Is the Filioque Theologically Sound? (Fr. Patrick vs. Adam Groves)

#filioque #debate #orthodoxy

Is the Filioque Theologically Sound? (Fr. Patrick vs. Adam Groves)
___________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

🔴LISTEN

🔴READ

[aubreygmcghee]

1 minute in "the mirror reflects the image back". Great point. Just as the image reflects back the reception of the Son from the Father is not a passive mode but because it is relational, the Son receives from the Father, it is active which would mean a participation in the giving of the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit, not as the source but certainly contributing in some way.

[DamasApiles]

According to d gospel of john " in begenning was d word & d Word was with God & d Word was God & d Word became man & dwelt among us". D book of genesis was writen that " in d begenning d world was formless & d Spirit of God hovers...." so i think they exist really as one since our Lord Jesus Christ is our God himself so there should' t be asource of division

[Gruenders]

My problem with this debate is that the issue today is primarily over the definitions dogmatically defined by the West at Lyons, 4th Lateran, and Florence, yet these conciliar definitions weren’t the focal point of the conversation. Many things can be meant by “and the Son” but those councils provide an exact meaning to analyze.

[thenopasslook]

*Timestamps*

4:32 Adam’s Opening Statement
11:51 Fr. Patrick’s Opening Statement
17:51 Adam’s First Rebuttal
23:16 Fr. Patrick’s First Rebuttal
27:45 Adam’s Cross-Examination
49:27 Fr. Patrick’s Cross-Examination
1:09:55 Adam’s Closing Statement
1:16:32 Fr. Patrick’s Closing Statement
1:23:50 Q&A

[cade]

This was very well done. I think Adam is obviously knowledgeable and has a very cool and calm attitude which can be rare in debates. Would love to see him some more. I forget if you mentioned it but does he have a channel or website with more information?

[susand]

I have nothing really to say, but the algorithm should be fed, so...
Although my brain cannot take in the Mystery of the Trinity, this debate is like watching the ping-pong motions of rainbow-shot images of the Love Which is God. So I am catching little glimpses of the Spirit resting on the Son; the Spirit hovering over the conception of the Son in the Immaculate Woman; the Son giving obedience back to the Father; the Son reflecting perfectly the Father; the Father with the Logos within, speaking the Word in His Breath; the Spirit Lighting the Father and the Son... and God spoke to Job out of a whirlwind...
I think the "filioque" will always be a source of such brotherly debate. How can a word hold (contain? hold back? reveal?) the movements of the Trinity? And the debate is sparking such beauty on both sides

[Matt_M]

John 16:7 says Jesus will send the Holy Spirit, John 14:26 says the father will send Holy Spirit.

The scripture mentioned above states that the Holy Spirit comes from/proceeds from the Father and also from the Son.

If Rome has the authority to close the Creed, then it also has the authority to open it and add to it, otherwise you could say the closed creed wasn’t valid in the first place.

There’s obviously a bigger issue here from the Orthodox is Rome and the succession of St Peter, the Pope, being the appointed earthly vicar of Christ to lead His Church.

[aubreygmcghee]

Great debate. I may be a bit biased but I thought Adam did an excellent job. I thought Father Patrick's position and arguments showed themselves to be contradictory.

[dwong]

Is Adam anywhere else online? Does he have a blog or anything?

[arminebner]

Father Patrick admits to existence of the principle of sending and receiving, which is in addition to being one principle and involves two persons, and implies the person of the Spirit. In other words, the faith of Florence. The Son is not cosmetic here. The Father is cause but efficient, the Son is cause but final.

[josephhechema]

"When did the one who is begotten and the one who proceeds from the Father come into being? They are above and beyond the notion of a “when”. Indeed, if I may speak somewhat more boldly – they came into being when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being? There never was a time when the Father did not exist. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again: “When was the Son begotten?” And again I will answer you: When the Father was unbegotten. –

“And when did the Holy Spirit proceed?” When the Son was, not proceeding, but begotten beyond the sphere of time and in a manner which cannot be expressed – although we cannot avoid the imagery of time when we wish to express what is above time."

Saint Gregory Nazianzus
Oration 29 / from section 3

[viktoriyatarevic]

One thing Catholics never seem to quite grasp is the Orthodox doctrine of "through the Son." The west always falls into an either/or dichotomy here that never quite grasps the phenomenon. The Holy Spirit proceeding "through the Son" pertains both to the economy (ad extra) and to the Holy Spirit's eternal manifestation (ad intra) and relationship with the Son.

As Fr. Patrick said, the Holy Spirit terminates in the Son. The Son "holds" the Spirit. However, in the same Act, the Holy Spirit proceeds, from the Father, through the Son, towards creation (ad extra). Because this act is before time, where the product is creation, it is eternal. The Holy Spirit is eternally "held" by the Son and eternally proceeds "through the Son."

The termination of this trinitarian act is creation, which is an image of the inner trinitarian life.

[aubreygmcghee]

I haven't finished it all yet but am about 11 minutes in so maybe that argument may have been brought to the table.

[filipinaspeopleandculture]

Is it me or Fr. Patrick is going around in circles? Just my observation he failed to disprove Adam's position.

The argument on the Filoque is very sound and all I get from Fr. Patrick is it is not on the council of Nicea.

If this is the only argument he's got it therefore any doctrines that were clarified that were not in the Council of Nicea are not to be accepted. This is using the same method on the argument Fr. Patrick is doing.

[aubreygmcghee]

I would argue that because the relationship of the Father to the Son and procession of the Holy Spirit is an "Eternal" (without beginning or end) spiration and relationship the Sin can in no way not be part of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In other words it is being argued that the Father is the source of the procession and that the Sin only recieves and therefore he cannot contribute to the procession, however the relation of the Father to the Son and the Sin to the Father is without beginning the Father can only be the Father with the existence of the Son. Therefore the Holy Spirit that procedes out of this relationship does so because of not only the role of the Father as the progenitor but also because of the Son who recieves from the Father for without the Role of the Son the role of the Father would not exist as it is.

Secondarily there is nothing outside of God that receives of the Holy Spirit without proceding through the Son as nothing that was created was created without the Son.

We have to remember that we are not taking in human terms and therefore even though we must use human terms to understand the relationship of the Trinity we also have to keep it within the context of an eternal existence.

[fru]

What does he mean the Son, Spirit and eternity come into existence? The Son is God He always existed. As a baby is born with word and soul so God always had a Word and Spirit inherent to the being of God.

26:50 in the video.

[piafounetMarcoPesenti]

How can we respond to the objection that proceeding isn't the same as sending, as it was sad by fr.: the Father is the maker of the ball, and the Son is the receiver?

[emilesturt]

Eastern Trinitarianism:

God is One:
Our Father
God is Triune:
Three Persons (Gk. Hypostasis)
One in Essence (Ousia)

The One Energy, Mind and Will proper to that Infinite, Eternal and Incorporeal Essence, is expressed and shared by the Three Divine Persons

The Father Son and Holy Spirit are each fully God; One in Nature and Attributes; equal in all but causation. For the Father alone Eternally Begets and Spirates. He is the Fountainhead of the Trinity, the Source, the "Arche"

The Son and Spirit alone are timelessly caused - but Not Created

By reason of Begetting, the Son is eternally God, and with God

By reason of Spiration, the Spirit is eternally God, and with God

Ontologically, "Eternally", the Son alone is Begotten of the Father, and the Spirit Proceeds solely from the Father

Economically, "Energetically", according to Providence toward and within the Creation, the Spirit Proceeds (is sent) from the Father, by way of the Son on Whom He rests

In the Spirit we see the Son in Whom we see the Father

All things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit

And in the Spirit, through the Son and to the Father, all things will find their fulfilment

✌️💚🙏

[aaronvaughn]

Just don’t be Trinitarian, it makes no sense