FILIOQUE DEBATE: ORTHODOX VS. CATHOLIC

This debate is about whether the Filioque is orthodox (right teaching). The Catholic (Militant Thomist) will defend the dogmatic definition of the Filioque as dogmatized by the Council of Florence, whereas David Erhan (Orthodox) will argue against this definition and argue for its opposition as outlined by the Council of Constantinople 4 (879-880) and Council of Blachernae (1285)

[ghostapostle]

Watching debates between a catholic and an orthodox is a whole another level comparing the debates with protestants.

[robertvillarin]

This debate proves that I still need a lot to learn. Thanks Chistian, David and Sam for making this happen.

[cozycastle]

As a formal Zen Buddhist growing up who is now Eastern Orthodox. I can’t even wrap my head around this and why both churches have such drama with something that is considered holy mysteries. Nobody understands because we are like children talking about what happened before the creation of the universe.

I’m an engineer who loves overly complex designs but this is just bonkers to argue over.

[thenopasslook]

*debate timestamps*

david’s opening statement: 4:36
christian wagner’s opening statement: 21:10
david’s rebuttal: 37:04
christian wagner’s rebuttal: 45:31
david’s first cross examination: 56:51
christian wagner’s first cross examination: 1:12:07
david’s second cross examination: 1:25:00
christian wagner’s second cross examination: 1:38:00
david’s closing statement: 1:52:33
christian wagner’s closing statement: 1:57:00
q&a: 2:01:20

[michelduarte]

I am a Catholic, so i'm obviously biased.
Nevertheless, although both parties made a brilliant work, i must say that the Catholic position look more sound, based on the evidences presented.

[newglof]

The winner was the audience for having two smart guys discuss a contentious issue in great depth. Thank you Sam for hosting it.

Let this debate bring us closer to Christ.

[paulinesherman]

The depth of knowledge in the Catholic doctrine was evident. Christian's arguments were spot on.

[Lwen]

Sat here as a new Christian who's currently in a baptist church (not nessicary out of denomination but because it teaches from the bible and is the best options available atm and a result of a protestant education) and just wondering how on earth anyone is supposed to learn all this. These brothers are so wise and learned ahead of myself and where I'm at it feels remarkable. Thank the Lord for uniting us in Christ and I pray He lead us all to the the church that He intended to be His body upon the earth and we all unite behind sound theological ddoctrine.

[naikhanomtom]

Last time I saw a video of Sam, it was him calling David Erhan a filthy turk blood. Didn't know they used to be friendly 🤣

[Handsofstone-fwsy]

Depending on which side of the fence you are on, the other side will always call the opposing side biased. Not that I'm anything special (I'm not), but what I can say is that Im not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic. I dont have any attachment to either. As someone who just sat back and enjoyed as a neutral party, this is what really jumped out to me. I noticed that the Eastern Orthodox position on the filioque (David) relies primarily on philosophy and man made reasoning to either defend their position or to try and explain away the massive inconsistencies in their position. While the Catholic side (Christian Wagner) relies primarily on scripture, sound exegesis of scripture and early church fathers, and correct usage of terms, to show why the filioque is a thing/became a thing. It really jumped out to me how thoroughly Christian Wagner refuted all of David's main points about terms and usage of terms from the very start and yet David never realised it nor ever directly adressed any of it or countered. It was an eye opening experience to say the least. It makes me wonder why the Eastern Orthodox position relies so little on scripture and exegesis. From what I observed, the whole Eastern orthodox "counter arguement" to the filioque essentially boils down to a deflection... "yeah but energy essence"...or "but heres what Palamas said." And last I checked in a professional debate setting which adheres to professional rules, a deflection is grounds for disqualification. I'm actually disappointed because I really do want to see how an Eadterm Orthodox would try to defend their position on the filioque using only scripture. Makes one wonder why they cant take that position in the debate doesnt it? Im open to anything so I really want to see an Eastern Orthodox argue in good faith about terms and use actual exegesis for their arguements

Another thing that really jumped out to me is this. In their closing statements David made it all about himself and how he can offer a new perspective on things. Sure, ok. But when Christian Wagner spoke he spoke so passionately about wanting people to simply just do their own research, come to their own conclusions, and love the LORD Jesus beyond all else. When Christian Wagner spoke it hit me in my spirit, he spoke so annointedly. I don't think Christian Wagner was speaking during this debate, he was merely a vessel to send a message. If the Son brings glory to the Father than likewise the Spirit brings glory to the Son, and it became apparent to me the Spirit of Christ was with Christian Wagner. If God preserves His church and His word, than God would make sure to empower people to lead people to the truth. And I saw that so evidently in Christian Wagner. If the filioque were not true the Spirit of Jesus would not so mightily empower Christian Wagner in this debate. It was not the force of arguements that persuaded me. It was not powerful rhetoric. It was not sound logic or human reasoning that caused me to open up my eyes for the first time to this. It was that I saw the work of the Spirit in Christian Wagner and the Spirit would never mislead. Thank you for hosting this Sam. You did an awesome job and I thoroghly enjoyed how civil it was. Im kind of in a similar position to you Sam. I don't know what church to go to. I dont have any fondness or attachment to either. But after what I witnessed today it would be dishonest for me to continue to deny the filioque. It has been made abundantly clear to me that the filioque is beyond biblical, it is pure and true Bible teaching, and it is the best description of Trinitarian doctrine. Because to excluse the line that goes through the Son collapses the Godhead. May the Tribune god bless you and everyone that was involved in this debate. Thank you again Sam. I know that you are a mighty beloved warrior of the all mighty Jesus Christ too. I've had dreams about you. And in these dreams its Jesus and the Catholic church. Maybe I need to stop fighting it and start to take Catholicism seriously. I guess what's left for me now is the papacy. Can you do a debate on that too brother Sam?

[dominicluke]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:27 🎙️ Introduction to the debate format
- Format includes 15-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, and 48 minutes of cross-examination.
- Introduces key terms like "existence procession" and "energetic procession" to clarify Orthodox positions.
09:08 📜 Illegitimacy of Adding Filioque to the Creed
- Argues against the legitimacy of adding Filioque to the Creed based on ecumenical councils.
- References Canons 7 of the Third Ecumenical Council and Pope St. Leo III's response to Carolingian theologians.
- Explores the idea that the Father is the only cause, a key point in the Filioque debate.
- Introduces the concept of energetic procession as a genuine teaching in scripture and the Fathers.
- Reiterates the disagreement between the Council of Florence and Orthodox Fathers on the procession of the Holy Spirit.
- Emphasizes the Orthodox belief that the Holy Spirit has existence from the Father alone, with the Son playing a role in energetic procession.
- Acknowledgment of time constraints.
- Clarification on the debate topic.
- Third proof: Controversial claim that the Son is an idea of the Spirit.
- Idios defined as a proper characteristic not shared among persons.
25:46 🔄 Distinction Between Spirit and Son
- Argues for a real distinction based on mediation of the Son and procession.
- Quotes from St. Gregory of Nissa supporting the distinction.
- References St. Basil's quote from Contra Eunomium 3:1.
- Quotes St. Gregory of Nissa to reinforce the idea of the Son as an idea of the Spirit.
35:57 🗣️ Closing Remarks
- Encourages open-mindedness and understanding of both perspectives.
- Shiny's work indicates discrepancies in the manuscripts related to the Latin point.
- The debate discusses the significance of conclusive evidence from key figures like St. Maximus and St. John Damascus.
- Discussion on circumstantial evidence vs. conclusive evidence.
- The debate addresses the logical sequence and causality related to the Holy Spirit's procession with the Son.
43:38 🔍 Holy Spirit's Nature: St. Basil and St. Gregory Theologian
- Differentiation between begotten, unbegotten, and transcendent relations.
- Refutation of the Roman Catholic view based on oppositional relations.
- Explanation of the problem with IA and the Orthodox argument.
- Introduction to the Latin solution regarding the multifaceted meanings of IA.
- Illustration of the river analogy explaining the Latin perspective on IA.
- Different senses of IA, emphasizing the primordial cause.
- Clarification of the distinction between a general principle and a primordial cause.
53:18 🔗 Filioque and Energetic Procession
- Discussion about the manuscripts at the council.
01:02:20 📚 Evidence of Text Versions and Forgeries
- Reference to modern patristic scholarship supporting St. Mark's point.
01:03:47 🔍 Examining St. Gregory Theologian's Argument
01:06:44 📜 ACTA and Flip-Flopping Positions
- Importance of ACTA in interpreting the Council of Florence's decree.
01:11:52 🗣️ Transition to Personal Reflection
- Discussion on St. Gregory of Nissa's statement about extensions in time and their place in eternity.
01:21:30 🌐 Hypostatic Properties and First Cause
- St. Gregory of Nissa's writings discussed in relation to the Father's hypostatic property as the first cause.
- Emphasis on the term "first cause" and its significance in St. Gregory's writings.
- Counterarguments challenging the interpretation of "first cause" and questioning the transferability of hypostatic properties.
- Discussion on the transferability of hypostatic properties, particularly focusing on St. Gregory of Nissa's commentary on the Lord's Prayer.
01:23:46 💬 Negations and Descriptive Terms
- Comparison with terms like "not unbegotten" and "being from another" to emphasize the descriptive nature.
- Discussion on the positive attributes like causality that constitute hypostatic properties.
01:24:39 🔄 Generative and Spirative Powers
- Cross-examination on whether the Son contributes to the personal identity of the Holy Spirit.
- Clarification on the distinct powers of generation and spiration and their roles in defining the persons.
- Discussion on the logical sequence and the relation of opposition as key elements in establishing distinctions.
- Further discussion on the relation of opposition and its role in distinguishing persons.
- Clarification on the logical priority of the generative power and its correlation with the relation of opposition.
- Addressing the argument regarding the necessity of the Filioque to preserve the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- Clarification on the attributive and constitutive nature of hypostatic properties.
- Counterarguments regarding the completeness of statements about the mode of procession and generation.
- Examination of Fourth Constantinople (879) in the context of Creedal changes.
- Clarification on the specific context related to the Filioque controversy.
- Addressing the question of whether the popes of that time would have agreed with the decisions made at the council.
- Reference to the papal magisterium and Pope Stephen V's stance on the authority to add to the Creed.
01:41:14 🏛️ Pope Stephen V's authority and interpretation of adding to the Creed.
- Discussion on the role of the Church in guiding the faith and explaining dogmas without changing them.
- The pope's directive to missionaries not to add to the Creed but asserting the papal authority to do so if needed.
- Clarification on whether the 9th-century popes rejected the dogma of the filioque as defined in Florence.
- The significance of waiting until 1014 to officially add the filioque to the Creed is discussed.
- The delay in adding to the Creed is attributed to the gravity of the filioque issue.
- The distinction between local interpolations and universally binding changes to the Creed is highlighted.
- Discussion on the Council of Florence's position that the filioque is a local Latin interpolation.
- The acknowledgment that the filioque is a local interpolation within the Creed.
- Rejection of the notion that the filioque is universally binding on all traditions within the Roman Catholic Church.
01:54:23 📚 Closing statements on the energetic procession and eternal order.
- Reference to the Council of Florence's failure to discuss the energetic procession.
- The presentation of the third school and the Orthodox teaching of the energetic procession.
- The assertion that the Orthodox position aligns with the natural order within the Trinity, emphasizing the eternal order from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit.
- The unique approach of not solely relying on theological arguments but focusing on the Council of Florence, Latin fathers, and the Capadocians.
- Urges everyone to engage in reading and studying the works of specific authors, Father Ken and Shensky.
- The speaker concludes the talk, expressing blessings and acknowledging any timing mistakes made.
- Initiates a prayer invoking the Triune God's blessings on the debaters, audience, and the pursuit of truth.
- Encourages questions related to the discussion topic and outlines the format for addressing questions to the debaters.
02:02:00 ❓ Question on Filioque for Wagner
02:05:01 📚 Interpretation of Revelation 22:1
- Question about why other Apostolic Churches, such as the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East, reject the filioque.
- Wagner provides historical context, mentioning early acceptance of filioque and later divergence in the 11th-12th centuries.
- The debate touches on historical shifts in theological positions within these churches.
02:11:37 🤔 Why Early Church Fathers Accepted Filioque
- Wagner responds, emphasizing the need for contextual study and understanding the nuances and meanings behind the terms used.
- Wagner defends the continuity between Councils of 869 and 879, emphasizing that both are accepted, and there is no dichotomy.
- Acknowledges that a declaration of a council as ecumenical can be revisited, presenting historical examples of similar cases.
- Recognizes the challenges and complexities of delving into the Western tradition, specifically Augustine, and the need for extensive research.
- Discussion on the clarity of points in the context of Latin and Eastern Fathers.
- St. Maximus considered a Latin Father; clarification on interpreting Latin positions.
- Latin perspective as providing lenses for interpreting dogmatic definitions.
- The attractiveness of the Latin position due to coherent readings and minimal cover-ups.
02:22:06 📚 Eastern Catholics and Veneration of Gregory Palamas
- Eastern Catholics' varied views on the veneration of Gregory Palamas.
- Highlighting the shift in the Roman Catholic Church's perspective on St. Gregory Palamas.
- Emphasizing the contradiction in allowing Eastern Catholics to venerate Palamas while maintaining a different stance in the Latin Church.
- Explanation of the multifaceted meanings of "through" in theological contexts.
02:29:13 📖 St. Basil's Perspective on "Through"
- Encouragement to explore St. Basil's work "De Spiritu Sancto" for insights into the varied uses of "through" in different contexts.
- St. Basil's clarity on the causal or derivative relation associated with "through."
02:30:23 🌐 Finding Their Material: YouTube Channels and Content Focus
- Christian B Wagner's YouTube channel, covering a range of topics, including scholasticism and ongoing series on the filioque.

Made with HARPA AI

[n.h.e.]

Islam Vs. Christianity < Protestant vs. apostolic < Orthodox vs. Catholicism

[archangeluriel]

I loved it, but i couldn't stop myself from smiling when they pronounced the greek words wrong 😭(i am greek)

[NewYorkCityGritty]

I am trying to figure out whether I should be baptized Catholic or Orthodox. For me, the truth lies within these two. Protestant isn't an option for me. Thank you for this debate. I just want to emphasize that there is so much information here, and I don't have the biblical vocabulary to understand it all. I have much to learn. ❤

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks for having this debate. I think Wagner had a much better command and interpretation of the Patristic data. While David was trying to focus upon the energetic distinctions that are truly hypostatic and unique, this did not intersect with those contexts where the Fathers are speaking of the hypostatic production of the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the EO side has to defend the classical arguments of Photius. And this is an uphill battle when Photius himself was already at large various with the Church Fathers, esp. in his interpretation of John 16:13.

[drjanitor]

Ok.. and what does God think? The EO reject the Filioque: they fall to Islam.. on the feast of Pentecost. That’s no coincidence.

[lucas]

"[...] [Filioque's] disagreement is, at this point, a question that arises from the different meanings of the Latin word 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰, more generic and indefinite, and the Greek word 𝘦𝘬𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴, which in reality designates only the first principle of provenance, which is only the Father, since, as defined in Florence: "that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, the Son himself has it eternally from the Father, by whom He is eternally begotten." (Francisco Canals Vidal, Los Siete Primeros Concilios, C. III)

There was a theological issue behind it, but in my opinion, most of it is political, yes...political...because Easterners, like Photius, do not want to interpret Latin Theology with Latin terms — even though they know that Latin is poor compared to Greek —, Then it came to this. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, St. Maximus had understood and said that there was no error with the Filioque, because the whole Church has always professed it. In this book, the author, who is a Thomist, shows that this disagreement began since the Council of Constantinople I, when they wanted to grant an honor given to Rome almost equal to the Patriarch of Constantinople. And this becomes even clearer, and intensifies at the Council of Chalcedon when Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, together with his delegation I presume, added "Canon 28" which granted equal privileges to the See of Rome. It was the only canon denied by Pope Saint Leo the Great. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople in his Epistle 132 apologized to Saint Leo and said that he remained "obliged to avoid the desires of pride and greed". Today, I do not know if this information is true, but this same Canon has since been considered valid by the Orthodox Church and the source of this information: Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Church. New Edition. 1997. p. 26

Lord Have mercy on me. Please don't attack me, I'm just giving an opinion and putting out a view for both sides to read. God bless you all

[newcovenantguy]

I’m a former EO as they reject Paul’s teaching on justification. That said the exegesis of John 15:26 is would favor the EO’s position.

[darklord]

This was a good debate and had me be more interested in studying the Filioque controversy. I am Orthodox, but i give credit to Wagner for providing structured arguments and provides justifications for his claims.

[timothyjordan]

The fundamental error of the Orthodox is their reducing the Father's personal property to one thing; Causality. That is wrong. Scripture and Tradition both attribute to the Father two (2) Hypostatic Properties; 1. Fathering the Son and 2. Processing the Holy Spirit. Jesus never refers to the Father as "Cause" (a totally non-Biblical, impersonal and very temporal philosophic term). Would you refer to the Son and Spirit as "Effects"? That doesn't sound very Divine but it follows if you refer to the Father as "Cause."