Origen quoted every Deuterocanonical book explicitly as Scripture or to confirm/establish doctrine. And his canon lists explicitly refer to evangelizing Jews, I believe. Heard of Gary Michuta?
This is splitting hairs. Do you think Christ will be deciding the eternal fate of people based on their view of the filioque? Both sides are just striving to be right and win a point. It is childish.
According to Ask Ai Understanding Saint Maximus the Confessor’s Position on the Filioque To address whether Saint Maximus the Confessor got the Latin view wrong and whether he taught the Filioque, we must first delve into the historical and theological context surrounding his life and teachings. Historical Context of Saint Maximus the Confessor Saint Maximus (c. 580-662 AD) was a Byzantine monk, theologian, and scholar who played a crucial role in the Christological controversies of his time. He is best known for his defense of the Orthodox faith against Monothelitism, a heresy that proposed that Christ had only one will. His works are significant in understanding both Eastern Orthodox theology and its relationship with Western theological developments. The Filioque Controversy The term “Filioque,” which means “and the Son” in Latin, refers to a phrase added to the Nicene Creed by Western Christians, stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. This addition has been a point of contention between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism since it was formally adopted in the West during the 6th century. In Eastern Orthodox theology, it is maintained that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the Father. The addition of “Filioque” is seen as an unauthorized alteration of a foundational Christian doctrine, leading to significant theological disagreements between East and West. Saint Maximus’s Teachings on the Trinity Saint Maximus did not explicitly endorse or reject the Filioque in his writings; however, his theological framework provides insights into how he might have viewed this issue. He emphasized a deep understanding of divine mystery and relationality within the Trinity. His writings reflect an intricate balance between affirming both unity and distinction among the persons of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Maximus articulated that while there is a unique relationship among these three persons-whereby each has distinct roles-their essence remains unified. This perspective aligns more closely with Eastern Orthodox thought rather than Western interpretations that include “Filioque.” Did Saint Maximus Get It Wrong? To determine if Saint Maximus got “the Latin view wrong,” we must consider what is meant by “wrong.” From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, he upheld traditional views consistent with their understanding of Trinitarian theology. However, from a Roman Catholic viewpoint, particularly post-9th century when Filioque became more entrenched in Western doctrine, one could argue that he did not align with their interpretation. Maximus’s reluctance to embrace any formulation that might compromise monotheism or lead to confusion about Christ’s dual natures indicates that he would likely have resisted any notion that implied a hierarchical ordering within the Trinity based on procession. Conclusion: Did Saint Maximus Teach Filioque? Saint Maximus did not explicitly teach or endorse Filioque; rather, his theological contributions suggest an alignment with Eastern Orthodox views on Trinitarian relationships. His emphasis on unity without confusion among divine persons indicates he would have been cautious about endorsing any formulations inconsistent with this principle. Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium: A comprehensive reference work providing detailed entries on Byzantine figures like Saint Maximus. The Cambridge History of Christianity: Offers insights into early Christian controversies including those involving Trinitarian theology. The Theology of St. Maximus the Confessor by Andrew Louth: An authoritative text analyzing Maximus’s theological positions within their historical context.
James Akin, Patrick Madrid ran circles around James White. Time 🕑 for him to raise the white flag 🏳 and avoid debates. He is like Charlie Brown trying to kick the foorball 🏈.
What words of jesus and the apostles the catholic church define? ahmmm the Bible itself? where the church compiled? even the words of the prophets are there :D
James White also recently lost debates with Catholics Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin. He is so over the hill, living in his past glory, always mentioning his irrelevant decades old achievements. He's debating these days now to reach the 200 mark to impress his fanboys. Such an ego.
Why do Protestants care about Orthodox? To Protestants aren't they simply apart of the invisible body of the church, which no one can distinguish the boundaries? OR do Protestants now believe they are the true church? Do Protestants believe that the Orthodox are leading people away from Christ? I really feel like the vitriol and personal attacks plastered in the debate, all over the chat, and in the comments are super unhelpful and self-serving. I really wish we could all get to the bottom of this stuff with humility.
Come On, why keep turning scholarly dialogues into boxing or carnal confrontations… why? What spirit inspires this view. These are two Christians trying their best to please the Lord Jesus whom both serve and dedicate their lives. Let promote more dialogues in a fraternal spirit… quit discouraging friendly dialogues.
Of course, James White is a heretic, but he has a point with Bergoglio and even the supposed "popes" before. The religion of the Novus Ordo, which developed out of Vatican II, isn't the same religion of the catholic church of all time. Or how do you explain, that the catholic religion never changed since the beginning of the church, but only since 1958 it did? You can't go around sedevacantism, that's just a fact.
Haven’t seen you before, won’t watch again. “C’mon bruh” and a face palm isn’t a response, but it’s all you have. Like c’mon bruh this is ridiculous I can’t even
Whatever happened to Gerry Matatics, anyhow? Poor guy does one bad debate (I presume? ...it's not like I've ever seen it) and he spends the rest of his life being rhetorically dragged around on chains behind Caesar James' horse. Meanwhile, I guess White believes that's the only debate he ever won against a Catholic. Otherwise, how can we explain the way he's been _dining out on that one debate_ for the last thirty-four years. (Did his life _peak_ in that moment?) One of these days we're going to learn that James White lost his virginity later in the evening after the Matatics debate, and the whole Internet will collectively say, "Ohhhhh....!"
Dr. James white does this at every debate, he basically agrees to a debate and then just talks about irrelevant things that will get him wins with prots.
@Scholastic Answers, wait I heard you say lesser magisterial teachings being surpassed or outweighed (don’t recall the word used) by greater magisterial teachings…can that be elaborated on?
