What is the Filioque? | An Intro and Argument

[@CatholicDwong]

It was great collabing with you Sanctus! Check the description for the Script and sources for the quotes!

[@imjustwatchingyoutube8725]

I thought i recognized your voice💀 great video to you both🙌🏾

[@nicbentulan]

Please more anti islam videos

[@timothyjordan5731]

I recommended that Alexanderh2345 contact both you and Sanctus. There is no good reason for anyone to have problems with Filioque.

[@ingenieriaavanzada3391]

This channel is a jewel of Catholic theology, deserves to be known more

[@ultraninja1151]

I was getting scared that he would not post because its been a long time but the goat is back brother also God Bless Anyone Who is Reading This Jesus Loves You

[@Palleoge]

all my homies love dwong and sanctus

[@CatholicDwong]

❤

[@OVOFloyd]

I have been teetering between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism for a year now. Please pray for my capacity to discern!

[@CatholicDwong]

This video should help 🙏 If the Filioque is true, then Eastern Orthodoxy does not possess the fullness of truth, and thus can’t be the true Church.

[@OVOFloyd]

@@CatholicDwong thank you bro! I will also be sure to check out your channel as well! God bless!

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

Yo I’m going through the same thing

[@OVOFloyd]

@@CorneliusCorndogJr Nice to know someone going through the same thing, it’s so hard bro 😭

[@smalldog12321]

@@OVOFloyd Same here, i have even not been baptized yet. Because i know that one church has the full truth

[@Theonewhoknocks879]

I love videos about the trinity, it’s so fascinating. You’ve quickly become my favourite Christian KZbinr.

[@timothyjordan5731]

If only one single Church Father taught the Filioque. that would be reason enough for the separated brethren to take it seriously. When they condemn the Filioque, they are condemning all these Church Fathers. I could not live with such a contradiction. That is why I am and will remain Catholic.

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

@@timothyjordan5731 politics plays a big role in the separation, and maybe it’s the main reason. The theology of the Filioque is just the excuse similar to how a divorcing couple use their children as a pawn to gain leverage. The Patriarch of Constantinople immediately started saying that he was #1 when Constantine moved the Roman capital to that city. Part of his claim was that he was the one counseling the emperor and he was the Bishop of the most important city of the Empire. But Rome responded and the Patriarch fell back in line, but not happy. That tension lasted and grew until they finally split in 1054. You’ve probably never heard that bit of history?

[@DC-zz7fm]

It is so beautiful to see knowledgeable young Catholic defending the Church. God Bless you guys and your work. I think a cool video might be about the harmonization of the Filioque with the Monarchical model of the Trinity.

[@Triniforchrist]

Dwong videos goes into that

[@Idishrkdmd]

the greatest Filioque video for the average person amazing work.

[@Matei375]

Filioque bros remain undefeated

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

Protestants also believe in the Filioque.

[@alonzoharristhemuslimcoper]

​@@TheScholarlyBaptist Yo bro nice channel !! ❤

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

@@alonzoharristhemuslimcoper 😳 idk whether to be thankful or embarrassed.

[@katholischetheologiegeschi1319]

Define protestants first of all ​@@TheScholarlyBaptist

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 Core tenets of Protestantism. Sola scriptura, Solus Christus, sola Gratia, sola fide, and Soli Deo Gloria.

[@CriticalThomist]

Very good video Sanctus, doing the Thomists out here a favour ❤

[@thisis_chavez]

I learn a lot from this page. God bless the admin/admins of this page

[@nock_5]

Love the content man. Seems like this video took a lot of research! One small thing... the audio was very quiet. I like to listen to you on my commute, but I had to turn the volume up so loud that my GPS screams at me. Keep up the good work!

[@MuttonBiryani1994]

That Jerome quote at the end is awesome. Thanks.

[@SacredReason]

✝️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.

[@BinBakuti]

I just found your account bro and bro I like the calmness✝️☦️

[@jaredtheelite1466]

This video was so good, it convinced to subscribe and turn on notifications, hope your future videos are just as good if not better than this one

[@harrisonphillips8365]

Sanctus and dwong collab W

[@JohnByler7]

Outstanding scholarly video!

[@jordanmiller3927]

Amazing video

[@johnbryant1939]

Thank you for this video, you have cleared this up for me better than anyone I have seen, and after checking out the sources, I find it hard not to agree with the Catholic church. This issue and the role of the papacy have been the the two hardest issues to over come on deciding on rather to join the Orthodox, or the Catholic church. Thank you, so much!

[@AlbanianChristianity]

Thanks for the document, I shared it with someone. Good job.

[@Walker.238]

Please, pray for me, as I am in doubt if I should still be a Roman Catholic or I should convert to Eastern Orthodoxy and scared that I chose wrong

[@Error._.404]

I would suggest to read the church fathers

[@richardruiz8396]

I believe that the Filioque on my Cross is my true passion and my truth of Procession of the Word Spoken by the One God.

[@timothyjordan5731]

This does not make sense.

[@richardruiz8396]

Well I okay just not to much to getting it Right.

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

@@richardruiz8396 I think he meant that your sentence doesn’t make sense. This second response makes no sense either. Use Google translate.

[@Dagothdaleet]

Very informative. I have been considering Christianity and this is a major issue

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@GiasoneP]

Excellent.

[@micheal9301]

SANCTUS THE GOAT

[@SanctusApologetics]

Yessir

[@TheScholarlyBaptist]

he is my 10th favorite catholic.

[@micheal9301]

@@SanctusApologetics you could've explained in the first premise that if there is no opposition between the son and the spirit therefore they would collapse as one person-hypostatically identical, and that would imply that the Spirit is begotten; being begotten is a relation, every relation has a termini, begotten requires the foundation of begetting, the Son is begotten from the Father(the begetter) likewise the holy spirit proceeds from the Father (the begetter) if this is the case then Both the Son and The Spirit are begotten simultaneously under the EO Paradigm. And that the modes of procession - intellect and will - are only virtually distinct from each other. However a virtual distinction of modes is not sufficient in grounding a real distinction of Persons. Thus there needs to be relative opposition, so their modes of origin won't save the orthobros.

[@marcokite]

@@SanctusApologetics - I was RC but now i've rejected the heresy of the filioque and am Orthodox- thanks be to God!

[@cordasuenaviolin604]

Explain why it is a heresy, man, instead of simply baselessly claiming such a thing.​@@marcokite

[@nukeplatine]

The Son is immediately begotten. The Spirit proceeds mediatedly. If the Father gave the Son everything, except fatherhood, then this everything includes the ability to expire the Spirit.

[@pegasusu1094]

As a Catholic, I've always wondered if the Filioque debate is caused by Human Error due to Language. Of Course the Infallibility of the Greek Nicene Creed means there is no error, but translations are human. I've been wondering if the section of the Filioque within Greek is not translatable to it's full meaning. Vice versa Filioque Latin to Greek. To the Greeks the Literal definition of Filioque seems like Blasphemy, but if made into the same definition of the one in Greek then it's technically solved? (As is the case that whenever Greek Creed is said in Eastern Catholic Churches aka they Remove/disregard Filioque cause it doesn't make sense whenever the original Greek is present). Well this is one of the ways the East and West have tried to reconcile TLDR: I think the Best way to reconcile the Filioque, is to use it for all other Languages, and to remove it in Greek (using the original word instead) or another option is using "Through the Son" as it seems to be the closest we can get in English to the Essence of the meaning of the original word in Greek. Shorter TLDR: Procedere in Latin is a generic term when translated to Greek, while Greek has very specific translations to different tyles of procedere. ἐκπορεύεσθαι has no equivalent in Latin and English to properly convey its meaning.

[@dewd9327]

Here is what I have found. The Orthodox Catholic Church affirms the filioque as professed by St. Maximus the Confessor: “ The Romans have produced unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers and also of Cyril of Alexandria from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of st John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the son the cause of the spirit- they know in fact that the father is the only cause of the son and the spirit, the one by begetting the other by procession. But they use this expression in order to manifest the sprits combing forth through him and in this way to make clear the unity and identity of essence” The Council of Florence and so the Roman Catholic Church states: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. This Roman Catholic filioque seems to Orthodox Catholics to be contrary to the one held by St. Maximus even as Roman Catholics insist that it is not. I have delved into the 2 filioques several times but have yet to figure out if and how they differ and they use differing terminologies and some terms that have the same name in Orthodox and Roman theology in fact end up meaning different things leading to confusion as to whether they are saying the same thing or not.

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

@@pegasusu1094 politics played the biggest role. The theology is just the excuse similar to how a divorcing couple use their children as pawns to gain leverage. The Patriarch of Constantinople immediately started claiming that he was #1 after Constantine moved the Roman Capital to that city. His claim was that he was the one counseling the Emperor in the most important city of the Empire. Rome responded and the Patriarch fell back in line, but not happy. This tension lasted and grew until the split of 1054.

[@EsseDei]

This might be the best introduction!

[@adrianpaneda6467]

Wasn’t the Nicene creed made unchangeable at the council of Nicaea?????

[@Mortylicious_]

Dwong collab ‼️🐐

[@emirobinatoru]

Bro is majestic

[@marcokite]

Heresy is never majestic

[@harrisonphillips8365]

@@marcokiteyou out here coping and yapping, literally anything but refuting his arguments

[@DM5550Z]

@@harrisonphillips8365 Im manichaean (yes we are being revived) so heretic is so common im unphased

[@annie5725]

@@marcokiteI think this person is talking about the person speaking, not the topic at hand

[@cordasuenaviolin604]

How so if you cannot explain why it is heresy?​@@marcokite

[@Christianger-gj7th]

I wonder if he has actually read on the Church Fathers, im just saying St. John of Damascus teaches clearly that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father Alone and so does Maximos the Confessor

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

cause is taken in the sense of "principle cause" and from in the sense of "originated from the principle cause" as Cardinal Bessarion demonstrates. This is why he says, in another place, "He Himself [the Father] then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit." - Militant Thomist In his Letter to Marinus (PG 91, 136), Maximus claimed that in using the filioque the Romans, "do not make the Son the cause of the Spirit, for they know that the Father is the one cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession, but they show the progression through him and thus the unity of the essence."

[@Triniforchrist]

Damascus was wrong

[@dewd9327]

@@CorneliusCorndogJr the Orthodox Church affirms the filioque as held by St. Maximus the Confessor, the reason the Roman Catholic filioque is viewed with suspicion is because the wording of the council of Florence seems to be directly contradicting the filioque of St Maximus - in fact the letter to Marinus was presented by the Greek delegation as the explanation for the filioque several times but apparently this was rejected each time by the Roman Church.

[@Christianger-gj7th]

@@CorneliusCorndogJr didn't David Erhan Refute that Militant Thomist Argument?

[@cerealbowl7038]

Regardless of whether or not the filioque is doctrinally true, the Pope of Rome did not have the authority to amend the Creed with neither an ecumenical council, nor the consent of the Pope of Alexandria and the the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

[@koppite9600]

Peter was given authority to teach, he didn't have to consult anyone. The disciples relied on Peter to strengthen them. All patriarchs should take from the Pope and feed their flock. The Pope doesn't rely on his patriarchs, he taps from Christ.

[@cerealbowl7038]

@@koppite9600 Non sequitur

[@koppite9600]

@@cerealbowl7038 You have teachers apart from Peter, that's impossible. Imagine Peter and Paul having different teachings, you paint us in bad light.

[@eyoo369]

@@koppite9600 The collegial model in Acts 15 shows that decisions were made collectively by apostles and elders, rather than by one central authority. Even passages like Galatians 2:11-12 where we see Paul correcting Peter about how to deal with Gentile believers. The early Church fathers eventually continued to build upon this understanding and eventually became finalised in the Acts of Jerusalem. This episode portrays the church's commitment to accountability among its leaders and emphasized that the TRUTH of the gospel was above any one apostle’s actions.. even Peter’s. The book Acts 15 clearly affirms that there is a shared leadership without requiring submission to a single figure. This has been significant for churches like Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome. Every church held their early ministry adapting to the level understanding and local challenges of that region but were united by their ecumenical creeds. This is what contributed to the massive success and widespread of Christ' teachings across the world.

[@CurrentResident-dh1qt]

Well the first part is, It's True!

[@sweetnerevar7030]

Queue in the orthobros who converted just because of aesthetics trying their best to debunk it

[@hll97fr16]

If there is a distinction between two objects (relative opposition) therefore one proceed from the other. Am I correct?

[@andrewpaul3130]

It will be better if Santus produces his own English subtitle to avoid miscommunication for viewers and listeners. Thank you in Christ.

[@manueljardimfernandes9456]

What’s the name of the painting in 7:44

[@petereilu5498]

Screenshot and put in to google

[@SacredReason]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

[@hll97fr16]

Also did not understand why what distinguish divine persons has to be "the order of cause/wich is caused" and not "the way they are caused". Why the mode of procession would not ground the distinction of persons?

[@CatholicElijah]

Fathers say that the difference between being beggoton and proceeding is that begetting comes from one whereas proceeding comes from two. (The video literally covers this)

[@hll97fr16]

​@@CatholicElijah Thank you. However, this does not respond to my question. You are saying that there is a difference between processing and begoting (a difference of the mode of generation). I was asking, if there is such difference, can it be used to differentiate between the persons ? If no, then we don't really care about what the fathers or your comment say, because even if they were a difference of mode, it cannot be used to differentiate the Son from the Spirit. If yes, therefore the P1 of the theological demonstration is false, because there exist a way to differentiate betwen the person that is not a relative opposition.

[@CatholicDwong]

The reason is because begetting and spiration, which are processions by way of intellect and will, are only virtually distinct from each other. A mere virtual distinction is not sufficient for grounding a real distinction of the Persons. Thus, there must be relative opposition (as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Basil assert) to ensure a real distinction of Persons.

[@hll97fr16]

@@CatholicDwong Ok so then the difference between begetting and spiration is not a difference of "one is from one" and "the other is from two", as my first respondent was claiming. But ok no problem going with your definition. How do you know that will and intellect are not really distinct, and that they are only virtually distinct ? Is this linked to divine simplicity, that we cannot break God attributes into parts ?

[@CatholicDwong]

@@hll97fr16 yes it is linked with Divine simplicity. If intellect and will are really distinct, then God will composed of a union of intellect and will two really distinct parts, making Him composite

[@ivoandrijasevic2826]

Konstantinopolis failed in Osman hand on the day of PENTACOSTE 29.05 1453.I belive it was not coincidence

[@achilles4242]

I like what the Orthodox are getting at and I appreciate that they are so careful to not offend the Lord. For them, to have the Son as a necessity in the hypostatic existence of the Spirit suggests that there is something the Father lacks with respect to communicating the divine substance, which is why you’ll see concessions to the patristics whereby you’ll see things the Orthodox say like Eternal Manifestation or Energetic Procession. Because to them, these do not prevent the Son having *something to do with the Spirit’s procession but at the same time it allows the Father to be the sole cause in the trinity and to communicate the divine substance “in fee simple” in a legal sense, if anyone knows what I mean. From our Catholic perspective, we look through the lens of idiosyncratic hypostatic properties, and the unity of the divine substance as something which provides firm grounding for understanding the Filioque, given the Father being named Father suggests a notionally prior existence of Son to Spirit and that the Father’s property is properly called “paternity” and not just “cause.” Which, maybe that’s a point we can hash out to start: Is the Father’s hypostatic property “cause” or is it “paternity?” At least, in the positive sense. In the negative sense, both Catholic and Orthodox agree that the Father is “unbegotten.” What does everyone else think? If I am wrong I am open to correction. God bless.

[@timothyjordan5731]

"The Father and I are One." "All that the Father has is Mine." "As the Father does, so the Son does likewise." End of dispute.

[@timothyjordan5731]

The Father has two (2) hypostatic properties; generation and processing. Nowhere does Jesus ever address His Father with the philosophical and highly impersonal appellation of "cause." The Father originates two (2). The Son, together with the Father, originates one (1). The Spirit, is originated by two (2) and originates none (0).

[@timothyjordan5731]

The root of the monopatrist heresy is the unScriptural premise that the "Father alone" is the cause of the other two Persons. Where is this in Sacred Scripture? I have posted three (3) Dominical sayings that disprove that. The Father HAS two (2) hypostatic properties, because He DOES two (2) things, because He IS two (2) things. When we are talking about God and about Divine Persons, being, having and doing are the exact same thing.. Our Lord did NOT say "The Father and I are One except in the procession of the Holy Spirit". Our Lord did NOT say "All that the Father has is Mine, except for the property of processing the Holy Spirit." Our Lord did NOT say "As the Father does, so the Son does likewise, except for processing the Holy Spirit." The only exception that can be validly inferred from all these is; "I and the Father are One in all things except, obviously, He is the Father and I am the Son." "All that the Father has is Mine, except obviously, He has Fatherhood and I don't and that I have Sonship and He doesn't." "As the Father does, so the Son does likewise, except, I obviously don't Father Myself." Contact me on Messenger and we can share phone numbers and discuss in more detail. I live in Grande Prairie , Alberta and am on Mountain Time. I did my Honours Thesis on the Filioque controversy back in 1983. Almost every heresy uses the word "alone"; "Sola Scriptura", "Sola Fidei", "Sola Gratia" and "Sola ex Patre procedit". Heretics divide rather than unite.

[@timothyjordan5731]

If we use the term "cause" then we must also use it's corollary, "effects". Cause and effect are concepts more applicable to the created universe than to the eternal God. The Western Church Fathers use these terms circumspectly. We do not speak of the Son and Spirit as "effects". It is true that the Byzantine and Antiochian Fathers used the language of causality ("arche") and the Florentine Definition also used these terms, albeit in a qualified manner, but the Western Church Fathers did not use the terminology of "monarchy of the Father". We should seek to balance the two approaches rather than pit them against one another. The Council of Florence did just that. Still, I repeat that nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Father alone is the source of the other two. Even if we do use the concept of "the Monarchy of the Father" it would necessarily follow that the Kingly Father, Who processes the Spirit, would beget a Princely Son, Who likewise processes the Spirit.

[@achilles4242]

@@timothyjordan5731 I really like your responses but…you know I’m Catholic right?

[@hiltonchapman4844]

Please I find it difficult to make out what you're saying from 11:15 to 11:25. "Saint ???? thought (or is it "taught"?) the Filioque is wrong." Immediately following that there's this one: "Saint ???? the Roman deacon, in De Spiritus Sanctus,..." The transcript accompanying this video is not very helpful in these matters. The spelling typos are way worse than the spoken commentary. This is an extremely critical topic. I shall be sincerely grateful if you clarify what you mean? Thanks! HC-JAIPUR {21/07/1024) .

[@CatholicDwong]

The written script is very clear. It says: St. Paschasius the Roman Deacon in De Spiritu Sancto, Book I, Ch. 12 found in [PL 62, 23D-4A] says the same thing: “The Spirit is said to be sent by the Father and the Son, and to proceed from Their substance (substantia procedere)…. If you ask what distinction is to be drawn between generation and procession, there is clearly this difference, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both (ex utroque progreditur).”[14] St. Paschasius taught the Filioque.

[@alvaradoac21]

Uh why is your year of comment listed as 1024? The year is 2024?

[@hiltonchapman4844]

@@alvaradoac21 Mea culpa! Just goes to show how fallible man is! Thank you sincerely for taking the trouble! HC-JAIPUR (22/07/2024) .

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

From a laity standpoint, this argument doesn’t matter. None of it makes sense to me anyway. Do you truly understand the Trinity? Not me. My brain is too small. All I know is that I don’t need to know nor understand that water is made of H2O to enjoy a cold glass of water to cool off in the summer. Just the same, however the Spirit arrived to me, I don’t need to know nor understand how to benefit from or enjoy His blessings.

[@dynamic9016]

It surely matter what we believe when it comes to matters of Faith or Morality..Will you subscribe to any denomination teachings..

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

@@dynamic9016 which teachings do other religions have. Don’t lie? Don’t murder? Don’t steal? Don’t commit adultery? Are those all false teachings that all religions have? I wonder where they got those moral teachings from? Hmmmmmm🤔

[@nicbentulan]

Liking to support, but my vote is please give more Islam videos. Lol.

[@genmarparaiso6444]

❤❤

[@EliB207]

Western Christianity not just Catholic.

[@JohnRodriguez-si9si]

John 14:26 and John 15:26 are New Testament Scripture passages are ( mis)used by the Eastern Orthodox Church , to justify why They believe that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father . 🇺🇸🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦🗽🦅📜🙏✝️☦️

[@marcokite]

No!!!!! not mis-used - the LORD Jesus made clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In TIME AND SPACE He comes to us from the Father through the Son.

[@CatholicDwong]

@@marcokite did you watch the entire video?

[@harrisonphillips8365]

@@CatholicDwonghe obviously didn’t lmao

[@JohnRodriguez-si9si]

@@CatholicDwong So Now You and Harrison Phillips are going to tell Me, John Rodriguez , as You " Laugh My Ass Off ( LMAO) " , as if the Buttocks , somehow, literally fall off during laughter, a stupid assed computer term made up by Morons , and used by Yourself. 🇺🇸🇺🇲✝️🤬🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕

[@sergiofernandes6798]

Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church!

[@JamesfromCamp]

Respond to syf talks newest video brother 🙏 maybe even debate at this point

[@Michael-qq2co]

🤔

[@chadambrose9523]

Ofc he’s a hot guy saying all this

[@bryanhodge3978]

Why argue about creeds? Why bind creeds? Why not simply stick with Bible?

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

They don’t believe in sola scriptura

[@ELChamuco-ug7tf]

Your tradition shows the falsehood of Sola Scriptura. Protestantism has resurrected all of the heresies, including Modalism and Arianism that the ancient Church had defeated because you all have your own personal interpretations that contradict each other.

[@boomstick617]

because the bible says to look to sacred tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Not to mention, sacred tradition was in existence before the bible was fully compiled in the late 4th century. How could christians before the 4th century be christian without the bible if according to sola scriptura, only the bible and discernment is needed for salvation?

[@eyoo369]

@@CorneliusCorndogJr Protestantism has breeded / resurrected more heresies compared to other denominations. This is primarily the problem with "sola scriptura" is that it opens up everyone to interpret it however it feeds their personal goals. Its no wonder that all false church branches originated from Protestantism

[@Patriottia]

nope, i refuted this easily

[@AlonzoHarris235]

Why does it stop with the Holy Spirit? Why is there no person from or through the spirit? Why does it stop with the spirit?

[@marcokite]

Exactly!! Orthodoxy now!

[@godfreym3550]

Why does it need to continue?

[@AlonzoHarris235]

@@godfreym3550 It’s not by free Will. The son is not begotten by free Will. The spirit is not spirited by free Will. Why can two persons cause a person. Why can’t the third person cause a person? Begetting and spiriting are actions. These actions are not necessary to be god. If it was necessary the spirit must have the same property and action. If it’s not necessary. Why does it stop at the spirit?

[@vertiasluxmea]

“There is no need to go on to infinitude in the divine processions; for the procession which is accomplished within the agent in an intellectual nature terminates in the procession of the will.” [STI, Q27, Art.3, Ad.1]

[@CatholicElijah]

There are only 2 immenant actions in the Trinity therefore there can only be 3 persons. This objection is terrible

[@barretoleandroariel]

I'm born and raised catholic and this kind of things are making me come to terms that I'm going to join the orthodox church. I admire your diligence to study but it circles around confirmation, I wouldn't call this heretic but misguided since from Genesis 1 we have that The Word and The Spirit are parts of the One True God. It diminishes the importance of the persons by assigning presiding roles. The Word is the creator force and it enters the creation through The Spirit by the will of The Lord of Hosts to take the nature of the creation and fulfill the role of The Son but it never stopped being The Word. I'm kind of sorry that the church fathers entered in such discussion that only caused division, heresies such as unitarianism were to be uprooted but then this was unnecessary.

[@ashleysbored6710]

You look like my friend's boyfriend

[@timothyjordan5731]

In order to uphold Mono-Patrism, you must disregard and dismiss innumerable passages in Sacred Scripture, many of which are words of Jesus Christ Himself. You must disregard or dismiss the entire Western tradition and Church Fathers for whom the Filioque was never a controversy. You must disregard and dismiss many brilliant Church Fathers and presume that the Sun of the Holy Spirit never shone West of Constantinople. You must disregard and dismiss the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence which were sincere attempts at ending the Schism and have no counterparts from the Orthodox. You must consider yourself more intelligent and more holy than Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Bonaventure. You must disregard and dismiss the fact that your a priori assertion that the Father ALONE sources the other Persons (Your precious "monarchy of the Father"), has no support at all in Sacred Scripture. You must regard all the many overtures of the Catholic Church toward the Orthodox as only sinister plots for world domination. You must ignore the holiness and obvious hand of Divine Providence in the life of the Catholic Church, while ignoring the many scandals in Orthodoxy. I do not see all this as "proceeding from" Christian humility and love of God. I see a sectarian attitude and a serious case of pride. When was the last time we saw an Orthodox say "Hmm! That's a good point. I'll have to think about that."?

[@turro3212]

Photios , biggest coper of all hellas

[@Konishi14]

He’s venerated as a saint in your church

[@godfreym3550]

No he is not.

[@harrisonphillips8365]

@@Konishi14no he’s not 🤦

[@Konishi14]

@@harrisonphillips8365 melkites and other eastern catholics venerate him, I’m not being snarky but please learn about your own religion

[@Konishi14]

@@harrisonphillips8365 he’s venerated by Melkites and other eastern catholics, not trying to be disrespectful but please learn your own religion

[@papergarr1766]

Total filioque victory

[@Jon-xq3kn]

You put more faith in John than you do in Jesus.

[@koppite9600]

We should put faith in the Church as Christ said it shall not pass away and teachings are always safe. The Catholic Church.

[@ΚωσταντίνοςΜίγκος]

Filioque is great heresy!!!

[@ny6gj6ci1u]

Womp-womp

[@dewd9327]

It is when professed in a manner not in keeping with St Maximus the Great. The filioque as explained by St Maximus is completely Orthodox and can be used by the Orthodox Catholic Church - whether or not the Roman Catholic filioque is different from the Orthodox one is debated even as the explanation of the filioque in the roman Catholic council of Florence seems to affirm a filioque contrary to the one professed by St. Maximus. But Roman Catholics deny that this is the case of course leading to confusion as to whether or not the two are in fact the same or not.

[@petereilu5498]

Satan mark of Ephesus

[@TeslaUsimaVesla7625]

And the proof for that?

[@Triniforchrist]

No you are

[@alexanderh2345]

Scripture does not state that the Son is eternal. You can’t find it anywhere. You must imply its meaning. We do not build doctrine off of man’s implications, but rather the plain words in which God reveals it. To believe in an eternally begotten Son is to deny the true grace of God. Rather than believing grace to be the will of God, as Scripture supports, the trinitarian believes in a counterfeit grace that comes not from the will of God but by nature. In other words, God didn’t choose to incarnate himself in flesh, but rather by virtue of God’s nature he was forced into the incarnation. There was no other alternative than for the Father to beget the Son because it is the natural disposition of God’s being. This is farcical, because it was after the counsel of God’s own WILL that he created the worlds, and thereby chose to descend from the lofty height of heaven to become man, whom Scripture calls the Son. Grace is a gift given freely by God to all, not some natural thing that’s just apart of God. He CHOOSES to give grace. Just as he CHOSE to create the world and CHOSE to incarnate himself into a human body. Jesus prayed in the garden “not my WILL but thy WILL be done.” It was not a naturally occurring phenomenon that God begot the Son and that the Son was to be crucified, it was the CHOICE of God for this to happen. Isaiah 53:10 says it “pleased the Lord to bruise him.” It was pleasing to God for Calvary to happen because in that suffering of the Lamb is grace for all, and peace and perfection through Jesus Christ (Phi 3:10). As a man, Jesus struggled with his own will but ultimately submitted himself to the will of the Father. To believe in an eternal Son is to literally deny the Christian faith altogether.

[@CorneliusCorndogJr]

Revelation 22:13

[@Triniforchrist]

IJohn1-5 the Son is eternal, he is eternal life who was with the Father, and the life (Son) was manifest to us, Just as John 1 the word (Son) was God, God is and Eternal Father to and Eternal Son, to teach other wise is heresy, and you will dam to hell

[@brendanmuller7301]

@@Triniforchrist Lmaoo got him

[@xianghouzinjianghu5001]

You need orthodoxy

[@CatholicElijah]

Catholics are truely Orthodox

[@dotdash2284]

Which the Eastern Orthodox don't have

[@Triniforchrist]

They are heretic