Thanks for the kind words. I try to take my time, produce higher quality work and remove any personal issues that may distract from the arguments. And yes, I was at one time in the REC with Fr. Trenham & others, but I was not raised in it. I was baptized Catholic, raised in ECUSA, then some non-denom as a teenager, then REC, then ACC and then Odox all of which covers 50+ yrs.
Don't forget Fr Stephen De Young, Fr Andrew Damick and Jonathan Pageau. You should also do a Catholic or Muslim apologist tier list to balance things out
EO here; I'd put Pageau and Deyoung as S, and Damick is a high B. Some people might not count them as apologists though, because they don't do many debates or that kind of "us vs them" content.
Seraphim Hamilton is probably the one I tune into most frequently, though Jeem has made some interesting content (and Telosbound, at least, when his channel was starting)
My fiancé who is EO goes to a church that’s almost entirely convert so the claim you don’t see this stuff irl is disputable. Her parents run the bookstore and they have convertadox books everywhere that are anti-Catholic because they are threatened by my existence (before it was only anti prot books).
@@horusgodson perhaps. It’s all young guys who watch dyer, so me sniping one of their few women is such an own lmao. I’m also flattered that my low levels of tism threaten them enough to reorganise the bookstore! Love your content king, pretty sure I followed below 100 and will continue to do so
@@jebbush2527 thanks king! I always appreciated your comments on my videos (like you said, you've always been there since the beginning of my channel)
EO apologetics are a lot of ex Prostestants that use Similar arguments, & EO's can be really Cocky & Smug. God bless love the Channel 🙏🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic! you Forgot Brother Nathaniel im joking.
It isn't the Orthodox who claim their patriarch is the supreme ruler of the planet and the Triune God's personal messenger on Earth. Someone who follows a doctrine that the Roman See "cannot be questioned" ought to think twice before accusing others of being cocky.
You have a lot of Cocky People who are Big mouths.Jesus Christ gave Saint Simon Peter the keys in Matthew 16 -19) & EO's where fine until Politics, Ex EO Dr James Lukidus even said & I have many ex EO friends who said politics. God bless if you want to debate let's go! 🙏🙏✝️✝️🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic. I'll say it again a lot of EO apologetics are Calvinist & mix in EO apologetics. Look your a Big mouth yourself. 🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦 All the Schisms many were Started by the EO's
@@patrickbarnes9874 Over in Russia if you're not EO the Russian Church is Run by Politics, that's a Huge part of the EO's Political Nonsense! Everything was fine in the Councils, & Dr James Lukidus even said. Jesus Christ gave Saint Simon Peter the keys 🗝️🗝️ & Go watch Bellarmite he has good apologetics vs the EO's. God bless 🙏🙏🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic. Many of your apologist are big mouths no offense, don't come barking at me.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I do apologize earlier for coming off the way I did. I have a really bad back issue right now & it's making me a little grumpy. God bless you 🙏🙏
@@patrickbarnes9874To what you said though I have a ex Russian Orthodox family that came to America & became Catholic, they said in Russia they were forced to be Russian EO. The EO is in Schism right now to we all have issues but Jesus Christ said what he said to Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS & gave him the keys 🗝️🗝️ The EO Church was ok with the Pope until late Council's & it was political. Going back to the point a lot of the few EO Apologist are Cocky & Smug & use Prostestant talking points. There's a lot of EO people that want Reunion & stop the Schism. The way Prostestants Argue against the Body & Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist is the Arguments EO apologetics argue against Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS being the lead Apostle as Jesus Christ gave him, even the Apostles argued in the Early Church. God bless 🙏🙏🗝️🗝️🇻🇦🇻🇦💯 Catholic in Jesus Christ from Jesus Christ to Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS 🗝️🗝️ Another thing is Saints Peter CEPHEUS & Paul died & spent a lot of time in Rome more then Antioch & Constinople Jerusalem Nicea so,on.
B for Luigi? Are y'all serious? His Twitter arguments are ridiculous. "You Catholics have Crucifixes! That disproves Catholicism." Seriously? LOL!! And he blocks everyone who disagrees.
Not exactly on topic, but does anyone have any good resources for proving Catholicism is the correct form of Christianity? I am interested in what Catholics would approve of representing their faith and positions. Anything such as videos or books on any subject would be appreciated.
Thanks for the question. I can answer it but I just want to inquire a bit. What background are you coming from and are there any particular issues that you have trouble with?
@@kaiseruhl Thank you very much for the quick response. I grew up Protestant and have rarely heard the Catholic perspective. I realize my question was extremely broad, but I suppose any books or videos that would refute the Orthodox claims about the Filioque and the role of the papacy would be most interesting. There are a lot of videos on these subjects, but I wanted to see if there were any resources Catholics endorse that best approach the topics.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say to read Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. It's cheap, easily available and a fun read. I'm guessing you're from America as well so it's a history of Christianity from the Anglosphere. The Papacy and the Filioque both feature in that piece of work. If you want something more modern I'd suggest the books by St. Robert Bellarmine that Ryan Grant is publishing at Mediatrix Press. There are volumes on the Papacy but not the Filioque. It's mainly geared against the Protestants but it's good against Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Especially since the EOs use a lot of Protestant arguments against the Papacy. God bless!
Hi Steve. We've thought about that and we might do it. However, I think it would be more effective if you guys make your own list of us. You guys know which one of us provide arguments that give you trouble and ones that don't. Which ones force you to do research to respond to us, etc.
@@kaiseruhl Part of me would like to see how you rank the Dimond Brothers, Gerry Matatics, and any other Sede-V apologists you are aware of. I do hope that TOP takes up your challenge, as I would be interested to hear his ranking of RC apologists.
I'm laughing at 35.29...'England was orthodox before William the Conqueror'... So many eastern orthodox like to vociferously claim that St Patrick of Ireland was actually orthodox; they even make icons of him. Even though he was sent to Ireland by the Pope....
@@SaltyPalamite he is able to do it, I think, because he talks about many things that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy... at least not directly. This gets people into his audience that would not be there if Orthodox apologetics were his only focus.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Fr John, he calls people names, like "retards." By the way, I think you are great, and could listen to you for hours. I like Truglia too. Both of you conduct yourself like holy Christian men. God bless you.
@@SaltyPalamite Dyer is not dumb - I can see why many people are attracted to his style. With that said he tends to do a "Dyer dump" in his apologetics - referencing a, b, c, x, y, z sources and presuming they all agree with him in a short period of time without diving further. I'm not as well-read as Allan on this stuff but I will disagree with him in thinking Jay beat Trent. I honestly think it was largely 50-50. Jay was kind of slippery (and he is smart), but I think Trent was far more steeped in the thought of the Christian tradition throughout the millennia, while Jay was unusually interested in using enlightenment/post-enlightenment thinkers (like Quine and Hume) to make his case which I don't think bodes well for EO. There's a reason that the TAG that Jay is so fond of began in reformed thought and not Orthodox thought - and that reason is theological (total depravity)
@@newglof9558 Never said he was dumb. He just doesn't conduct himself like a gentlemen. And yeah, he got the TAC stuff from van Till. But Dyer just asserts it, and doesn't really give a detailed argument for it. And he certainly doesn't show why, "Logic, therefore EO." All it shows is "logic therefore God."
Here are the actual rankings: S: Fr Seraphim Rose, S: David Bradshaw, Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, A. Edward Siecienski, Peter Boutenoff, Fr Laurence Cleenewerck, Fr Andrew Stephen Damick, Fr Stephen de Young A: Fr Trenham, Fr John Whiteford, Craig Truglia, Ubi Petrus, Fr Paul Truebenbach, Seraphim Hamilton, Perry Robinson B: Kyle (very clever and funny videos), Peter Heers (needs to cut the re-baptism nonsense), Fr Peter Gillquist (great life story), Fr Patrick Ramsey, Father Spyridon, Michael Whelton, Fr. John Strickland C: Luigi (moving up), Fr. Deacon Ananias Sorem (very thoughtful, not a jerk like Dyer), Father Joseph Suaidan (knows his stuff, might rank higher) D: David Erhan, Down the Rabbit Hole (supremely arrogant) F: Robert Spencer (Zionist), Jay Dyer
Instead of ranking catholic apologists maybe rank catholic theologians from the past century. Would be a good tool to know who to study and who to avoid for people interested.
How dare you say something about Jimmy akin he believes in evolution and Paul Doesn't. The other Paul thinks everything you believe in the Catholic church is a lie
@@marvalice3455siding with Bible perverts is so little too are you besties what's the other Paul do you cheer him on when he's criticizing Catholic doctrine
@@marvalice3455going after a fellow Catholic and calling him sneaky when he's debating a Protestant about solar scriptura and Jimmy's is holding him to solar scriptura that's sneaky
@@TheJackjack look. I understand that this is a war of belief, and that we ought to be united. But that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to even have personality clashes. That doesn't mean we can never disagree on what proper form is, or how to best carry out the fight. And when those differences are manifest, it is understandable that we might air any grievances we may feel. This is a normal part of being human. We all ought to be more saintly, and we all have a lot to work on in this regard. But making accusations against someone you don't know, on behalf of someone else you don't know, is not productive
@@marvalice3455 Philippians 2:2 God enjoys unity among people who have "the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" 1 Corinthians 1:10 "Have no divisions" John 13:35 "Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples" John 17:23 "May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me" 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 "Live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose"
35:00 actually the take that the west did change the Filioque doctrine has grounds to stand on. The Roman chancery used Maximus's letter to Marinus to explain their position at that time, the same letter that Florence rejected centuries later.
The council of Florence never straight-up condemned the letter to Marinus, they simply called its authenticity into question (which many scholars still do today). The matter was never fully settled. But either way, Bessarion gives a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the letter.
@@horusgodson Setting aside who are the scholars who question the letter, would you not say that, if it's true, then that's a bit of a problem for the RC position? I've seen people say that there's no contradiction between "the two form a single principle" and "the Father is the sole source of the Godhead" but I just don't see it. And here's the thing, that letter is not the only witness. Hadrian I had to correct the Franks when they were confessing what pretty much sounds like the Florence doctrine. If Hadrian I is not of the same mind as Florence that shows something changed. Same thing with the Roman chancery at the time of St Photios telling him that he was actually strawmaning the western position and that their actual position could be found in Maximus's letter. It seems like Rome changed their position, and now in the 21st century they changed it again by basically accepting the Orthodox doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit. If the Father begets the Son that's one principle. If then the Father together with the Son spirate the Spirit then that's a second principle, the Father and the Son forming a single principle to generate the Spirit. This seems to contradict the Cappadocian doctrine of Monarchical Trinitarism.
@@AugustoMagno1973 sure, one could argue that, but in the long run these are unproven assertions in which we're just arguing about where the evidence swings and what vague inferences can be drawn from the evidence (which I think is an unhealthy method of debate).
It's undoubtedly true that the Roman church changed its dogma on the filioque. The filioque was added to the creed in an effort to combat the Franks' Arianism and the only way it would have an effect on that heresy is if it meant that the Spirit originated with the Son. Simply passing through the Son would not prove the Son's divinity and thus would be worthless in the struggle against Arianism. Then in 1982 the church declared that the Father is the sole origin of the Spirit. There's no way that doctrine hasn't changed. And it isn't vague inferences, it's just common sense. You have to be engaging in motivated reasoning to reach a different conclusion.
Thanks for the kind words. I try to take my time, produce higher quality work and remove any personal issues that may distract from the arguments.
And yes, I was at one time in the REC with Fr. Trenham & others, but I was not raised in it. I was baptized Catholic, raised in ECUSA, then some non-denom as a teenager, then REC, then ACC and then Odox all of which covers 50+ yrs.
Don't forget Fr Stephen De Young, Fr Andrew Damick and Jonathan Pageau. You should also do a Catholic or Muslim apologist tier list to balance things out
EO here; I'd put Pageau and Deyoung as S, and Damick is a high B. Some people might not count them as apologists though, because they don't do many debates or that kind of "us vs them" content.
Seraphim Hamilton is probably the one I tune into most frequently, though Jeem has made some interesting content (and Telosbound, at least, when his channel was starting)
My fiancé who is EO goes to a church that’s almost entirely convert so the claim you don’t see this stuff irl is disputable. Her parents run the bookstore and they have convertadox books everywhere that are anti-Catholic because they are threatened by my existence (before it was only anti prot books).
Allan's speaking from personal experience. I think every EO I've known was a convert as well. Granted, I think it's more of a U.S. phenomena.
@@horusgodson perhaps. It’s all young guys who watch dyer, so me sniping one of their few women is such an own lmao. I’m also flattered that my low levels of tism threaten them enough to reorganise the bookstore! Love your content king, pretty sure I followed below 100 and will continue to do so
@@jebbush2527 thanks king! I always appreciated your comments on my videos (like you said, you've always been there since the beginning of my channel)
EO apologetics are a lot of ex Prostestants that use Similar arguments, & EO's can be really Cocky & Smug. God bless love the Channel 🙏🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic! you Forgot Brother Nathaniel im joking.
It isn't the Orthodox who claim their patriarch is the supreme ruler of the planet and the Triune God's personal messenger on Earth. Someone who follows a doctrine that the Roman See "cannot be questioned" ought to think twice before accusing others of being cocky.
You have a lot of Cocky People who are Big mouths.Jesus Christ gave Saint Simon Peter the keys in Matthew 16 -19) & EO's where fine until Politics, Ex EO Dr James Lukidus even said & I have many ex EO friends who said politics. God bless if you want to debate let's go! 🙏🙏✝️✝️🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic. I'll say it again a lot of EO apologetics are Calvinist & mix in EO apologetics. Look your a Big mouth yourself. 🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦 All the Schisms many were Started by the EO's
@@patrickbarnes9874 Over in Russia if you're not EO the Russian Church is Run by Politics, that's a Huge part of the EO's Political Nonsense! Everything was fine in the Councils, & Dr James Lukidus even said. Jesus Christ gave Saint Simon Peter the keys 🗝️🗝️ & Go watch Bellarmite he has good apologetics vs the EO's. God bless 🙏🙏🙏🇻🇦🇻🇦🗝️🗝️💯 Catholic. Many of your apologist are big mouths no offense, don't come barking at me.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I do apologize earlier for coming off the way I did. I have a really bad back issue right now & it's making me a little grumpy. God bless you 🙏🙏
@@patrickbarnes9874To what you said though I have a ex Russian Orthodox family that came to America & became Catholic, they said in Russia they were forced to be Russian EO. The EO is in Schism right now to we all have issues but Jesus Christ said what he said to Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS & gave him the keys 🗝️🗝️ The EO Church was ok with the Pope until late Council's & it was political. Going back to the point a lot of the few EO Apologist are Cocky & Smug & use Prostestant talking points. There's a lot of EO people that want Reunion & stop the Schism. The way Prostestants Argue against the Body & Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist is the Arguments EO apologetics argue against Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS being the lead Apostle as Jesus Christ gave him, even the Apostles argued in the Early Church. God bless 🙏🙏🗝️🗝️🇻🇦🇻🇦💯 Catholic in Jesus Christ from Jesus Christ to Saint Simon Peter CEPHEUS 🗝️🗝️ Another thing is Saints Peter CEPHEUS & Paul died & spent a lot of time in Rome more then Antioch & Constinople Jerusalem Nicea so,on.
Eastern orthodox apologists prove that Eastern Catholicism is true 😂🙏🇻🇦✝️☦️
B for Luigi? Are y'all serious? His Twitter arguments are ridiculous. "You Catholics have Crucifixes! That disproves Catholicism." Seriously? LOL!! And he blocks everyone who disagrees.
Clark Carlton's book "The Way" is excellent.
This book is what pushed me over the edge into Orthodoxy. I am never looking back
My former orthodox priest call ancient faith ,ancient fraud radio,snd he meant it.
Fr. Seraphim (Rose) is a figure that should probably have been considered.
Not really an apologist in the contemporary sense of the word, though his book on nihilism was a darn good read.
Not exactly on topic, but does anyone have any good resources for proving Catholicism is the correct form of Christianity? I am interested in what Catholics would approve of representing their faith and positions. Anything such as videos or books on any subject would be appreciated.
Thanks for the question. I can answer it but I just want to inquire a bit. What background are you coming from and are there any particular issues that you have trouble with?
@@kaiseruhl Thank you very much for the quick response. I grew up Protestant and have rarely heard the Catholic perspective. I realize my question was extremely broad, but I suppose any books or videos that would refute the Orthodox claims about the Filioque and the role of the papacy would be most interesting. There are a lot of videos on these subjects, but I wanted to see if there were any resources Catholics endorse that best approach the topics.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say to read Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. It's cheap, easily available and a fun read. I'm guessing you're from America as well so it's a history of Christianity from the Anglosphere. The Papacy and the Filioque both feature in that piece of work. If you want something more modern I'd suggest the books by St. Robert Bellarmine that Ryan Grant is publishing at Mediatrix Press. There are volumes on the Papacy but not the Filioque. It's mainly geared against the Protestants but it's good against Eastern Orthodoxy as well. Especially since the EOs use a lot of Protestant arguments against the Papacy. God bless!
I agree with some here and the other video ranking Protestants that y’all should rank Catholic apologists next to balance them out.
I agree with this
Hi Steve. We've thought about that and we might do it. However, I think it would be more effective if you guys make your own list of us. You guys know which one of us provide arguments that give you trouble and ones that don't. Which ones force you to do research to respond to us, etc.
@@kaiseruhl I agree. It would be a little awkward tbh.
@@horusgodsonyeah that's a good point. Didn't think of that
@@kaiseruhl Part of me would like to see how you rank the Dimond Brothers, Gerry Matatics, and any other Sede-V apologists you are aware of. I do hope that TOP takes up your challenge, as I would be interested to hear his ranking of RC apologists.
Ubi Petrus is top tier.
Father Bless - he is indeed, and I think you're A tier for sure. Sincerely, a Uniate.
I'm laughing at 35.29...'England was orthodox before William the Conqueror'... So many eastern orthodox like to vociferously claim that St Patrick of Ireland was actually orthodox; they even make icons of him. Even though he was sent to Ireland by the Pope....
If you are talking about people who are attracting people to Orthodoxy, Fr. Josiah Tranham and Jay Dyer are at the top.
Fr Trenham is great. But the fact that Dyer is attracting anyone to EO is not a point in favor of EO.
@@SaltyPalamite he is able to do it, I think, because he talks about many things that have nothing to do with Orthodoxy... at least not directly. This gets people into his audience that would not be there if Orthodox apologetics were his only focus.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Fr John, he calls people names, like "retards." By the way, I think you are great, and could listen to you for hours. I like Truglia too. Both of you conduct yourself like holy Christian men. God bless you.
@@SaltyPalamite Dyer is not dumb - I can see why many people are attracted to his style. With that said he tends to do a "Dyer dump" in his apologetics - referencing a, b, c, x, y, z sources and presuming they all agree with him in a short period of time without diving further.
I'm not as well-read as Allan on this stuff but I will disagree with him in thinking Jay beat Trent. I honestly think it was largely 50-50. Jay was kind of slippery (and he is smart), but I think Trent was far more steeped in the thought of the Christian tradition throughout the millennia, while Jay was unusually interested in using enlightenment/post-enlightenment thinkers (like Quine and Hume) to make his case which I don't think bodes well for EO.
There's a reason that the TAG that Jay is so fond of began in reformed thought and not Orthodox thought - and that reason is theological (total depravity)
@@newglof9558 Never said he was dumb. He just doesn't conduct himself like a gentlemen. And yeah, he got the TAC stuff from van Till. But Dyer just asserts it, and doesn't really give a detailed argument for it. And he certainly doesn't show why, "Logic, therefore EO." All it shows is "logic therefore God."
Hard for me to put Fr Patrick Ramsey is S after watching several of his debates, esp with Albrecht.
Please do Romanist apologists next 🙏
Allan did the stream where you and Christian debunked Kyle get deleted? That stream was awesome.
Al im down on you not giving jay dyer a triple F .
I knew fr.Peter Gilchrist in campus crusade back in the day.
You ranked Trenham too high, in my view.
Seraphim Hamilton is amazing
No Whelton?!
Here are the actual rankings:
S: Fr Seraphim Rose, S: David Bradshaw, Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, A. Edward Siecienski, Peter Boutenoff, Fr Laurence Cleenewerck, Fr Andrew Stephen Damick, Fr Stephen de Young
A: Fr Trenham, Fr John Whiteford, Craig Truglia, Ubi Petrus, Fr Paul Truebenbach, Seraphim Hamilton, Perry Robinson
B: Kyle (very clever and funny videos), Peter Heers (needs to cut the re-baptism nonsense), Fr Peter Gillquist (great life story), Fr Patrick Ramsey, Father Spyridon, Michael Whelton, Fr. John Strickland
C: Luigi (moving up), Fr. Deacon Ananias Sorem (very thoughtful, not a jerk like Dyer), Father Joseph Suaidan (knows his stuff, might rank higher)
D: David Erhan, Down the Rabbit Hole (supremely arrogant)
F: Robert Spencer (Zionist), Jay Dyer
you forgot Orthodox Shahada!!!
Instead of ranking catholic apologists maybe rank catholic theologians from the past century. Would be a good tool to know who to study and who to avoid for people interested.
How dare you say something about Jimmy akin he believes in evolution and Paul Doesn't. The other Paul thinks everything you believe in the Catholic church is a lie
Are you really scandalized by so little?
@@marvalice3455siding with Bible perverts is so little too are you besties what's the other Paul do you cheer him on when he's criticizing Catholic doctrine
@@marvalice3455going after a fellow Catholic and calling him sneaky when he's debating a Protestant about solar scriptura and Jimmy's is holding him to solar scriptura that's sneaky
@@TheJackjack look. I understand that this is a war of belief, and that we ought to be united.
But that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to even have personality clashes. That doesn't mean we can never disagree on what proper form is, or how to best carry out the fight. And when those differences are manifest, it is understandable that we might air any grievances we may feel.
This is a normal part of being human. We all ought to be more saintly, and we all have a lot to work on in this regard. But making accusations against someone you don't know, on behalf of someone else you don't know, is not productive
@@marvalice3455 Philippians 2:2
God enjoys unity among people who have "the same love, being of one accord, of one mind"
John 17:21
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"
1 Corinthians 1:10
"Have no divisions"
John 13:35
"Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples"
John 17:23
"May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me"
1 Corinthians 12:12-13
"Live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose"
35:00 actually the take that the west did change the Filioque doctrine has grounds to stand on. The Roman chancery used Maximus's letter to Marinus to explain their position at that time, the same letter that Florence rejected centuries later.
The council of Florence never straight-up condemned the letter to Marinus, they simply called its authenticity into question (which many scholars still do today). The matter was never fully settled. But either way, Bessarion gives a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the letter.
@@horusgodson Setting aside who are the scholars who question the letter, would you not say that, if it's true, then that's a bit of a problem for the RC position? I've seen people say that there's no contradiction between "the two form a single principle" and "the Father is the sole source of the Godhead" but I just don't see it.
And here's the thing, that letter is not the only witness. Hadrian I had to correct the Franks when they were confessing what pretty much sounds like the Florence doctrine. If Hadrian I is not of the same mind as Florence that shows something changed. Same thing with the Roman chancery at the time of St Photios telling him that he was actually strawmaning the western position and that their actual position could be found in Maximus's letter. It seems like Rome changed their position, and now in the 21st century they changed it again by basically accepting the Orthodox doctrine on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
If the Father begets the Son that's one principle. If then the Father together with the Son spirate the Spirit then that's a second principle, the Father and the Son forming a single principle to generate the Spirit. This seems to contradict the Cappadocian doctrine of Monarchical Trinitarism.
@@AugustoMagno1973 sure, one could argue that, but in the long run these are unproven assertions in which we're just arguing about where the evidence swings and what vague inferences can be drawn from the evidence (which I think is an unhealthy method of debate).
@@AugustoMagno1973 I do grant, however, that maybe it's not as unfounded an assertion as I initially thought (maybe I'll need to study it more)
It's undoubtedly true that the Roman church changed its dogma on the filioque. The filioque was added to the creed in an effort to combat the Franks' Arianism and the only way it would have an effect on that heresy is if it meant that the Spirit originated with the Son. Simply passing through the Son would not prove the Son's divinity and thus would be worthless in the struggle against Arianism. Then in 1982 the church declared that the Father is the sole origin of the Spirit. There's no way that doctrine hasn't changed. And it isn't vague inferences, it's just common sense. You have to be engaging in motivated reasoning to reach a different conclusion.