8th Ecumenical Council, Filioque and Eternal Manifestation 

@@kpn5000 In your opinion, is heresy what is written particularly in John 15:26? "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

@@kpn5000 I think you didn't bother to watch the video!

@@kpn5000 Traits of God's nature are common to all Persons of the Trinity because God's nature is one! Therefore Godhood is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Hypostatic traits are unique to each Person of the Trinity because every Person is a distinct Hypostasis in the Trinity! Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Positing that a Hypostatic trait can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) is to confuse the distinct Hypostatic traits of those two Persons. Thus, the distinction of those two Persons is distorted! The filioque distorts Triadology which consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. The Orthodox dogma is precisely what is written particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.

kpn5000 No.

@@dimitrispeiraias we don't name God the Father because He has a wife and a son or because He is old. It's because He generates the Son. My point is, the talk is not about who sends who. But who generates who. Think for a second. The Holy Ghost forms Christs image in us through virtues. Does this mean the Holy Ghost generats the Son? No. This is the gate for a lot of mixed weird trinityes. But not the biblical one.

nowhere lol

No I didn't do anything of that sort

What is "chungus"? I nicknamed one of my friends that but have not seen it elsewhere except for in Vlog Creations

@@alyoshaty8823 lol, it’s a meme name for the fat Bugs Bunny rabbit

Hypostatic origin comes from the Father first and foremost as the only actual being in the Godhead when gone through a fine tooth comb the Filoque is unnecessary.

Ultimately it's an affirmation of what Maximus the Confessors and others who taught that "The holy spirit proceeds from the father *through* (not and from) the son."

To be sure, the Holy Spirit is sent by and proceeds from the Father. But notice, in John 15:26, Jesus says he will “send” the Holy Spirit, just as he also says the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” Moreover, Jesus goes on to say: Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I go not away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you (John 16:7, emphasis added). And as the Catholic Catechism points out: “[F]inally it [referring to Revelation 22:1] presents “the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,” one of the most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1137). Indeed, the Bible is very plain: “Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb” (Rev. 22:1). Here we have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. The Catechism also references Revelation 21:6 and John 4:10-14, which make clear that this “water of life” is a reference to the Holy Spirit. If you also add John 7:37-39, recalling that it was St. John who wrote both John’s Gospel and the book of Revelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there can be no doubt what-or who-this “water of life” refers to as proceeding from the Father and the Son: “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said about the Spirit.

Regarding the Catholic Dogma, At Florence Eugenius IV's Papal Bull Laetentur Coeli is abundantly clear it's a single spiration. " [The procession of the Holy Spirit] In the name of the Holy Trinity, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, with the approbation of this holy general Council of Florence we define that this truth of faith be believed and accepted by all Christians, and that all likewise profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son and has His essence and His subsistent being both from the Father and the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from *one principle and one spiration* ; we declare that what the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, tends to this meaning, that by this it is signified that the Son also is the cause, according to the Greeks, and according to the Latins, the principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, as is the Father also. And since all that the Father has, the Father himself, in begetting, has given to His only begotten Son, with the exception of Fatherhood, the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has from the Father eternally, by whom He was begotten also eternally. We define in addition that the explanation of words “Filioque” for the sake of declaring the truth and also because imminent necessity has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."

And thus in light of this we see St. Maximos the Confessor's letter to Marinus recognise this: "Those of the Queen of cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope [Martin I], not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusthai) also from the Son.’ . . . “With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the 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 (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias). . . “One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”

One would also have to call into account the Orthodoxy of a huge number of pre-Schism Holy Latin Fathers that taught this correctly understood as later expounded at Florence; many of whom are recognised as Saints in Eastern Orthodoxy. St. Augustine of Hippo (+354-430 ): “If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). Pope St. Leo the Great (+450) : “And so under the first head is shown what unholy views they hold about the Divine Trinity: they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, and now Holy Ghost: and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another”” (Letter XV, section II) St. Eucherios of Lyons (+AD 454) , writes: “The Holy Spirit is neither begotten or unbegotten, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both” (Spiritus Sanctus nece genitus nec ingentius …. sed potius qui ex Patre et Filio procedat, velut quaedam patris filioque concordia). (Migne 1.774) St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526) writes: “Believe most firmly , and never doubt, that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And : “The Father is begotten of none; the Son is begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” (De Trinitate 2, Migne 499). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418) St. Isidore of Seville (+600 ) writes: “The Holy Spirit is called God because He prpoceeds from the Father and the Son and has their essence…There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from both” (Patrologia Latina 82.268) Pope St. Gregory Dialogus (+604) writes: “We can also understand His [i.e. the Son’s] being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit… The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” (Homiliarium in Evangelia Libri Duo 2.26 (Eng. Trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst [Kalamazoo, Mich.:Cistercian Publications, 1990], page 202)). St. Theodore of Canterbury (+A.D. 680) : “‘And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified Him, adding nothing, taking away nothing: and we anathematize in heart and word whom they anathematized: we receive whom they received: glorifying God the Father without beginning, and His Only-begotten Son, Begotten of the Father before all ages: and the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, ineffably; as those holy Apostles, and prophets, and doctors, whom we above commemorated, have preached‘” (Council of Hatfield, 680 AD).

Yes and no. It proves at the time of St Maximus, they used the Filioque language in a way that did not make the Son the cause of the Spirit. However, later Latin filioquist made the Son a cause of the Spirit, and Florence explicitly said the Son is the cause of the Spirit. This is why the Latins at Florence rejected the letter of St Maximus at Florence as inauthentic, while St Mark of Ephesus continued to use it as one of his main arguments because he believed it was authentic.

As Alexandros said above, the "filioque" at the time of St. Maximus was not the same as it is today in the RCC. It developed more over time obviously

There was no western attendance in the second council of nicea. Is it not the seventh ecumenical council?

@@SimonSlPl According to this video, and to the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, the Fourth Council of Constantinople held in 879 was also the Eighth Ecumenical Council, and it condemned the Filioque. There are naturally lots of questions to ask about this event. They are not getting answered. Spain, Portugal and England were early adopters of the Filioque.

@@david_porthouse Was there western attendance in the second council of Nicea (Seventh Ecumenical Council recognised by both Orthodox and Catholics)? Answer me.

@@SimonSlPl Not every bishop is going to attend every Ecumenical Council, so by Orthodox thinking they will need to receive the decisions of the EC after the event. The alleged Eighth EC was apparently not attended at all by western bishops. Are you trying to claim it is still valid?

@@david_porthouse It was accepted by the western church up until the 11th century.

@JL-CptAtom You just want to argue.

@JL-CptAtom You cannot reason with an anti-Catholic. Protestant or Eastern Orthodox. I have said all I want to say. If you love the Lord, I trust He will open your mind.

@@Thomasrice07 Great job making yourself look stupid

No he didn't. David actually did a whole video on St. Maximus's letter to Marinus where he covers this topic. The filioque at the time of St. Maximus was not the same as the later developed Filioque doctrine of Florence

And some dudes in lab coats don't ever make stuff up don't look up replication crisis

therealMedWhite oh absolutely! Still doesn’t change my original comment though.

You disgrace the name of my great uncle.

God and man are mutually exclusive categories according to the scriptures. Christendom's bloodstained history refutes her claim to being in any positive relationship with the risen Christ and his God JEHOVAH.

Yes that was before He became man. Never does the bible say that God “cannot be a man” does it?

@@mikealitytv3524 what the Bible says is that God cannot change malachi 3:6. So anything the Bible declares to be true about JEHOVAH is permanently true. And anything the Bible declares to be false about JEHOVAH is permanently false. "Is" means is ever "is not" means is never.

The name jehovah is normally reserved for the father but I don't see your point

You are in a cult. Come to Christ

My point is that the Father is the most high God

Your wrong the name Jehovah refers to Father Son and Holy Spirit. The 1 True God. Your teaching the Heresy of Arianism. I encourage you to do some research on church history.

@@mikealitytv3524 Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David," John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. " The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one. John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. " According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune. John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”" The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune. Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. " ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God. Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, " Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. " Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service. Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?" The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.