@@Warspite39 - Nice try at diversion. I'm not the one on trial, nor are my beliefs. The EO are the ones in question, and it's proving to be the objective case that they are posers and larpers.
This is the best video I've ever seen you do. Very clear explanation of relations of opposition, and your the use of Aristotelian terms, to show how the early Greek Fathers implicitly accepted the relations as the distinguishing marks in the Divine Persons, was excellent. The only thing I'd add is that it's sometimes helpful to contrast relations of opposition with reflexive relations, such as "identical to", which are not of opposition.
This is maybe the best video on filioque. The video makes it all make sense. It's mind blowing. The depth of the doctrine of the trinity. So beautiful. I sound like a clueless person. But I am at awe. Thank Godnfor Wagner digging old Latin book.
I can't believe this is so hard for people to grasp. The fact that language points to things that have a quality only in a relational context (up, down, left, right, light, darkness, father, brother, son, even words like roof point to a relational reality since a roof is called that only in relation to the whole architectural structure), I really don't get how is it so hard to understand that if in the natural world we have this reality in a temporal and material way that the cause of this very reality will be given by someone who is substantial relations instead of accidental relations or monolithic distinctions or modalist distinctions, just silly to me. Thank you for your work brother.
@@FirstActualitya hypostasis in the Trinity is the substantial relation, in Latin you can understand this better since hypostasis means suppositum, in a suppositum you have qualities that are deposited in the suppositum, so the hypostasis is a union of qualities, in Christ suppositum you have divinity and humanity deposited in it, and in the divine persons you have the other relations deposited in each suppositum, so the only true distinction is relational and not in modes of being or acting since that would bring about modalism, that Father does the same thing that the Son does, only with a relational difference, meaning that is the Father doing that thing and not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, but the activity is one and the same, since God is just one pure act and not three acts.
Was reading a part of Gregory of Nyssa's Contra Eunomius the other day and I took away three things: 1. Father's constitutive property is that He begets the Son 2. Gregory of Nyssa destroys Dyers critique of the same act not being able to do different things in God (e.g. create and destroy), St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes him with examples of same hand movement doing different works and other great examples. 3. Eunomius actually held to a kind of essence energy distinction which while maybe not identical is certainly much closer to EO neopalamism than anything the Cappadocians taught.
@@bradleyperry1735 they aren't they're genuinely under the delusion that any amount of justifying the filioque will solve the problem of subordination of the Holy Spirit in an essential manner
@@SILLY_BILLY_777If the Son having the productive power subordinates the Holy Spirit. Then under your model the Son and Spirit are subordinated to the Father because He has the productive powers which they lack. If you just spent 10 seconds thinking you can see how bad this objection is 😭
Oh no, are you saying that just as Rabbinic Judaism was re-formed against Jesus Christ, so Eastern Orthodoxy was re-formed against Rome? Both with contempt for their origins and traditions? How rude.
Honestly, the universal opposition to Catholicism is astounding sometimes. Like I've seen Protestants and Orthodox side with each other in their dislike of Catholicism, and it's like, wait a minute....
The EO missed The Church the same way the Jews missed Jesus. Proof that Jesus was the Messiah was that he conquered Rome and replaced it with his Church. The EO react identical to the Papacy Exactly as the Jews do towards Christianity. Too proud to watch their younger brothers rule.
@@BryanKirch always makes me sad when people don't see the story of Rome for what it is. Christ's triumph over the empire that carried out the sentence
@@dailyDorc yeah it’s in plain sight and people just get caught up in all these tangents. Even Catholics don’t understand. I think it’s the single most under discussed typology. Who do you feel articulates the concept most strongly?
@BryanKirch I think there's 2 books, Dominion by Tom Holland and Triumph by Crocker. The 1st is an easier sell to non Catholics but the 2nd is awesome in it's unapologeticly Catholic. Don't know if anyone has distilled either into an elevator pitch but that would be my approach. Those aren't really scholarly and the tricky thing about making it a quick summary is you sort of have to get the person looking at history w a zoomed out frame. Like trying to discern God's providence throughout history. And some people just aren't going to see it that way
@@Warspite39 Orthodox patriarchs pray with muslims, and the russian ortho churches are subservient to the russian government, which allows islam as a state religion. And after Constantinople was conquered in 1453, the patriarch was literally appointed by the ottoman muslims and their puppet. And we went against what was agreed upon at the council of Florence. But keep coping orth-dog.
@@Warspite39 Even St John of Damascus and the harshest critics said they believed in the same God. I suggest looking and reading said criticisms of islam.
I literally read the SVSPress version of the Five Theological Orations of Saint Gregory the Theologian, and the Trinitarian Chapters of Saint John of Damascus from an Old Translation by the Catholic University of America Press, and both taught Relation of Opposition. They conflate the teaching of these figures, that the Fatherhood, Sonship and Sanctify being not merely relational distinctions but truly a sort of quality of the Hypostasis with meaning that it isn't relational. It's both, held as such by the perfection of each Hypostasis of the Godhead in their nature. This idea that it one or the other to the Eastern Fathers is just absurd. While I am not Thomist and lean towards the Eastern Fathers, such as Saint Maximus, Saint John of Damascus and the Cappadocians, I consistently cringe when I see Eastern Orthodox try and insult the Thomist tradition or just compromise the Eastern Tradition just to own the Latins. It's revolting, and is foreign to even figures like Gregory Palamas, Photius of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus. Eastern Orthodox Dogmatics has taken the Tradition of the Church to only decide on matters when heretics get it wrong, and warped it to basically means that anything the "heretics" (Catholics) say, they believe the opposite. It's this weird clown Magesterium, which while in the process, rejects views that they formerly held. The Immaculate Conception is the perfect example. The Eastern Orthodox Fathers, from Photius onwards, taught it. There is no debate on this. But as so as the Catholics say it's a Dogma, suddenly a common view of all the Pillars of Orthodoxy is a "Papist Innovation." They would have done this for the Assumption if it wasn't such a major feast of their Calendar.
I don’t think you are really getting at the same point the EO apologists are talking about. The question is not “do Aristotelean models of how names can refer to relational opposition apply to the names of the persons of the trinity,” like obviously to be father relates to having a son, the question is if that is the primary mode by which the persons are revealed or not? If I say ‘the East’ I’m opposing it to the ‘West’ and implying the object I’m referring to exists in relation, but the intelligibility of the objects in question depends on prior understanding the map and the cardinal directions. Without the map the relation would be meaningless, so the intelligibility of a relational opposition depends on a formal context by which the relation can hold. The EO critique is not that once we all have a map we can understand what East and West mean, the issue is whether we first need the formal context of the single essence of God to make the revealed the persons intelligible. They would posit that we are first revealed the persons and the persons reveal themselves as father, son and spirit. It’s an epistemic priority question, ie does the essence or the hypostases of the persons take first place in the intelligibility of the persons. Once everyone is looking at a map everyone understands what East a West is as an oppositional relation, hence eastern fathers that can in the context of defending agaisnt ariansm or whatever employ the relational content of the names, the question is whether that’s what those things primarily (as in epistemic priority) are. I typed this out on my phone and very tired forgive any errors or clunkiness in explanation.
Of course no response to this. Another way to put it is in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic properties. Father is only father in relation to a son, but a sole Cause does not have to have an effect, or a source of light does not require something to be illumined for it to be light.
I find this critique a source of circularity on Orthodox arguments as it tries to debunk scholasticism through this epistemic priority as pre requisite to defining these relations of opposition since we all know we all operate in the realm of logic. Some will say that TAG is above logic that is if one is graced with the "nous", but claiming that doesn't even equate one has that grace specially when charity is absent in one's character. Can we honestly say Jay Dyer has the nous or those orthobros who are generous in commenting in a condescending manner about the Catholic faith has it? Defining it as a doctrine doesn't make Orthodox arguments any better than Catholics. The nous is a gift of God to those who are transformed into his image and likeness. Only the Saints might have reached that point. But definitely all of us arguing in this internet space hasn't got to that point. Until such time, God left us a church that can discern through its journey through age and has given us the gift of scholasticism to aid us in knowing Him.
Can you do a video on action and operation in the Cappadocians? It would be helpful to see a thomistic interpretation of the beginning of “on not three Gods” or letter 234
You need to do a series of videos going on the offensive against the orthodox position. They constantly force latins to defend their dogma but rarely are on the receiving end themselves. You can’t just let these truculent mouthbreathers attack the papacy constantly, you should be reciprocating the treatment.
@@Twin2241My Church venerates neither of them. The Eastern Churches shouldn't be venerating them but it's tolerated. I think it's problematic and the Pope should cease this practice in those churches, for they are/were schismatic-heretics and not holy men. Perhaps an argument can be made for Photius who is said to have been rehabilitated, but definitely not the heretic Mark of Ephesus who rejected a legitimate ecumenical council.
@@Twin2241 No we do not and they are not saints according to the church. This is kyle level objections, so low tier that it doesn’t even deserve a response but if we want to play this game your church venerates St. Aquinas and St. Francis Xavier and many other post schsim saints. All roads lead to Rome.
That makes sense. A Father is definitionaly a relation. Just like a Son. To claim that transcendence would somehow exclude a relation in the use of the these terms is to render the terms used irrational.
Lest someone argue that there must be a substantive relation between the divine persons and distinct from them by which they relate, consider the risk of Bradley's Regress.
Could you please sometimes touch this topic? Is it better to be or not to be? (to exist ot not to, human or animal) Some utilitarists think it's better just not to be. What would be the Catholic answer ? (more phylosophically). Thanks
@@dainironfoot5834 my answer would be that God, Who is goodnes and love personified, identified Himself with the name I AM, telling us that He is ultimate being personified. Therefore God teaches us that in Him goodness and existence are the same as the divine essence
Lutheran here I almost became EO because of Jay Dyer but it started to crack and in my spiritual life i felt good but still something was up. It was like good with all the asceticism but soemthing was wrong. Came back to Lutheranism.
St. Gregory Nazianzus the Theologians asserts that the Holy Spirit *hypostatically proceeds* from the *Father alone*, and that the Son sends forth the *manifestation* of the Spirit.
It's turning out that the Eastern Orthodox are emotionally serious without being intellectually serious.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Are you seriously adoring god along with the muslims? as lumen gentium 16 and nostra aetate 2 & 3 clearly state?
@@Warspite39 - Nice try at diversion. I'm not the one on trial, nor are my beliefs. The EO are the ones in question, and it's proving to be the objective case that they are posers and larpers.
From the Father THROUGH the Son does not equal filioque. None of the quote mines in the video teach the filioque.
Many such cases
So many Catholic W’s I can’t keep track of them all
Is praying in Mosques with Muslims a "Catholic W"?
The symptom of being correct.
@@jordanmiller3927 I know right. We Catholics adore god along with the muslims. How could they say otherwise! Crazy!
This is the best video I've ever seen you do. Very clear explanation of relations of opposition, and your the use of Aristotelian terms, to show how the early Greek Fathers implicitly accepted the relations as the distinguishing marks in the Divine Persons, was excellent. The only thing I'd add is that it's sometimes helpful to contrast relations of opposition with reflexive relations, such as "identical to", which are not of opposition.
This is maybe the best video on filioque.
The video makes it all make sense. It's mind blowing.
The depth of the doctrine of the trinity. So beautiful. I sound like a clueless person. But I am at awe.
Thank Godnfor Wagner digging old Latin book.
I can't believe this is so hard for people to grasp. The fact that language points to things that have a quality only in a relational context (up, down, left, right, light, darkness, father, brother, son, even words like roof point to a relational reality since a roof is called that only in relation to the whole architectural structure), I really don't get how is it so hard to understand that if in the natural world we have this reality in a temporal and material way that the cause of this very reality will be given by someone who is substantial relations instead of accidental relations or monolithic distinctions or modalist distinctions, just silly to me. Thank you for your work brother.
@@FirstActualitya hypostasis in the Trinity is the substantial relation, in Latin you can understand this better since hypostasis means suppositum, in a suppositum you have qualities that are deposited in the suppositum, so the hypostasis is a union of qualities, in Christ suppositum you have divinity and humanity deposited in it, and in the divine persons you have the other relations deposited in each suppositum, so the only true distinction is relational and not in modes of being or acting since that would bring about modalism, that Father does the same thing that the Son does, only with a relational difference, meaning that is the Father doing that thing and not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, but the activity is one and the same, since God is just one pure act and not three acts.
so , are we talking about communal ontology
Was reading a part of Gregory of Nyssa's Contra Eunomius the other day and I took away three things:
1. Father's constitutive property is that He begets the Son
2. Gregory of Nyssa destroys Dyers critique of the same act not being able to do different things in God (e.g. create and destroy), St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes him with examples of same hand movement doing different works and other great examples.
3. Eunomius actually held to a kind of essence energy distinction which while maybe not identical is certainly much closer to EO neopalamism than anything the Cappadocians taught.
So goated so fire like always.
Ave Christus Rex et ave Maria, mater Dei.
3:53 Total Jesuit Victory
To study the Church Fathers is to reject Eastern Orthodoxy
@@bradleyperry1735 Not at all.
@@bradleyperry1735I just wanted to warn you in some years you will cringe when remenbering these comments. Take care
@@bradleyperry1735 they aren't they're genuinely under the delusion that any amount of justifying the filioque will solve the problem of subordination of the Holy Spirit in an essential manner
@@SILLY_BILLY_777If the Son having the productive power subordinates the Holy Spirit. Then under your model the Son and Spirit are subordinated to the Father because He has the productive powers which they lack. If you just spent 10 seconds thinking you can see how bad this objection is 😭
@@dwong9289 if the Son has the productive power, then why doesnt the Spirit also have it?
Eastern Orthodox will deny basic doctrines found in both east and west (such as Filioque) then point to outliers to make their case. Pray for them.
God will not hear your satanic prayers
@@GeorgeRaptis-t3m Ask God to humble your heart and to touch you with his grace and you will see the truth.
@@GeorgeRaptis-t3m be quiet schismatic heretic
@@GeorgeRaptis-t3m” said the schismatic.
FILIOQUE IS THE BIGGEST BLASPHEMOUS HERESY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Oh no, are you saying that just as Rabbinic Judaism was re-formed against Jesus Christ, so Eastern Orthodoxy was re-formed against Rome? Both with contempt for their origins and traditions? How rude.
Honestly, the universal opposition to Catholicism is astounding sometimes. Like I've seen Protestants and Orthodox side with each other in their dislike of Catholicism, and it's like, wait a minute....
The EO missed The Church the same way the Jews missed Jesus. Proof that Jesus was the Messiah was that he conquered Rome and replaced it with his Church. The EO react identical to the Papacy Exactly as the Jews do towards Christianity. Too proud to watch their younger brothers rule.
@@BryanKirch always makes me sad when people don't see the story of Rome for what it is. Christ's triumph over the empire that carried out the sentence
@@dailyDorc yeah it’s in plain sight and people just get caught up in all these tangents. Even Catholics don’t understand. I think it’s the single most under discussed typology. Who do you feel articulates the concept most strongly?
@BryanKirch I think there's 2 books, Dominion by Tom Holland and Triumph by Crocker. The 1st is an easier sell to non Catholics but the 2nd is awesome in it's unapologeticly Catholic. Don't know if anyone has distilled either into an elevator pitch but that would be my approach.
Those aren't really scholarly and the tricky thing about making it a quick summary is you sort of have to get the person looking at history w a zoomed out frame. Like trying to discern God's providence throughout history. And some people just aren't going to see it that way
I’m convinced there’s no difference between online Eastern Orthodox and the Dawah guys
We're finally getting some anti orthodox stuff. I am tired of their lies and how they slander Christ's true apostolic Catholic church.
I know right. We Catholics adore god together with the muslims! They need to start praying in mosques also!
@@Warspite39 Orthodox patriarchs pray with muslims, and the russian ortho churches are subservient to the russian government, which allows islam as a state religion.
And after Constantinople was conquered in 1453, the patriarch was literally appointed by the ottoman muslims and their puppet. And we went against what was agreed upon at the council of Florence. But keep coping orth-dog.
@@Warspite39your daddy, Jay “soy boy” Dyer fills your head with lies. Go make pacts with the Lutheran Church.
@@Warspite39
Even St John of Damascus and the harshest critics said they believed in the same God.
I suggest looking and reading said criticisms of islam.
@@vaderkurt7848 So are you admitting you worship the same god as muslims?
Hi Wagner may you list all the books quoted from which saints here east and west? So that I can read through their books? Please?😅
Hey I just go the book "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott. Any thoughts on it?
👍👍👍
Very good but not great. He’s not a true thomist.
@@MuttonBiryani1994why?
@@igorlopes7589 He errs on the doctrines of grace and free will. His views are not thomistic.
@@MuttonBiryani1994 Ott's a molinist??
I literally read the SVSPress version of the Five Theological Orations of Saint Gregory the Theologian, and the Trinitarian Chapters of Saint John of Damascus from an Old Translation by the Catholic University of America Press, and both taught Relation of Opposition. They conflate the teaching of these figures, that the Fatherhood, Sonship and Sanctify being not merely relational distinctions but truly a sort of quality of the Hypostasis with meaning that it isn't relational. It's both, held as such by the perfection of each Hypostasis of the Godhead in their nature. This idea that it one or the other to the Eastern Fathers is just absurd. While I am not Thomist and lean towards the Eastern Fathers, such as Saint Maximus, Saint John of Damascus and the Cappadocians, I consistently cringe when I see Eastern Orthodox try and insult the Thomist tradition or just compromise the Eastern Tradition just to own the Latins. It's revolting, and is foreign to even figures like Gregory Palamas, Photius of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.
Eastern Orthodox Dogmatics has taken the Tradition of the Church to only decide on matters when heretics get it wrong, and warped it to basically means that anything the "heretics" (Catholics) say, they believe the opposite. It's this weird clown Magesterium, which while in the process, rejects views that they formerly held. The Immaculate Conception is the perfect example. The Eastern Orthodox Fathers, from Photius onwards, taught it. There is no debate on this. But as so as the Catholics say it's a Dogma, suddenly a common view of all the Pillars of Orthodoxy is a "Papist Innovation." They would have done this for the Assumption if it wasn't such a major feast of their Calendar.
This was extremely clarifying, thank you.
I don’t think you are really getting at the same point the EO apologists are talking about. The question is not “do Aristotelean models of how names can refer to relational opposition apply to the names of the persons of the trinity,” like obviously to be father relates to having a son, the question is if that is the primary mode by which the persons are revealed or not? If I say ‘the East’ I’m opposing it to the ‘West’ and implying the object I’m referring to exists in relation, but the intelligibility of the objects in question depends on prior understanding the map and the cardinal directions. Without the map the relation would be meaningless, so the intelligibility of a relational opposition depends on a formal context by which the relation can hold. The EO critique is not that once we all have a map we can understand what East and West mean, the issue is whether we first need the formal context of the single essence of God to make the revealed the persons intelligible. They would posit that we are first revealed the persons and the persons reveal themselves as father, son and spirit. It’s an epistemic priority question, ie does the essence or the hypostases of the persons take first place in the intelligibility of the persons. Once everyone is looking at a map everyone understands what East a West is as an oppositional relation, hence eastern fathers that can in the context of defending agaisnt ariansm or whatever employ the relational content of the names, the question is whether that’s what those things primarily (as in epistemic priority) are. I typed this out on my phone and very tired forgive any errors or clunkiness in explanation.
Of course no response to this.
Another way to put it is in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic properties. Father is only father in relation to a son, but a sole Cause does not have to have an effect, or a source of light does not require something to be illumined for it to be light.
I find this critique a source of circularity on Orthodox arguments as it tries to debunk scholasticism through this epistemic priority as pre requisite to defining these relations of opposition since we all know we all operate in the realm of logic. Some will say that TAG is above logic that is if one is graced with the "nous", but claiming that doesn't even equate one has that grace specially when charity is absent in one's character. Can we honestly say Jay Dyer has the nous or those orthobros who are generous in commenting in a condescending manner about the Catholic faith has it? Defining it as a doctrine doesn't make Orthodox arguments any better than Catholics.
The nous is a gift of God to those who are transformed into his image and likeness. Only the Saints might have reached that point. But definitely all of us arguing in this internet space hasn't got to that point. Until such time, God left us a church that can discern through its journey through age and has given us the gift of scholasticism to aid us in knowing Him.
Can you do a video on action and operation in the Cappadocians? It would be helpful to see a thomistic interpretation of the beginning of “on not three Gods” or letter 234
You need to do a series of videos going on the offensive against the orthodox position. They constantly force latins to defend their dogma but rarely are on the receiving end themselves. You can’t just let these truculent mouthbreathers attack the papacy constantly, you should be reciprocating the treatment.
Pray for the Greeks. They emulate the same prideful arrogance as their “saints” such as Mark of Ephesus and Photius.
Catholics venerate them too lol
@@Twin2241nope
@@Twin2241My Church venerates neither of them. The Eastern Churches shouldn't be venerating them but it's tolerated. I think it's problematic and the Pope should cease this practice in those churches, for they are/were schismatic-heretics and not holy men. Perhaps an argument can be made for Photius who is said to have been rehabilitated, but definitely not the heretic Mark of Ephesus who rejected a legitimate ecumenical council.
@@Twin2241 No we do not and they are not saints according to the church. This is kyle level objections, so low tier that it doesn’t even deserve a response but if we want to play this game your church venerates St. Aquinas and St. Francis Xavier and many other post schsim saints. All roads lead to Rome.
@@Twin2241 can you morons stop saying this
That was really good.
Excellent video!
Excellent thumbnails
it looks like the guy from breaking bad and pewdiepie
You're referring to Walter White
That makes sense. A Father is definitionaly a relation. Just like a Son. To claim that transcendence would somehow exclude a relation in the use of the these terms is to render the terms used irrational.
great stuff as always
Catholic Trinitarianism > Photian Trinitarianism
Lest someone argue that there must be a substantive relation between the divine persons and distinct from them by which they relate, consider the risk of Bradley's Regress.
Holy spirit proceeds from the Father.
and the Son
and with the Son is adored and glorified
..and has spoken through the prophets.
@@MilitantThomistproceeds from the Father.
@@egonomics352 and the Son.
Devastating to Eastern Heterodox
The rizz is strong with this one
Could you please sometimes touch this topic? Is it better to be or not to be? (to exist ot not to, human or animal) Some utilitarists think it's better just not to be. What would be the Catholic answer ? (more phylosophically). Thanks
Existence is fundamentally good
@@dotdash2284 Sure, but why?
@@dainironfoot5834 my answer would be that God, Who is goodnes and love personified, identified Himself with the name I AM, telling us that He is ultimate being personified. Therefore God teaches us that in Him goodness and existence are the same as the divine essence
Top notch from Wagner.
Insightful
No one has to know any of this to be saved. Ww only have to know the only true God for everlasting life through Jesus Christm. Jn17:3
what is the source of this low church protestant aversion and hatred of anything theological?
Agnus Dei
Its sad to see sam shamoun is okay with EO and other orthos
I'm in a baroque era. Don't got no geld man
The Categories is a work of speech not being as such.
Is the notion of modes heresy?
jesuit W
God does possess un created operations.
Lutheran here I almost became EO because of Jay Dyer but it started to crack and in my spiritual life i felt good but still something was up. It was like good with all the asceticism but soemthing was wrong. Came back to Lutheranism.
L prot
Why Lutheranism?
You didn’t feel any draw toward Catholicism?
I'm a former Lutheran and I became Catholic because Lutheran theology is fundamentally flawed and lacks apostolic succession.
@@USDebtCrisis I was asking OP but Glory to God you came home !
They are anything but orthodox. They shall be called 'Eastern Heterodox' and it would make much more sense.
jesuit dub
St. Gregory Nazianzus the Theologians asserts that the Holy Spirit *hypostatically proceeds* from the *Father alone*, and that the Son sends forth the *manifestation* of the Spirit.
No where does he say Father alone. You literally interpolated that.
On the Holy Spirit Fifth Theological Oration
@@egonomics352 No where does he say that in Fifth Theological Oration. You put "Father alone" into the text.
Literally the Luther "faith alone" move lol@@egonomics352
@@egonomics352 Wow you just straight out lied.
Your are POLYTHEISTS. The Holy Spirit has ONE SOURCE (THE FATHER) NOT TWO.
We agree. The Son is not a second source
@dm16411 that’s incorrect. They just don’t understand why the Father is the monarch. The Father is still the monarch in Filioque
@dm16411 Said the antichristian Noahide!
You are a heretic, the holy Spirit is the Son own spirit just as the father
Rom 8-9
GAL 4-6