.
St. Gregory of Nyssa on the Filioque: “If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer - that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another - by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.” To Ablabius. Notice that St. Gregory of Nyssa says the only way to distinguish the persons is by causality. If the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the sole cause of the Spirit, than that would collapse the Spirit and Son and make them indistinguishable according to St. Gregory.
“It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?” On The Holy Ghost
There's absolutely no way to get around this. I think this is bulletproof evidence that St. Gregory of Nyssa (as the other Cappadocians) was a filioquist
That’s not necessary in his position. Each person is distinguished by their own hypostatic properties, not how they relate to the hypostatic origin from the Father. And the fathers do distinguish between the manner in which the Son and Spirit come from the Father: the Son by begetting and the Holy Spirit by procession. These two terms are never conflated or substituted in the writings of the fathers, so such distinctions were critical to their trinitarian formulation. Thus the Son and Spirit are distinguished in two ways: one by their hypostatic properties being different in some ways (one could say their roles within the Holy Trinity are different, and these differences constitute hypostatic properties unique to each), and the other distinction is the manner of their coming from the Father: begetting vs procession. Clear enough? The Son and Spirit are distinguishable in two clear ways and neither requires that the Son eternally cause the Spirit.
+bman5257 "... When, therefore, **we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity, as to believe that one Person is the Cause, and another is of the Cause, we can no longer be accused of confounding the definition of the Persons by the community of nature.**" **__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (ON “NOT THREE GODS”, CIRCA 375 AD)__** “But if, as is the case, **we acknowledge one nature with the differences of Person**, if, while the Father is believed in, the Son also is glorified, **how can such a Faith be misrepresented by our opponents as preaching Two First Causes**?” **__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (CHAPTER 34, BOOK I, OF ‘AGAINST EUNOMIUS’, CIRCA 370 AD)__** “But there is a distinction in the superessential nomenclature of God, not only that which I have mentioned, namely, that each of the One-springing Persons is fixed in the union itself, unmingled and unconfused; but also that the properties of the superessential Divine Production are not convertible in regard to one another. **The Father is sole Fountain of the superessential Deity, since the Father is not Son, nor the Son, Father; since the hymns reverently guard their own characteristics for each of the supremely Divine Persons.** **__-ST. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE (SECTION 5 OF CAPUT 2, OF THE DIVINE NAMES, 90 AD)__** "Or again, all the persons belonging to Man do not directly possess their being from the same person, but some from this one and some from that one, so that with respect to the individuals caused **there are also many and__ diverse causes_**_. But with regard to the Holy Trinity, such is not the case,__** for there is one and the same Person, that of the Father_**_, from whom the Son is begotten and __the Holy Spirit proceeds__. **Wherefore indeed, rightly so and boldly do*_*_ we proclaim one God, __one Cause__** together with its Caused Realities, since it coexists with Them." **__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (AD GRAECAS, CIRCA 375 AD)__**
@@CHURCHISAWESUM If you say the hypostases have any hypostatic properties which go beyond their principles of origin and are superadded to the divine nature, you're a Tritheist. The hypostatic properties in the hypostases as such are the same for all three hypostases. Also, doesn't EO affirm the Damascene's position that the difference between generation and procession cannot be known? If yes, the Spirit and the Word collapse without the Filioque.
Rather than deliberately using sophisms and other cheap attacks I am glad to see them spend their time trying to truly understand each other. David was slippery sometimes, and I think Wagner won. Wagner is my magister in a sense (whether he knows who I am or not) so I might be biased because I am proud of him. Great show guys.
In the Old Testament the Jewish had the Chair of Moses. In the New Testament we have the Chair of St. Peter So Follow the Church that has the Chair of Peter, TODAY! And that is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and that is the Catholic Church. Amen Amen
@@LazarOrthodox04 yeah I mean it's not like Christ literally said He was building his Church on St. Peter or that EO has churches not in communion with each other who can't agree on the canon or birth control. It's not like EO accepted the papacy for half of it's existence.
@revelation20232 The pope just said "all Religions are paths to God." He has also been flirting with the notion of blessing same sex unions. At least with contraception, there is room for debate on it's use and whether or not it is ever Permissible and In what context it may or may not be Permissible because Contraception Is a very recent development. Sinse the Orthadox position is that sex within the confinds of marrage is both for the purposes of procreation AND to strengthen the union between husband and wife there might be some room for concession if the couple have permission from their spiritual father and so long as contraception isn't being used for the express purposes of avoiding children all togeather. Which ever side one might fall on the point is it being a topic of debate isn't the biggest concern. "All Religions are a Path to God." on the other hand is not up for debate and can not be the case in the most basic understanding of the faith because Christ is the only way to the Father. The Blessing of a same sex Union even under the assumption that both parties are practising chastity Is also somthing no Christian should be forced to defend coming out of the mouth of a church authority. Just saying, glass houses and all.
![Lp. Точка Невозврата #9 ПОСЛЕДНИЙ ВЗДОХ [Сломанный Бункер] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sGf5FRygUcw/mqdefault.jpg)
![Lp. Точка Невозврата #9 ПОСЛЕДНИЙ ВЗДОХ [Сломанный Бункер] • Майнкрафт](/img/tr.png)
Watching debates between a catholic and an orthodox is a whole another level comparing the debates with protestants.
No.
@@budicaesar1213it quite literally is.
As a Catholic when prots tell me they are attracted to orthodoxy I encourage it because at least they will have legit theology and apostolic secession
I 100% agree
@@MerliiinWylltNot legit Theology, but valid sacraments yes.
This debate proves that I still need a lot to learn. Thanks Chistian, David and Sam for making this happen.
That was my thought as well 😅
We never stop learning 🙏✝️♥️
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
Pope Francis is the Pope@@collectiveconsciousness5314
@@ochem123From your argument about the Filioque, do you also believe that the Holy Spirit and the Father died on the cross, considering the Son died on the cross? When Jesus prayed to his father, does that mean the Father was praying to the father as well? Should we also add to the creed that the Virgin Mary birthed The Holy Spirit, Son, and Father? Jesus was birthed by Mary, so certainly according to your logic the other two were as well. If the argument is just that the Son does everything the Father does, is Jesus his own father? Separating the beings of the trinity is very important, and we can most certainly do so without proclaiming polytheism.
*debate timestamps*
david’s opening statement: 4:36
christian wagner’s opening statement: 21:10
david’s rebuttal: 37:04
christian wagner’s rebuttal: 45:31
david’s first cross examination: 56:51
christian wagner’s first cross examination: 1:12:07
david’s second cross examination: 1:25:00
christian wagner’s second cross examination: 1:38:00
david’s closing statement: 1:52:33
christian wagner’s closing statement: 1:57:00
q&a: 2:01:20
Depending on which side of the fence you are on, the other side will always call the opposing side biased. Not that I'm anything special (I'm not), but what I can say is that Im not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. I dont have any attachment to either. As someone who just sat back and enjoyed as a neutral party, this is what really jumped out to me. I noticed that the Eastern Orthodox position on the filioque (David) relies primarily on philosophy and man made reasoning to either defend their position or to try and explain away the massive inconsistencies in their position. While the Catholic side (Christian Wagner) relies primarily on scripture, sound exegesis of scripture and early church fathers, and correct usage of terms, to show why the filioque is a thing/became a thing. It really jumped out to me how thoroughly Christian Wagner refuted all of David's main points about terms and usage of terms from the very start and yet David never realised it nor ever directly adressed any of it or countered. It was an eye opening experience to say the least. It makes me wonder why the Eastern Orthodox position relies so little on scripture and exegesis. From what I observed, the whole Eastern orthodox "counter arguement" to the filioque essentially boils down to a deflection... "yeah but energy essence"...or "but heres what Palamas said." And last I checked in a professional debate setting which adheres to professional rules, a deflection is grounds for disqualification. I'm actually disappointed because I really do want to see how an Eadterm Orthodox would try to defend their position on the filioque using only scripture. Makes one wonder why they cant take that position in the debate doesnt it? Im open to anything so I really want to see an Eastern Orthodox argue in good faith about terms and use actual exegesis for their arguements
Another thing that really jumped out to me is this. In their closing statements David made it all about himself and how he can offer a new perspective on things. Sure, ok. But when Christian Wagner spoke he spoke so passionately about wanting people to simply just do their own research, come to their own conclusions, and love the LORD Jesus beyond all else. When Christian Wagner spoke it hit me in my spirit, he spoke so annointedly. I don't think Christian Wagner was speaking during this debate, he was merely a vessel to send a message. If the Son brings glory to the Father than likewise the Spirit brings glory to the Son, and it became apparent to me the Spirit of Christ was with Christian Wagner. If God preserves His church and His word, than God would make sure to empower people to lead people to the truth. And I saw that so evidently in Christian Wagner. If the filioque were not true the Spirit of Jesus would not so mightily empower Christian Wagner in this debate. It was not the force of arguements that persuaded me. It was not powerful rhetoric. It was not sound logic or human reasoning that caused me to open up my eyes for the first time to this. It was that I saw the work of the Spirit in Christian Wagner and the Spirit would never mislead. Thank you for hosting this Sam. You did an awesome job and I thoroghly enjoyed how civil it was. Im kind of in a similar position to you Sam. I don't know what church to go to. I dont have any fondness or attachment to either. But after what I witnessed today it would be dishonest for me to continue to deny the filioque. It has been made abundantly clear to me that the filioque is beyond biblical, it is pure and true Bible teaching, and it is the best description of Trinitarian doctrine. Because to excluse the line that goes through the Son collapses the Godhead. May the Tribune god bless you and everyone that was involved in this debate. Thank you again Sam. I know that you are a mighty beloved warrior of the all mighty Jesus Christ too. I've had dreams about you. And in these dreams its Jesus and the Catholic church. Maybe I need to stop fighting it and start to take Catholicism seriously. I guess what's left for me now is the papacy. Can you do a debate on that too brother Sam?
Thank you, brother. May the Triune God bless and keep you.
If you’re not EO or Catholic, what is your background and stance currently church-wise?
@@LilBitDistributist
He is clearly pro-catholic
Can u not see it from his platitudes to the catholix guy?
@const1453 he is not pro Catholic he is just persuaded by the arguments Catholics make opposed to EO. He still has an issue with the Papacy. I get it we want to eliminate a legitimate 3rd party who doesn't side with what we want or believe. Damge control.
@@nigma195 A lot of Catholics have a problem with Papal authority so it is not really an indicator
As a formal Zen Buddhist growing up who is now Eastern Orthodox. I can’t even wrap my head around this and why both churches have such drama with something that is considered holy mysteries. Nobody understands because we are like children talking about what happened before the creation of the universe.
I’m an engineer who loves overly complex designs but this is just bonkers to argue over.
Watch Scholastics answers, Christian clearly explains Trinitarian doctrine.
This is actually extremely important because the Catholics have dogmatically affirmed the filioque and the Orthodox have dogmatically denied the filioque. This is one of the most important hinge points between the debate regarding the Catholic vs. Orthodox churches. It's not terribly important to the laity, but to those trying to discern one church from another, it's crucial. The question is of course "is the filioque true?" but the implications of it being true or false are enough to falsify the Catholic or Orthodox tradition.
I agree. To actually separate Christ Holy Church over this is wrong.
@@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls
I don’t think the Orthodox Church cannot define this dogmatically w/o the Church of Rome.
The winner was the audience for having two smart guys discuss a contentious issue in great depth. Thank you Sam for hosting it.
Let this debate bring us closer to Christ.
Islam Vs. Christianity < Protestant vs. apostolic < Orthodox vs. Catholicism
< Orthodox vs. Oriental
Sat here as a new Christian who's currently in a baptist church (not nessicary out of denomination but because it teaches from the bible and is the best options available atm and a result of a protestant education) and just wondering how on earth anyone is supposed to learn all this. These brothers are so wise and learned ahead of myself and where I'm at it feels remarkable. Thank the Lord for uniting us in Christ and I pray He lead us all to the the church that He intended to be His body upon the earth and we all unite behind sound theological ddoctrine.
God revealed the knowledge to them through natural sources and also supernatural revelations through prayer. That’s how St. Thomas Aquinas learned stuff the first time. It comes from Heaven. Man without God or baptism looks like third-world pagans. Educated third-world pagans become like learned muslims who get knowledge from natural sources as well as demonic revelation of truth mixed with lies. The Catholic Church is the only Church of God; the Eastern Heterodox have valid sacraments, but tenuous theology (e.g. Filioque)🔥 ♥️
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123 "if the Son does everything the Father does" While the Son does have all power and authority of the Father, the Son does not do everything the Father does, or else the Son would be the Father. If the Son does everything the Father does, then the Son would beget Himself and eternally sustain the Father. Your presupposition is nonsensical. You call us polytheists but in truth you are a biunitarian (2 in 1) because you can make no distinction between the Father and the Son.
Start with the Bible, obviously, and read the Church Fathers.
@@ochem123
ORTHODOX THEOLOGY:
TRINITY
God is One:
Our Father
God is Triune:
Three Persons (Gk: Hypostasis)
In One Essence (Ousia)
The One Energy and Will proper to that Uncreated, Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is expressed and shared by the Three Divine Persons
The Father Son and Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation
For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates
He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche"
The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - But Not Created
By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God
By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God
Ontologically, according to God's Eternal Manifestation, the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit alone Proceeds from the Father
Economically, according to the Divine Providence towards and within the Creation, the Spirit is sent from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests
In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father
All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit
And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment
✌️🙏💚
Halal hogan came out to moderate!!
yeah baby!
@@shamounian can you add this to the video description?
debate timestamps
david’s opening statement: 4:36
christian wagner’s opening statement: 21:10
david’s rebuttal: 37:04
christian wagner’s rebuttal: 45:31
david’s first cross examination: 56:51
christian wagner’s first cross examination: 1:12:07
david’s second cross examination: 1:25:00
christian wagner’s second cross examination: 1:38:00
david’s closing statement: 1:52:33
christian wagner’s closing statement: 1:57:00
q&a: 2:01:20
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:27 🎙️ Introduction to the debate format
- Format includes 15-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, and 48 minutes of cross-examination.
- Introduces key terms like "existence procession" and "energetic procession" to clarify Orthodox positions.
09:08 📜 Illegitimacy of Adding Filioque to the Creed
- Argues against the legitimacy of adding Filioque to the Creed based on ecumenical councils.
- References Canons 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council and Pope St. Leo III's response to Carolingian theologians.
- Explores the idea that the Father is the only cause, a key point in the Filioque debate.
- Introduces the concept of energetic procession as a genuine teaching in scripture and the Fathers.
- Reiterates the disagreement between the Council of Florence and Orthodox Fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
- Emphasizes the Orthodox belief that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, with the Son playing a role in energetic procession.
- Acknowledgment of time constraints.
- Clarification on the debate topic.
- Third proof: Controversial claim that the Son is an idea of the Spirit.
- Idios defined as a proper characteristic not shared among persons.
25:46 🔄 Distinction Between Spirit and Son
- Argues for a real distinction based on mediation of the Son and procession.
- Quotes from St. Gregory of Nissa supporting the distinction.
- References St. Basil's quote from Contra Eunomium 3:1.
- Quotes St. Gregory of Nissa to reinforce the idea of the Son as an idea of the Spirit.
35:57 🗣️ Closing Remarks
- Encourages open-mindedness and understanding of both perspectives.
- Shiny's work indicates discrepancies in the manuscripts related to the Latin point.
- The debate discusses the significance of conclusive evidence from key figures like St. Maximus and St. John Damascus.
- Discussion on circumstantial evidence vs. conclusive evidence.
- The debate addresses the logical sequence and causality related to the Holy Spirit's procession with the Son.
43:38 🔍 Holy Spirit's Nature: St. Basil and St. Gregory Theologian
- Differentiation between begotten, unbegotten, and transcendent relations.
- Refutation of the Roman Catholic view based on oppositional relations.
- Explanation of the problem with IA and the Orthodox argument.
- Introduction to the Latin solution regarding the multifaceted meanings of IA.
- Illustration of the river analogy explaining the Latin perspective on IA.
- Different senses of IA, emphasizing the primordial cause.
- Clarification of the distinction between a general principle and a primordial cause.
53:18 🔗 Filioque and Energetic Procession
- Discussion about the manuscripts at the council.
01:02:20 📚 Evidence of Text Versions and Forgeries
- Reference to modern patristic scholarship supporting St. Mark's point.
01:03:47 🔍 Examining St. Gregory Theologian's Argument
01:06:44 📜 ACTA and Flip-Flopping Positions
- Importance of ACTA in interpreting the Council of Florence's decree.
01:11:52 🗣️ Transition to Personal Reflection
- Discussion on St. Gregory of Nissa's statement about extensions in time and their place in eternity.
01:21:30 🌐 Hypostatic Properties and First Cause
- St. Gregory of Nissa's writings discussed in relation to the Father's hypostatic property as the first cause.
- Emphasis on the term "first cause" and its significance in St. Gregory's writings.
- Counterarguments challenging the interpretation of "first cause" and questioning the transferability of hypostatic properties.
- Discussion on the transferability of hypostatic properties, particularly focusing on St. Gregory of Nissa's commentary on the Lord's Prayer.
01:23:46 💬 Negations and Descriptive Terms
- Comparison with terms like "not unbegotten" and "being from another" to emphasize the descriptive nature.
- Discussion on the positive attributes like causality that constitute hypostatic properties.
01:24:39 🔄 Generative and Spirative Powers
- Cross-examination on whether the Son contributes to the personal identity of the Holy Spirit.
- Clarification on the distinct powers of generation and spiration and their roles in defining the persons.
- Discussion on the logical sequence and the relation of opposition as key elements in establishing distinctions.
- Further discussion on the relation of opposition and its role in distinguishing persons.
- Clarification on the logical priority of the generative power and its correlation with the relation of opposition.
- Addressing the argument regarding the necessity of the Filioque to preserve the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- Clarification on the attributive and constitutive nature of hypostatic properties.
- Counterarguments regarding the completeness of statements about the mode of procession and generation.
- Examination of Fourth Constantinople (879) in the context of Creedal changes.
- Clarification on the specific context related to the Filioque controversy.
- Addressing the question of whether the popes of that time would have agreed with the decisions made at the council.
- Reference to the papal magisterium and Pope Stephen V's stance on the authority to add to the Creed.
01:41:14 🏛️ Pope Stephen V's authority and interpretation of adding to the Creed.
- Discussion on the role of the Church in guiding the faith and explaining dogmas without changing them.
- The pope's directive to missionaries not to add to the Creed but asserting the papal authority to do so if needed.
- Clarification on whether the 9th-century popes rejected the dogma of the filioque as defined in Florence.
- The significance of waiting until 1014 to officially add the filioque to the Creed is discussed.
- The delay in adding to the Creed is attributed to the gravity of the filioque issue.
- The distinction between local interpolations and universally binding changes to the Creed is highlighted.
- Discussion on the Council of Florence's position that the filioque is a local Latin interpolation.
- The acknowledgment that the filioque is a local interpolation within the Creed.
- Rejection of the notion that the filioque is universally binding on all traditions within the Roman Catholic Church.
01:54:23 📚 Closing statements on the energetic procession and eternal order.
- Reference to the Council of Florence's failure to discuss the energetic procession.
- The presentation of the third school and the Orthodox teaching of the energetic procession.
- The assertion that the Orthodox position aligns with the natural order within the Trinity, emphasizing the eternal order from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- The unique approach of not solely relying on theological arguments but focusing on the Council of Florence, Latin fathers, and the Capadocians.
- Urges everyone to engage in reading and studying the works of specific authors, Father Ken and Shensky.
- The speaker concludes the talk, expressing blessings and acknowledging any timing mistakes made.
- Initiates a prayer invoking the Triune God's blessings on the debaters, audience, and the pursuit of truth.
- Encourages questions related to the discussion topic and outlines the format for addressing questions to the debaters.
02:02:00 ❓ Question on Filioque for Wagner
02:05:01 📚 Interpretation of Revelation 22:1
- Question about why other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East, reject the filioque.
- Wagner provides historical context, mentioning early acceptance of filioque and later divergence in the 11th-12th centuries.
- The debate touches on historical shifts in theological positions within these churches.
02:11:37 🤔 Why Early Church Fathers Accepted Filioque
- Wagner responds, emphasizing the need for contextual study and understanding the nuances and meanings behind the terms used.
- Wagner defends the continuity between Councils of 869 and 879, emphasizing that both are accepted, and there is no dichotomy.
- Acknowledges that a declaration of a council as ecumenical can be revisited, presenting historical examples of similar cases.
- Recognizes the challenges and complexities of delving into the Western tradition, specifically Augustine, and the need for extensive research.
- Discussion on the clarity of points in the context of Latin and Eastern Fathers.
- St. Maximus considered a Latin Father; clarification on interpreting Latin positions.
- Latin perspective as providing lenses for interpreting dogmatic definitions.
- The attractiveness of the Latin position due to coherent readings and minimal cover-ups.
02:22:06 📚 Eastern Catholics and Veneration of Gregory Palamas
- Eastern Catholics' varied views on the veneration of Gregory Palamas.
- Highlighting the shift in the Roman Catholic Church's perspective on St. Gregory Palamas.
- Emphasizing the contradiction in allowing Eastern Catholics to venerate Palamas while maintaining a different stance in the Latin Church.
- Explanation of the multifaceted meanings of "through" in theological contexts.
02:29:13 📖 St. Basil's Perspective on "Through"
- Encouragement to explore St. Basil's work "De Spiritu Sancto" for insights into the varied uses of "through" in different contexts.
- St. Basil's clarity on the causal or derivative relation associated with "through."
02:30:23 🌐 Finding Their Material: RUclips Channels and Content Focus
- Christian B Wagner's RUclips channel, covering a range of topics, including scholasticism and ongoing series on the filioque.
Made with HARPA AI
Howdy Sam, may God bless your heart and guide you to the fulness of Truth. I'm praying for you and love you my dear friend. I hope this message brings a smile to your face. The Lord never stops loving his children. Dominus Tibi
Thanks for having this debate. I think Wagner had a much better command and interpretation of the Patristic data. While David was trying to focus upon the energetic distinctions that are truly hypostatic and unique, this did not intersect with those contexts where the Fathers are speaking of the hypostatic production of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the EO side has to defend the classical arguments of Photius. And this is an uphill battle when Photius himself was already at large various with the Church Fathers, esp. in his interpretation of John 16:13.
I read your book on the matter, and it was excellent. I learned new approaches to the filioque that I had not noticed before, and the patristic data is very clearly laid out and explained. It left me with this conviction that no greco-slavic christian can condemn the catholic teaching on the filioque without exposing itself to serious theological and patristic deficiencies in its own reasoning. Having dogmatically pronounced a condemnation at Blachernes, the Filioque seems to cause a dead-end for ecumenism with them even more than the papacy. Thank you!
St photius is eastern catholic saint
@@Iesu-Christi-Servus Thank you for your comment. That means a great deal! Very cool to hear it helped
@@asherlim6608no he isn’t
❤️👏🙏
Very heady stuff! But one of the most pious people I’ve known and read about like the great Thérèse of Lisieux had simple and profound OBEDIENT faith. I’m not intellectual enough to debate or understand the filioque but I’m intelligent enough to follow the Church with apostolic succession and unity. If it’s good enough for saints like Therese of Lisieux, Padre Pio and so many more worthy than I, it’s more than enough for a sinner like me.
I am trying to figure out whether I should be baptized Catholic or Orthodox. For me, the truth lies within these two. Protestant isn't an option for me. Thank you for this debate. I just want to emphasize that there is so much information here, and I don't have the biblical vocabulary to understand it all. I have much to learn. ❤
papacy is the crucial issue between these two so you should research it
They are two sides to the same coin! I am really glad you are wise enough to not embrace protestantism, as we can see what is has become and how it has corrupted true Christianity and "Christians". You will have to do your own research. But for me as a non-religious person. I side a little but more with the Catholic Church, specifically because of the history of the pentarchy of Church governance, and the 5 patriarchs, which was a system under the ancient unified Church where there were 5 patriarchs; Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, and the Patriarch (Bishop) of Rome was the first among equals (the key disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox is over the power of the Pope, not about if he is the leader of the Church as the Orthodox affirm the Pope as the first among equals but believe his power is not infallible, which it currently is, causing the schism). There are also Oriental Orthodox Churches for example, and they are different from Eastern Orthodox Churches, so you should research the different orthodoxy's. Now for becoming a Christian, to become Orthodox you need to consult a Priest at a Orthodox Church, I recommend St Nicholas Orthodox Church at the World Trade Center as that is the biggest Orthodox Church in NYC. To become a Catholic is a little different, you would have to take part in the "Order of Christian Initiation of Adults" which is a long process of study and discipline that can take up to one year, so the Churches have different initiation methods. Protestants believe in what they call "believers baptism" while the Orthodox and Catholic Churches both believe in "infant baptism" so if you are not baptized as a newborn baby, it will take effort and discipline to get baptized as an adult in Catholicism and Orthodoxy! It's probably easier to become baptized as an Orthodox, but again speak to your Priest and compare your options! Also keep in mind that Orthodoxy has a little bit of an ethnic aspect as most Orthodox Churches are tied to specific ethnic groups homelands, like for example Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, while Catholicism is more universal, but the shouldn't stop you! Goodluck on your journey!
If you are from NYC go to St. Vincent Ferrer’s up on like 65th and Lex. Dominican Friars are there and you get some fantastic masses.
If you can't discern betweem Rome and the Orthodox than give us Byzantine Catholics a try. We are truly the best of both worlds!
Visit an Orthodox Church for Divine Liturgy.
Come and see, pray and think about what you witnessed.
And may God guide you to where you decide to go from there.
A catholic priest explained to me the difference of catholicism and orthodoxy is whether a thought is sin, or must one act upon a thought to become sin, orthodoxy is the latter.
Another outstanding lesson, Thanks you gentlemen and Glory to God ❤️🙏
Jesus said if you cheat in your mind, you cheat.
Aquinas taught otherwise
There's quite some other differences too, a lot of innovations in the West, like the filioque, purgatory, papal infallibility and so on and so on
Actually it’s a little more nuanced than that. Thoughts can come externally, internally, or from the spiritual world (probably some other categories as well). We can have thoughts from others, from ourselves, or from demons. We are responsible for most of our thoughts. However, demonic thoughts are often blasphemous and thus mean nothing if not entertained. But all in all, yes sinful thoughts are sins. We confess all thoughts to alleviate ourselves from the burden as well as to confess and repent, though we do not go into depth when it comes to intrusive demonic thoughts that are not entertained.
@@melverys I believe it's possible to even tell what thoughts are your own or not. Like, when you are actively thinking of something relevant to you at the time. But, sometimes, you get those out of character random thoughts that seem to creep out of your subconscious, temptations sometimes even. I think those are the thoughts of the spiritual realm be it good or evil.
This was a good debate and had me be more interested in studying the Filioque controversy. I am Orthodox, but i give credit to Wagner for providing structured arguments and provides justifications for his claims.
I just read Thomas Crean’s Filioque book 🙌🏻
God bless this debate!
The depth of knowledge in the Catholic doctrine was evident. Christian's arguments were spot on.
I've never seen Orthodox debate a Catholic. I Converted To Orthodoxy from Protestantism, While I Continue Reading About Orthodoxy, I'm now Also Reading Catholicism, I Like Reading Both, Comparing And Contrasting, The Topics Between The Two Churches Are Very Fascinating!!
Watch Luigi vs Voice of Reason
Jay Dyer
This is a youtube hall of famer video for me. Instant classic. I will be dissecting this video for much time. Thank you, sam, for hosting this event, Glory be to GOD!!
Last time I saw a video of Sam, it was him calling David Erhan a filthy turk blood. Didn't know they used to be friendly 🤣
LOL right
I am a former Roman Catholic now becoming Eastern Orthodox and debates like this has helped my to have a better understanding. I actually started listen to debates between Orthodox and Roman Catholics to understand why Orthodox are wrong, but instead it brought about my conversion. I like to see debates with mutual respect.
If I may ask, what made you the leave the catholic church? And how old are you?
I left RC for Orthodoxy. Best decision for my family and I. It’s the true Catholic Church. The whole and unadulterated faith. It’s especially evident how far removed Rome is from the ancient faith when you become Orthodox.
which debates did you listen? Eric Ybarra for example? I doubt ir because he is a master concerning papacy.
@@iliya3110me as well brother
There needs to be papacy as Jesus have His authority to Peter.
We should not be just an orthodox but aiming to be holy.
The opening barrages were delightful.
I must finish this later
this is so deep!! I Know The Basic Outline Of What they're Talking About, but these two guys Are Taking It To The Next, Five Levels!!
The Church might still be united if they had said it was a great mystery and not taken a hard stand on something that the greatest minds in history couldn't agree on.
This was so good, so relaxing, it felt more like an academic level lecture/presentation than a debate. Watched it live, and for a second time today. I might even watch again for a third time in the future.
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
“The Son does everything the Father does” does the Son beget the Son of God!? Filioque refuted! Check mate
🇻🇦✝️ God Bless His Catholic Church
I can’t be the only one who hears the Orthodox describe the relationship of the Trinity in almost the same way as a Catholic and then spend enormous effort pointing out how they don’t agree?
Any small error in a view of God makes Huge diference
@TeslaUsimaVesla7625 Or simply at the beginning of the problem the real cause was political (and cultural) more than theological (or more than theological, semantic), and was used as the great pretext or excuse to formalize a rupture using the most hard reproach in those times: heresy. Since the carolingian times the East Roman Empire was very upset against the papacy and the "latins" for having "forgered" a "new" Roman Occidental Empire that acted has "protector" of the Pope against other powers, including the Roman Emperor of Orient. Evenmore the Patriarchy of Constatinople had very hard feelings in recognizing any primacy on the Patriarchy of Rome, even honorific, because they felt that the actual and legitimate center of the Christiany was in Constatinople, were was the actual seat of the legitimate Roman Empire. There is not theology there. In my opinion the "filoque" debate is a faux debate based in semantic misunderstandings to delegitimate the other (political) part and to legitimate the Patriarchy of Constantinople has the "primus inter pares", because there was the seat of the legitimate Roman empire and was not dependant of those barbarian Franks, "usurpers" (as protectors) of Rome. The posterior gradual rising strength of the West aside the decline of the East only made things worse in the next centuries
Great job to both and thank you for this Sam! 🙏
The fundamental error of the Orthodox is their reducing the Father's personal property to one thing; Causality. That is wrong. Scripture and Tradition both attribute to the Father two (2) Hypostatic Properties; 1. Fathering the Son and 2. Processing the Holy Spirit. Jesus never refers to the Father as "Cause" (a totally non-Biblical, impersonal and very temporal philosophic term). Would you refer to the Son and Spirit as "Effects"? That doesn't sound very Divine but it follows if you refer to the Father as "Cause."
That would be Thomism.
It's literally in the original Nicene Creed. The Father is the Cause. That doesn't mean that the Son is not begotten of Him or that the Spirit is not proceeding from Him. You've misunderstood the entire Orthodox position. In fact how you presented this, other than mocking a theological concept used by a vast amount of Church Fathers, is rather Orthodox. God bless 🙏
ka, during the Frankish rule, it turns out that there was a 4th entity.
Fathering and processing as you named them still fall under the one hypostatic property of Causality
I am a Catholic, so i'm obviously biased.
Nevertheless, although both parties made a brilliant work, i must say that the Catholic position look more sound, based on the evidences presented.
Erhan admitted that he doesn't research the Western Fathers for his presentation and argumentation. It shows the inadequacy of the EO position ngl. Good debate though. Thank you Sam for hosting it
Erhan really bends reality to fit his narrative. Same with oriental orthodox. Vs eastern orthodox about the nature of Jesus Christ. A coptic deacon completely de-bunked his hours long video 🙂
Only comment but 21 likes 🤔 Why's no one else commenting?
@@mattjackson450idk, I find it kinda important to demonstrate that Latin saints weren't promulgating "satanic" and "evil" doctrines, but that's just me 🤷♂️
Who matters more for trinitology, the father's whose writings were relevant for the trinitology council and formed Nicene Creed, or western saints who weren't canonized for their trinitology.
bullseye, they have usurped for themselves the title of 'orthodox', just as the orientals also have, but this is not a mark in the creed, but is to be presupposed of the true Church, one mark is Catholic, and this method is not Catholic, therefore the 'o rthodox church' is not the true Church of the creeds.
I am a cradle bush Catholic revert but spent 40 years as a Protestant and agnostic. I thank the Protestants for keeping me safe from atheism but I love the Orthodox as much as I do Catholics where I find my home.
I usually watch videos x2. This is the first time I’ve had to slow the video down from normal even, in order to keep up 😂
Dear Sam, love and respect all the way from Ethiopia. The debate was amaizing, blessings to all participants. One of the canonical books in our orthodox church is called 'ሃይማኖተ አበው', meaning true Faith of the father's. It is among the oldest scriptures and everything that you guys touched up on is discussed in details in it. We have it both in Geez (an ancient language) and Amharic. My deepest respect for those fathers who comitted their entier being for the glory of the Lord👍
Ethiopia😇
This debate and discussion came at a right time. I went an Orthodox monastery few weeks ago and I was met with defensive attitude. I read few things on this issue and truly the issue is about the authority.
Monastery isn't usually the best place for newcomers
So let me see if I have got this right:
Eastern Orthadox:the unbegotten Father Begets the son and causes the procession of the Holy Spirit as distinct energies within the one aubstance of God.
Roman Catholic: The unbegotten father begets the son and then the energies of the father and son cause the Holy Spirit to proceed from them creating the distinctions of the persons.
If this is so either way the distinctions, divinity and unity of the persons is upheld.
An EO sees one God in 3 distinct persons: unbegotten, begotten and proceeding from the father
A Roman Catholic sees one God in three distinct persons unbegotten, begotten and proceeding from the father and son.
There can't be any issue here if you believe each person shares the same substance and is co eternal.
Surely the Roman Catholic position is only an issue if you reject the persons being co eternal because then you have sabellianism.
There seems to be no big deal here, how is this an issue of schism?
Am I missing something? This seems about as aignificant as the calvinist debate of faith in or faith of Christ.
We catholics say this issue is really unimportant and it's more of a lunguistic issue. Orthodox say we are heretics for adding the filioque just to the latin and latin languages translations
@@javierduenasjimenez7930bc the creed said that not even a single letters should be added to it.
If it really didn't matter that much, you could have removed it and continued, but you didn't.
You kept it for some reason.
It’s a big deal because we essentially have a very different conception of the Trinity.
I agree with you. This clearly drove schism from secondary political causes because the distinction is obviously linguistic in its basis and based on the distinct heresies that east and west were dealing with - the theology is almost identical in practice.
@@dominikdurkovsky8318 No, it absolutely does not stop lying it says it doesn't allow a new creed to replace the already formed creed. Furthermore, the creed we've had is only altered, and orthodox use the second creed nicene Constantinoplian creed which is also altered so you would also condem the orthodox church if you were to say we weren't to change a letter because let me tell you the second creed used by the orthodox has a lot of letters added
Ok, I don’t understand anything, but now starting to expose myself to these more complex topics. Thanks to all participants for the material.
The issue is that in the west they have more precise definitions of things while in the east they don’t focus much on precise understanding of concepts therefore this is all misunderstanding and miscommunication
Im going to need yall to dumb it down a bit 😂 i can't comput i am confusion
Guys, this was awesome and a really respectful debate! I'm EO but in this discussion both sides demonstrated a high level of understanding of the issue, so it is not easy to say who won. Either way, God bless you and a big thank you to Sam for being such a great host!
The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@778FraxK The Filioque is true; I’ll prove it. If the Son does everything the Father does, and the Father proceeds God the Holy Ghost, then the Son must also proceed God the Holy Ghost. Ergo, the Filioque is true; The Eastern Heterodox try to argue God the Father does something that God the Son doesn’t do (proceed the Holy Spirit). Eastern Heretics who deny the Filioque believe in polytheism as a result-with two separate false gods (begotten Jesus and proceeding spirit) emanating from a single source (father); that’s not Christianity-it’s another pagan religion. When you hear them talk, it reminds me of Star Wars with its “good” and “bad” sources eternally locked in battle. This is false; God is the only source of all. God already condemned the devil to hell; we are in training ground for Heaven. Earth is the battle ground for created people to choose to follow God to Heaven or choose their own selfish ways-being worldly with the Prince of Darkness. If you show a clear preference for darkness eternally, God will fix that decision for you at death, so you will experience darkness eternally in Hell, created for the fallen angels as a prison. Alternatively, Catholics who seek the face of God will be given the beatific vision and see God to dwell with Him eternally in Heaven. The Pope is God’s humanly representative on Earth. Without a pope, chaos ensues. We’re about to see a world without a pope, and it will be terrible. Mark my words. God reigns now and forever. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123
Uh oh. You fell down the hole of heresy.
The Father is the monarch; There is one Source and not two Sources; One God and not two Gods.
If the Father and the Son share something, but the Spirit does not share this thing with the Father and the Son, then that makes the Spirit ontologically lesser. You have created a Dyad.
@@nicodemuseam this guy just copies and pastes the same comment. No different than the orthobros incels and argues like a Muslim.
@@nicodemuseam I wish I had even half your wisdom.
I would love to see a prepared crosstalk with references of Eric and Christian
This was highly informative and interesting
After all I can see it can only be referred as a difference of interpretation.
To discuss that it needs a lot of time
Jesus himself said it, the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father. Jesus did not say the Spirit of truth proceeds from himself as well. He only said the Father. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son too, why didn't Jesus say so?
Yeah in fact there is no mention in the Bible saying "spirit from the son" let alone John 15:26
Catholic is more scriptural id say
@@SuperiorBeen You're low-IQ
I've never seen a debate where a guy fumbles in the first sentence. Erhan states Catholic doctrine incorrectly right off the top (it's not double procession).
Even if we are charitable and say he wasn't trying to build a strawman, he is arguing against a ghost with that error.
That isn’t to say all of his points were horrible or poorly explained though. He accorded himself well by and large.
Wagner takes the W here.
If the Catholic doctrine isn't double procession, what does this part of the creed mean: "qui ex Patre Filióque procédit" and why was "Filióque" added? I'm not saying you're wrong nor trying to debate you, I'm just confused and hoping to better understand what you mean.
Amazing job! Love Christian, the ending exposed David weakness, in all charity and love. God Bless the Catholic Church
The Eastern Orthodox need to retire the single syllable argument. Ephesus is referring to the Nicene Creed, not the Nicene-Constantinopolatin creed. So both of us read creeds with different syllables then Nicea I.
I was waiting for this debate! Thank you Sam!
Christian tries a gotcha around 1:42:00, claiming that Steven V was the pope right after John VIII, but actually there were TWO OTHER POPES (Marinus I and Adrian III) between the two. So perhaps the smirk was unwarranted, eh? Moreover, the two were very differently formed men so treating them as one voice doesn't work so well under scrutiny. Christian fails to share that John VIII's papacy ended in HIS ASSASSINATION (!). One source, citing O'Malley's "A History of the Popes" writes: "Without the protection of powerful magnates or the Carolingian emperor, the papacy after John VIII's reign became increasingly subject to the machinations and greedy ambition of the rival clans of the local nobility."
" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved
Who said this or where is this written? And to whom does this benefit
I mean, to be honest, it doesn’t solve the problem because it asserts economic procession which for the Orthodox isn’t an issue. The problem is in the idea that the Holy Spirit derives hypostasis from both Father and Son. Wagner is arguing for hypostasic procession.
"[...] [Filioque's] disagreement is, at this point, a question that arises from the different meanings of the Latin word 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰, more generic and indefinite, and the Greek word 𝘦𝘬𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, which in reality designates only the first principle of provenance , which is only the Father, since, as defined in Florence: "that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has it eternally from the Father, by whom He is eternally begotten." (Francisco Canals Vidal, Los Siete Primeros Concilios, C. III)
There was a theological issue behind it, but in my opinion, most of it is political, yes...political...because Easterners, like Photius, do not want to interpret Latin Theology with Latin terms - even though they know that Latin is poor compared to Greek -, Then it came to this. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus had understood and said that there was no error with the Filioque, because the whole Church has always professed it. In this book, the author, who is a Thomist, shows that this disagreement began since the Council of Constantinople I, when they wanted to grant an honor given to Rome almost equal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. And this becomes even clearer, and intensifies at the Council of Chalcedon when Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, together with his delegation I presume, added "Canon 28" which granted equal privileges to the See of Rome. It was the only canon denied by Pope Saint Leo the Great. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople in his Epistle 132 apologized to Saint Leo and said that he remained "obliged to avoid the desires of pride and greed". Today, I do not know if this information is true, but this same Canon has since been considered valid by the Orthodox Church and the source of this information: Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Church. New Edition. 1997. p. 26
Lord Have mercy on me. Please don't attack me, I'm just giving an opinion and putting out a view for both sides to read. God bless you all
I've long suspected this as well
This is a fairly benign theological issue to schism over especially considering the purpose of the Nicene creed is to combat heresy and the western church was combatting heresy that denied the consubstantiality of the Son and all of the linguistic differences causing confusion.
So, now you guys are gonna make me Read Florence now? LOL! LOL!
This wasn’t a debate this was a slaughter. No salvation outside the Catholic Apostolic church. ☝️✝️
Your church doesn’t even believe that now…
@@alifarley8766 you clearly dont understand what the saying means
@@alifarley8766You don’t know what you’re talking about then. Extra Ecclessiam nulla salus was upheld in Lumen Gentium Vatican 2.
Your church changed the Holy Creed
I will settle myself inside the church that give me, 7 sacraments, the Eucharist and its miracles, the intercession from Mother Mary and lots miracles of her apparation to her children, the rosary, teaching of Divine Mercy from St Faustine..and teaching from church doctors, st Thomas Aquinas, John the Cross, st Theresa avila.
The Holy spirit will guide and guard the Holy Roman Catholic Church until the end of time..eventhough the enemy try to destroy it from outside and inside since the beginning..
Amen brother, I especially love the devotions of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, it is unfortunate the East doesn't have the same amount of variety in devotional life. But they do have some very good devotions like the Jesus Prayer which I love.
In regards to St Gregory Palamas:
I’m pretty sure St Gregory Palamas never outright called the Latins Satanic
Pretty sure this sentiment comes from taking his critique of a “hyper-intellectualization” of faith (which can be considered Satanic)
Christ founded the Catholic Church- the matter is finished
I enjoyed it tremendously. Yes we have to go and rewatch and re-rewatch there’s so much in there the date is it almost sense what the church fathers had the hatch out, nonetheless enjoyed it Thank you very much Sam God bless.
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est in prophetas.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν. 🙏
Wagner for the win but David The Magic Midwife did good too
Why the Orthodox would ever debate the Filioque issue with the Catholics! This is a Catholic issue that doesn't concern the Orthodox.
What do you mean?
I watched the debate between Jay Dyer and Preacher P, while I Agree With Preacher P The Gospel Is The Center Of The Bible, he was way off on certain, other things, and he had no information to support his claims. He talked about purgatory in that debate, we don't believe in purgatory. He accused Orthodox of not Knowing The Bible, Saint John Chrysosstom Made his Followers Read The Bible, he Wrote if you don't Read The Bible, you end up in heresy, so quite obviously, Preacher P wasn't Reading Saint John Chrysosstom. He accused Orthodoxy of adding The Apocrypha whenever they wanted and wherever they wanted, but The Apocrypha Was Added In The Council Of Carthage, not later. Before that debate, he clearly didn't take the time to Prepare For That Debate, and he had no supporting argument except, you're wrong!! That's not supporting information!!
I loved it, but i couldn't stop myself from smiling when they pronounced the greek words wrong 😭(i am greek)
When I was a seminarian I was taught Erasmian pronunciation rather than “modern” so I speak in cowboy Greek 🤪
As a non religious person who studies religion, I believe the eastern Orthodox Church is more traditional, however what makes me see the Catholic Church as the true church is the fact that, ever since the pentarchy and the 5 patriarchs of the unified Church, the capital with the first among equals in it, the Patriarch (Bishop) of Rome, seems to be the spiritual leader of Christianity, it seems like, with few exceptions, every Church or Christian denomination is an offshoot of the Catholic Church in Rome.
you are right, Rome is the true church
First among equals ≠ pope
The orthodox people always tells us they are more traditional but if u really look at it (divorce, contraception) you will find that all their patriarchs flip-flopped in a short span of 80 years.
I have the feeling, that the Orthodox Church mostly attracts young people as they hear “its most traditional” and “it’s the one, true, never changed church”. But they changed too. Young people just love the most extreme way and Catholicism is a religion of love and in some ways not “extreme”’enough.
I like both churches but as more as I’m learning I understand why the Catholic Church had to be the way it is now.
So many enemies that it had to defend the faith against that led to councils that have to clear questions that weren’t answered. Not every questions is answered yet. In the Orthodox Church more points were left unanswered and mystical.
Chesterton once said that you have to understand the reason why a fence was built before you destroy it. Many young guys attracted to orthodoxy don’t understand the fences that the catholic church had to build to protect the truth and the faith.
@@jaypi1680 just comparing the Masses you can see the Orthodox Church is more traditional.
Catholics are traditional and full of truth on paper. when it comes to practice I don't think it's the same.
@jaypi1680 Come visit the Orthodox Church, brother. If you genuinely believe what you have just written, you will be up for a very pleasant surprise. You'll see what truly a more traditional Church is, and it may be te start of the progression in your journey to Christ. Once you become Orthodox, you'll see how much of a strawman your presumptions are, and it'll all come to make sense. Bless you, and I await you to Orthodoxy! ☦✝️❤
I'm dumb, someone reply and tell me who's right
The Catholic ofc.
Loool
Orthodoxy ofc
Basically they both had good points. In the end Wagner was the more polished debater so he ‘won’ the debate. But doesn’t mean RC is right and EO was wrong. Honestly we’ll be going in circles till Jesus returns imo.
@@sam9239 fr😂
As a Presbyterian listening to the debate, David made good arguments but Wagner did a great job explaining his position from both sides. He articulated his points very well so I think Wagner took this debate.
Submit to Rome…
@@AcontecimentosposCVII Im definitely inquiring Catholicism. I am on my journey before going through RCIA
@@Swerv_ucecatholicism is truly amazing. i recommend you take a look at the neocatechumenal way in the roman catholic church. join one of the communities because it is truly beautiful and will change ur life. my girlfriend introduced me to it and now i’m going to join it. God bless you brother. but remember one thing, religion only helps you to Jesus not brings you. you bring yourself to christ our lord. Love you brother
@@Swerv_uce
I agree with Erhman’s response saying he was shocked by some of Wagner’s admissions/ statements during the QnA. Wagner a future EO? 🤔
Great debate!
Jesus never referred to His Father using the impersonal term "cause". "All that the Father has is Mine" The only exception is Fatherhood. (He does not say "Cause")
The Father has two (2) Personal properties, not one; He Fathers and He Processes. The Father has Processing and all that the Father has is Mine. Therefore, since I do not have the property of Fatherhood, I must have the Property of Processing the Holy Spirit. Monopatrism contradicts Our Lord's words because If the Son doesn't Process the Holy Spirit (and we know He doesn't Father Himself), then He doesn't have anything that the Father has. Argument solved.
So the Orthodox Church has actually fell in error for trying to defend their greek version of the creed?
A good way to determine who won a debate is to observe the mental struggle from both of the debaters. That would be like a chess game - one who is worst in the position has the burden of thinking more, and the one who is better can find the answers more easily.
David obviously was more tired, forgot words and made confuse statements, and wagner was very sharp and defended his ideas with clarity, not falling into the traps david tried to lure him into.
When a debater is cornered, he will often try to make confuse statements in order to hide his difficulties, and that happened in the "energetical interpretation" of david, which he explained nothing for me.
Notice in the final declaration how david makes a huge effort to talk and to organize the ideas, as wagner does everything in a very smooth way.
Wagner didn't even use the latin fathers to debate. I was hoping for augustine at least, but he "ignored" him too.
Wagner won.
Keep in mind english is not David's first language; this affects the impression one gets of the debate when it comes to highly technical vocabulary.
Seems like a Genetic Fallacy. Just look at the arguments.
I’m more confused than ever
Amazing discussion. Pretty balanced until cross examination where I think Christian took a very obvious lead.
It s in apocalysp 22,1 with john 7 37 ..
Yeah no. I'm new to watching debate with terms, citations and such and I think I watched a wrong video
LOVE YOU GUYS, GOD BLESS YOU SAM
The audience is the winner here
Not a good debate I am afraid
I’d have to say, as an atheist, David seemed to have a more compelling argument for me
I thought he kind of sounded like an atheist
There is no one universal orthodox cherch. Only russian, ucrainian, Bułgaria, romanian, greek and go on.
Autochepalus churches Like the one in cyprus established as such during the council of ephesus would you concider them heretics the second they become autochepalus? And if so your whole eastern Rite is heretical
there is no universal catholic church either.
So different ethnicities means that orthosoxy is split ev 1:02 en though has the same theology? Cringe polish catholoid
@@XD_.. uh yes there is. Thays what the Latin rite was.
@@XD_..Hey! I'm in Africa and I can walk into any Catholic church anywhere else and hear mass.
Wagner cleary wins
Nasty jabs like jay dyer.
For me it comes down to will I submit to a pope. My answer is NO.
Prot
It's not important. Believing one way or the other does not affect one's daily walk.
I am afraid it does matter.
It matters a lot. This is a question on God’s nature. You mess this one up, your entire religion is heretical.
David did better than I expected, but Wagner is Wagner, and I do think he took the W. Props to David for being respectful throughout and thanks to Sam for hosting.
thats a cope @@joseonwalking8666
Filioque is not ok! The Orthodox Argument wins the debate -> God is one but the 3 persons of God have a characteristic. No one can take away a characteristic from one person to drag it to the other because that means demoting one of the 3 persons (this is heresy). The role of the Father - creator , The role of the Son (Son of God/Son of Man) - incarnation/resurrection , The role of the Holy Spirit - truth proceeding !!! From whom? From the CREATOR! Otherwise you diminish the role of the FATHER by putting the Son right next to it, the Father loses it's unique characteristic ,the Son receives an upgrade and the Holy Spirit gets DEMOTED! Read John 15:26, hard to swallow as a Catholic, but it did not say the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son! It only says proceeds from the Father!
There you have it and why Filioque is not ok!
All things that the Father have are Mine
@@javierduenasjimenez7930 in terms of essence, not of hypostatic idioms.
Haven't watched yet, but this one sounds interesting.
St Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!🙏
David won this one, not surprised tho
Wagner carried the day in my estimation. Yes, I also agreed with him before going in.
However, I was surprised how well Erhan did. I just think his case is clearly at odds with the Fathers and thus a much harder argument substantially.
Wagner had a surprising grasp of the nuances of the Fathers. It is clear he does not just study the scholastics.
I pray the oriental schismatics will reconcile themselves to the seat of unity.
Great debate from Erhan, and Wagner, and of course wonderful moderation from Sam. As a non-denom with minimal bias it seems like the prima facie winner is Wagner.
Nope
I agree, when I was Protestant I didn't really know about the filioque nor the controversy, I just assumed the Holy Spirit could only proceed through the Son from a philosophical stand point because if the Son is not necessary as mediator it means there is contingency in God which is impossible.
For example, lets say God made the Holy Spirit proceed without the Son being begotten, would that be possible ?
If not, why would it not be possible logically speaking ?
Clearly the Son is a mediator cause, or else the Spirit's procession would be contingent which again is impossible.
Moreover in the name "Father" it presupposes the Son, so saying that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father is already admitting that the Son is mediator cause because there is no father without a son.
That made the Catholic position de facto more rational to me.
@@mattjackson450 I'm not a confessional protestant, I don't have any creed.
God Bless you Brother
Actually, if the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the father and the Son, then how is He distinguished from the Son?
🤷♂️
why do the father and son share something similar in essence that the holy spirit does not?
We (eastern orthodox christians) say that an realtive apposition (active-passive act) is not necessary in order to make a distinction, there is no logical reason to believe that an relative opposition is necessary.
We can make a distinction between the son and the holy spirit even without those relative oppositions, for example
1. there is a difference in spiration and the procession of the holy spirit.
saint John of Damascus (an exact exposition of the orthodox faith book 1 chapter 8)
„But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are simultaneous.“
So we see that there has to be an distinction between the son and the holy spirit, even without those relative oppositions.
2. form of distinction would be the psychological trinity.
The father is the intellect of the trinity, the son is the thought in the the trinity, the thought is the perfect image of the intellect, the intellect (father) loves his perfect image (the son) and this love is the holy spirit, so we can see that even with the psychological trinity there must be an distinction even without those relative oppositions bc the thought cannot be the love at the same time.
3. form of the distinction would be the way of being generated/proceeding
We know for a fact that the father causes the son by intellect whilst the father causes the holy spirit by will
This again shows a clear distinction between the son and the holy spirit even without those relative oppositions.
God bless.
How can you write a "rebuttal" without first hearing the opponent's opening statement? The fact Christian Wagner had his "rebuttal" already prepared in Powerpoint, while David replied to Christian's opening statement off the cuff, makes Christian appear dishonest and intellectually prideful, while David is genuine and sincere.
ok bud
How? The schism happened like 900 years ago, so I think he has a general idea of the attacks he would face from the EO side. I think this was just as a result of preparation and don't see anything wrong with that
I think he just had additional slides available and had pulled them up because they were relevant.
Let the Schimastic began because he is at a disadvantage…
He doesn’t have Saint Tomas Aquinas
Enlightening and spiritually uplifting.
To be honest, there is an inadequacy of the EO to deal with the Western Fathers, Erhan wasn't prepared to deal with them, this isn't just Erhan's failure it is actually a consistent trend with EO. Believe or not just being named (at baptism) with a Western saints name is frowned upon in EO circles often times and you have to explain to them that the name comes from one of their saints.
The Western Fathers taught the Filioque clearly, the Eastern Fathers maybe or maybe not according to our interpretations, so the logical solution to this would simply be to make the East coherent with the Western Filioque. The debate should actually have focused on those affirming it clearly in the West because the Eastern Fathers mentioned here can just be harmonized (whereas the Western Fathers cannot be harmonized).
Lastly, the distinction between how God works in creation vs how he works in eternity is inadequate here. Because we know that God creates to reflect his own being (logic), so how could he create to reflect his own being (chrono-logic) and have it be non reflective of his inner life ? So the filioque is clearly orthodox, the point on the throne of God in revelation was on point, *yes it is a created reality but that was an image of what God will be doing chronologically for all the rest of eternity guys are you saying God is consistently going contrary to his principle of reflection for all eternity, going against his logical orderning for all eternity?* No it cannot be.
The Catholic Church took the W.
Really pathetic and shameless that you are copy pasting this answer on different accounts, 3 different comments on this video saying the exact same thing. Almost like the catholic church didn't take the W, or else you wouldnt have to be doing this
Frankly it wouldn’t matter if the western fathers taught it. The ecumenical councils, which are a higher authority than local teachers, and the relevant fathers in those councils which dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity (most notably, Nicea and Constantinople I), don’t teach the Filioque. They teach the Orthodox monarchical trinity, and their creed does not have the Filioque .The ecumenical councils are binding everywhere in a way that individual saints are not, even if many of them from a particular region agreed on something. And frankly I don’t buy the argument anyway, St. Maximus’s epistle on this topic throws into serious doubt the notion that a Florentine Filioque existed before the 11th century. You should also check out the history of the whole dispute over this issue before the schism, with St. Photios and Pope St. John
@@basilbhop
I couldn't have said it any better, my brother.
I'm sorry it upset you, I used a different account because I thought my main was banned on Sam's channel as I didn't see the comment show up last night it took some time. I've now deleted the other comment.
However you should have been charitable with me knowing the habit of Sam, God bless him.
Please deal with the comment instead brothers 🙏❤️
@@CHURCHISAWESUM
*Saint Hilary of Poitiers - 4th century*
“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father *and the Son, his sources”* (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
“In the fact that *before times eternal* your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you *through him”* (ibid., 12:56).
*Didymus the Blind - 4th century venerated by syriac, coptic and serbian orthodox*
“As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. *For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son”* (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
*St. Basil The Great - 4th century mentions the word monarchy while affirming filioque*
*“Through the Son,* who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is *joined* to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity” (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
*“[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature,* and the royal dignity *reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit.* Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the *monarchy”* (ibid., 18:47).
As you can see you have the filioque clearly taught, Erhan said the filioque is to believe the Holy Spirit receives his existence from the Father and the Son right ? Then its a done deal.
*Now lets see what St. Maximus the Confessor says :*
*St. Maximus the Confessor, +650 AD)* “Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope 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 the theology of the Trinity and, according to them, says: ‘The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son’. The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shwon that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - *but that they have manifested the procession through him* (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence…. ” (Letter to Marinus - PG 91, 136)
--- St. Maximus can be harmonized easily by saying he speaks of the primordial cause as one, which we also affirm, but that the Spirit could not have come before the Son because it is through the Son that the Spirit receives its distinct existence, there is an interaction. Now if you want to say it is a gift from the Father to the Spirit we can agree as long as this gift is necessarily given as the only possible outcome after the generation of the Son (this is our meaning); and not just one of many other gifts that could have been given or that no gift could have been given as if is simply an arbitrary matter (heretical). We affirm that the Holy Spirit receives his existence through the Son in the sense that without the Son it is impossible for the Spirit to proceed, the Spirit could not have proceeded before the Son, the Son must be the condition or the mediator of the Spirit. If we agree on this, then there is no controversy anymore.
It’s not that you can’t make sound & logical arguments about the Filioque. It’s that the Creed should have not been changed in the first place. Pope John Paul II admitted this by reciting the Creed without it.
St. Gregory of Nyssa on the Filioque:
“If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer - that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another - by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.” To Ablabius.
Notice that St. Gregory of Nyssa says the only way to distinguish the persons is by causality. If the Father is the sole cause of the Son and the sole cause of the Spirit, than that would collapse the Spirit and Son and make them indistinguishable according to St. Gregory.
“It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?” On The Holy Ghost
There's absolutely no way to get around this.
I think this is bulletproof evidence that St. Gregory of Nyssa (as the other Cappadocians) was a filioquist
That’s not necessary in his position. Each person is distinguished by their own hypostatic properties, not how they relate to the hypostatic origin from the Father. And the fathers do distinguish between the manner in which the Son and Spirit come from the Father: the Son by begetting and the Holy Spirit by procession. These two terms are never conflated or substituted in the writings of the fathers, so such distinctions were critical to their trinitarian formulation. Thus the Son and Spirit are distinguished in two ways: one by their hypostatic properties being different in some ways (one could say their roles within the Holy Trinity are different, and these differences constitute hypostatic properties unique to each), and the other distinction is the manner of their coming from the Father: begetting vs procession. Clear enough? The Son and Spirit are distinguishable in two clear ways and neither requires that the Son eternally cause the Spirit.
+bman5257 "... When, therefore, **we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity, as to believe that one Person is the Cause, and another is of the Cause, we can no longer be accused of confounding the definition of the Persons by the community of nature.**"
**__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (ON “NOT THREE GODS”, CIRCA 375 AD)__**
“But if, as is the case, **we acknowledge one nature with the differences of Person**, if, while the Father is believed in, the Son also is glorified, **how can such a Faith be misrepresented by our opponents as preaching Two First Causes**?”
**__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (CHAPTER 34, BOOK I, OF ‘AGAINST EUNOMIUS’, CIRCA 370 AD)__**
“But there is a distinction in the superessential nomenclature of God, not only that which I have mentioned, namely, that each of the One-springing Persons is fixed in the union itself, unmingled and unconfused; but also that the properties of the superessential Divine Production are not convertible in regard to one another. **The Father is sole Fountain of the superessential Deity, since the Father is not Son, nor the Son, Father; since the hymns reverently guard their own characteristics for each of the supremely Divine Persons.**
**__-ST. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE (SECTION 5 OF CAPUT 2, OF THE DIVINE NAMES, 90 AD)__**
"Or again, all the persons belonging to Man do not directly possess their being from the same person, but some from this one and some from that one, so that with respect to the individuals caused **there are also many and__ diverse causes_**_. But with regard to the Holy Trinity, such is not the case,__** for there is one and the same Person, that of the Father_**_, from whom the Son is begotten and __the Holy Spirit proceeds__. **Wherefore indeed, rightly so and boldly do*_*_ we proclaim one God, __one Cause__** together with its Caused Realities, since it coexists with Them."
**__-ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, (AD GRAECAS, CIRCA 375 AD)__**
@@CHURCHISAWESUM If you say the hypostases have any hypostatic properties which go beyond their principles of origin and are superadded to the divine nature, you're a Tritheist. The hypostatic properties in the hypostases as such are the same for all three hypostases. Also, doesn't EO affirm the Damascene's position that the difference between generation and procession cannot be known? If yes, the Spirit and the Word collapse without the Filioque.
I am most impressed by the host. He is so genuine.
Mr Wagner is the winner . But they both did a great job. Full disclosure “I’m Catholic” 😂
Rather than deliberately using sophisms and other cheap attacks I am glad to see them spend their time trying to truly understand each other. David was slippery sometimes, and I think Wagner won. Wagner is my magister in a sense (whether he knows who I am or not) so I might be biased because I am proud of him. Great show guys.
In the Old Testament the Jewish had the Chair of Moses. In the New Testament we have the Chair of St. Peter So Follow the Church that has the Chair of Peter, TODAY! And that is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and that is the Catholic Church. Amen Amen
Source trust me bro
@@LazarOrthodox04 yeah I mean it's not like Christ literally said He was building his Church on St. Peter or that EO has churches not in communion with each other who can't agree on the canon or birth control. It's not like EO accepted the papacy for half of it's existence.
@revelation20232 The pope just said "all Religions are paths to God." He has also been flirting with the notion of blessing same sex unions. At least with contraception, there is room for debate on it's use and whether or not it is ever Permissible and In what context it may or may not be Permissible because Contraception Is a very recent development. Sinse the Orthadox position is that sex within the confinds of marrage is both for the purposes of procreation AND to strengthen the union between husband and wife there might be some room for concession if the couple have permission from their spiritual father and so long as contraception isn't being used for the express purposes of avoiding children all togeather. Which ever side one might fall on the point is it being a topic of debate isn't the biggest concern. "All Religions are a Path to God." on the other hand is not up for debate and can not be the case in the most basic understanding of the faith because Christ is the only way to the Father. The Blessing of a same sex Union even under the assumption that both parties are practising chastity Is also somthing no Christian should be forced to defend coming out of the mouth of a church authority. Just saying, glass houses and all.