Filioque Leads to Modal Collapse: Refuting Roman Catholicism

After spending more than a week in the wild, I am back and ready to take on a particular Roman Catholic pseudo apologist, who in his attempt to try to stop the bleed of Roman Catholics converting to Orthodoxy due to Roman Catholicism's anti-patristic doctrine of Filioque, not only has utterly failed in his defense, but has gone as far as to vindicate the thesis that the filioque doctrine has an inherent arianism applied to the Holy Spirit to it. I will be going through various patristic sources on the filioque and statements to prove my case.

BTC wallet: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44

[cyriljorge]

Wonderful talk, I am so glad I left Roman Catholicism

[dubbelkastrull]

1:03:37 Dyer's argument

1:05:43 Object of the will

1:06:14 Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles Quote

1:11:21 "Is Ad intra will the same as Ad extra will?"

1:39:37 Divine *Nature* not being the firet principle.

1:44:33 If God's will and his essence are identical...

[The_name]

Honestly, I'm gonna watch the whole 2 hours of this video because that's how much time it took me to reach a conclusion on Filioque on my own time.

I came to the conclusion that filioque is not correct theologically. I kept coming back to the esque of the trinity itself and had to decipher what I thought it was on my own making sure to denounce in my heart whatever heresies I might stumble upon on my journey to find truth (as I was thinking through it and so I had some heretical thought trails I had to cut off and turn from along the way) it boils down to God being one and the differences between persons are simply the things that each one does and that each person let's the other fulfill their roles because God has freewill. Proceeding is specifically an interaction between the Father and the Spirit. If the Son is involved on either side (proceeding from the Father or being proceeded from) then he is in a different role and in the role of either the Father or the Spirit making him either the Father or the Spirit and making it a Binity/Duinity.

[matthewdnichols]

37:17 how do you come to the conclusion that John of Damascus wouldn’t understand Light equaled heat?

I would argue outside of celestial bodies in the night sky.

And bioluminescent and similar phenomena. Light equals heat! Sun=light=Heat
Candle=light= Heat
Wild Fire=light=Heat
Lightning=Light= Heat

And so on. So I do believe you make a false assumption here.

[jamesbancroft]

could you do something on the rosary? I have a friend who’s in prelest because of it

[TheJeh]

Very strange title. When Catholics include the filioque and say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son, " they do not mean that the Holy Spirit originates in the Son. The Holy Spirit originates in the Father and proceeds from the Father and *through* the Son, as clearly shown in Scripture. The Orthodox view is exactly the same as the Catholic view, except in their objection to the inclusion of the phrase on the basis that it wasn't in the original Nicene Creed. Of course, sometimes some Orthodox will try to convince themselves there is a theological difference in order to justify the existence of Orthodoxy.

[thebiblerefutesheretics]

I am a Modalist and I believe that the hypostatic properties in the Godhead are indeed transferable. They have to be because you cannot separate nature from hypostasis. If the 3 modes of the Godhead share the same nature then they also share in the same hypostasis also. To suggest a radical division between nature and hypostasis within the Godhead would be absurd. Also, there is only one mind in God, not three. So therefore with the one mind of God being a fact, the hypostasis within the Godhead is indeed shared. To suggest they are not transferrable would to be to suggest there are three minds within God which is tritheism

[thepalegalilean]

If you understand what the Filioque actually says and means, the idea that it can result in Modalism is an insane idea that is as idiotic as it is just plain stupid.

[thebiblerefutesheretics]

You contradicted yourself at 1:33:50 where you said action/energy is a property/faculty of nature. Yet you earlier said that the Father being the cause of the Son (did so as an act of hypostatic property or as an act of person), not as an act of nature. So is a divine action a property of nature or an action of person/hypostasis? You are all over the place here. So, according to what you have said here, that if action is a faculty of nature, then we cannot say the father is greater than the son, because the Father causes the Son yet the action of causing the Son is an act of nature, yet the nature of the father and the Son is the same. This would mean that Jesus is also uncaused according to your logic. This also means you are a Modalist, without realizing it of course. Welcome to the truth.. Also, if you want to flip it the other way, if actions are not the faculty of nature but are the property of hypostasis, than the actions that both the father and the son do, means they are one and the same person or hypostasis. Either way your Trinitarian philosophy fails, modalism prevails. Another thing for you to ponder is, a nature is not a person, so how can actions be the faculty of nature, when nature is not a person? Nature does not act, rather a person acts or does actions.