Filioque Debate: Ubi Petrus vs. Militant Thomist

Показать описание

A debate between Militant Thomist (Christian B. Wagner) and Ubi Petrus on the Filioque clause, which was one of the major occasions for the schism between the RCC and the OC. Militant Thomist believes that the position of the Greek Fathers, as interpreted by Florence and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity study is not a church-dividing issue. By contrast, Ubi Petrus believes that the Filioque is unhistorical and carries with it a theology that is contrary to the patristic teaching.

Ubi Petrus

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

Christian's opening: @5:07
Ubi's opening: @39:35

Christian's Rebuttal: @1:04:35
Ubi’s Rebuttal: @1:27:42

Christian's Cross: @1:38:29
Ubi's Cross: @1:53:34

(Time stamps courtacy of Matt Jackson).

*Debate Reviews:*

ubipetrus

As moderator, first if all I have learned that in future opening statements will be much smaller.

My main take away from this debate is that Orthodox and Latins seem to both see a kind of ad hoc manoeuvre on both sides.

Orthodox see all these statements in the patristics negating the Son as aitia (cause), stating the Father is the sole aitia, and so see the RC way of reconciling this with Florence by seemingly inventing this second meaning of aitia as 'mediate cause' to make it harmonize.

In the same way, Latins read all these statements in the Fathers which talk about the Spirit proceeding not merely economically from/through the Son and so they think the Orthodox seemingly invent this third meaning of proceed as eternal manifestation to make it harmonize.

I think this opens up a good starting point for future engagements on this topic and I hope Christian will agree to talk to Seraphim and other Orthodox.

- Lewis

OrthodoxShahada

We need less opening statements and more cross examining in these type of debates.

Gruenders

“All the things the Father has belong to the Son, except causality.” -St Gregory the Theologian

JayDyer

Thank you for this debate. I would just say that next time it would be better to have shorter intros and get to the cross examination sooner. The 20-30 minute talking head intros and responses loses the audience. Anywho cheers and God bless!

Fm

Refreshing to have two reasonable AND knowledgeable men from each side to discuss and debate. That is an extremely rare convergence.

ZZZELCH

This is one of those blissfully rare times where I see a debate that feels more like old friends chatting rather than a fiery, contentious argument. I’m so proud of both sides, and I sense the working of the Holy Spirit trying to bring us together. God bless you Ubi Petrus for being so generous and gentlemanly to us Roman Catholics in this debate.

RomanusVII

Wagner squad 🙌
Shout out to Ubi for hosting!

caudilloishere

Very good debate! I enjoyed the respect both men conveyed to each other

rationalideal

Wagner landed quite a haymaker if he's right that Quicumque was in the office of Prime pre schism. Lex orandi... However, there were multiple local usages, there was no universal Latin rite at that time, and the Roman rite didn't begin to be imported into northern Europe until Carolingian times.

johncollorafi

7:00 Wagner uses the analogy of father and mother to explain filioque. This is problematic. Even Aquinas asserted that this analogy is "inept." The father/mother/child analogy seems to have been first proposed by Richard of St. Victor in the 12th century. The idea of procession as origination of Hypostasis among Latins likely has its source from this novel analogy.

11:35 Wagner says that John 16:15 states that Hypostasis of HS comes from S. False, it says explicitly that HS will recieve from S. So HS as Hypostasis receives from S, not that S originates the Hypostasis of HS. The Latin Tradition states what HS receives is Essence; the first millenium Eastern saints agree with this, but later Eastern saints in the second millenium say it is Energy. Both the Western and Eastern Traditions also agree that S SENDS HS hypostatically in the economy of salvation.

The idea that Jn 16:15 means Hypostasis of HS originates (not merely that HS is sent) from S is an inference, not what the text actually states. It is derived from a syllogism - (A) HS receives Essence from S; (B) Hypostasis is Essence; (C) HS therefore receives His Hypostasis from S. The conclusion is false because Hypostasis is not recieved, but is originated; only Essence can be recieved as it is unoriginate. Though both F and S communicate Essence to S, the only One Who originates Hypostasis, the only One Who brings forth Hypostasis of HS from the common Essence of F and S is F ALONE.

14:35 Wagner affirms the Catholic doctrine that we receive Essence from HS since Essence is what conforms us to the Father. HS communicates Essence. Hence, HS is equal to what F and S do in the Procession - viz., communicating Essence. HOWEVER, Wagner is here being inconsistent, for he claims that what F and S do in the procession is originate Hyostasis, rather than simply communicate Essence. Since HS does not originate another divine Hypostasis, then Wagner's position diminishes the equality of HS with F and S. On the other hand, if one admits that what F and S do in the Procession is communicate Essence, then HS is equal to F and S because HS ALSO communicates Essence (though to creatures).

20:10 Wagner says the patristic analogy of likening the relationship of S to F with the relationship of HS to S implies origination of hypostasis. However, the analogy can just as easily be understood, and in the more orthodox and patristic manner, ONLY as referring to the communication of Essence. That it is referring to origination of Hypostasis leads to numerous errors and inconsistencies (not least of which is the diminution of HS since HS does not originate another divine Hypostasis).

The Latin diarchist rationale that permits them to see "origination of hypostasis" everywhere the fathers ONLY speak of communication of Essence is the Latin Tradition that Hypostasis is Essence. That Hypostasis and Essence are not distinguished qua Hypostasis is absolutely true, but the converse is not true. Essence is not absolutely equivalent to Hypostasis for several doctrinal reasons:
(1) Essence cannot act, but Hypostasis acts;
(2) Essence is unoriginate, but Hypostases of S and HS are originated;
(3) F is Essence and F is F alone; S is Essence and S is S alone; HS is Essence and HS is HS alone. BUT Essence is NOT F alone, S alone, nor HS alone.

24:05 Wagner admits the power of spiration is essential, meaning that everything except the power of generation is communicated to the Son. If the power is of the Essence, then necessarily HS must possess the same power since HS has the same Essence as F and S. This is something Wagner (and diarchists in general) fails to take into account. To say that the power of Procession is the power to communicate Essence affirms the equality of HS with F and S since HS also communicates Essence (to creatures). HOWEVER, to say that the power of Procession is the power to originate divine Hypostasis diminishes the equality of HS with F and S since HS does not originate another divine Hyostasis. It is funny that Wagner goes on to quote a bunch of Fathers affirming that F communicates Essence to S. The reason for that is that the focus of these fathers was to affirm the ONENESS and EQUALITY of F and S, not specifically to affirm origination of S's Hypostasis from S. Wagner wholly misses that point.

1:01:10 Ubi Petrus cites Florence saying S is "cause" of HS. Ubi claimed a little earlier that the Latins make S share in F's property of being First Cause, and uses the citation from Florence to "prove" it. But he fails to consider that the Latins at Florence were Aristotelians. Thus, when the Latins at Florence said "cause, " they meant an Aristotelian "cause, " which, unlike the Platonic "cause, " DOES NOT DENOTE "first cause." Wagner later refutes Ubi on this point, but does not sufficiently point out the difference between the Aristotelian sense of "cause" and the Platonic sense of "cause." That would have ended the debate on the topic. However, since Wagner did not do this, he opened himself up to Ubi's later objection that Wagner did not offer any reason why St. Maximos' "cause" should be understood differently from Florence's "cause." Indeed, Wagner simply stated they were different, but did not provide any reason. At 1:32:07, Ubi actually acknowledges the Son can in some way be "cause" in the Aristotelian sense, but he does not take into account that the original Decree was written by the Latins. So when the Latins wrote "cause according to the Greek, " they can ONLY have meant it in the Aristotelian sense. (Also remember that among the Greek fathers at Florence, there were Platonists, Neo-platonists, AND Aristotelians.)

1:04:55 Wagner notices that there were people in the chat who were calling Pope St. JP2 an "anti-Pope." These are people who claim to be Catholic but disagree with the Official Clarification.

1:10:35 Wagner points out that in the Latin Tradition, there is a recognition of a "principle without principle" and a "principle with principle." However, he utterly fails to point out that the term "principle" in the Latin Tradition DOES NOT connote dependence of existence.

1:24:14 Wagner quotes Basil saying that HS has His Being from the Son. Wagner interprets "Being" as Hypostasis, but that is false. "Being" here, as with Gregory of Nyssa, refers to the divine Being common to all three Persons, NOT individual Hypostasis. Btw, Basil's doctrine is the precise dogma of Florence when it says that the "Essence and subsistent Being" of HS is from the Father and the Son. In fact, "subsistent being" in Florence is NOT Hypostasis, but Hyparxtixon, the divine Being common to all three Persons. Ubi unfortunately simply avoided responding to the quote.

1:38:40 Wagner catches Ubi off-guard with a quote from St. Fulgence saying that as S being sent by F implies S's generation from F, then HS being sent by F and S means HS proceeds from F and S. Ubi obviously had not studied the Latin fathers enough. Otherwise, he could have simply responded that "procession" in the Latin Tradition, ESPECIALLY in the EARLY Latin Tradition (before the 9th century) refers to the SENDING of HS, intimately tied to the communication of Essence according to John 16:15.

1:51:01 Ubi gets stumped by a quote from St. Athanasius: "In the order of nature, the Spirit bears the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Father." All he had to do was point out that the introductory clause states "In the order OF NATURE." Obviously, the quote is referring to communication of Essence, NOT origination of Hypostasis.

FYI, I am a Latin Catholic who actually adheres to Pope St. JP2's Official Clarification.

glennguadalupe

Definitely a debate with argumentative substance - way over my head, I clearly see my failures and needs.

pxapologetics

Great debate. Both sides were cordial and sincere. Hopefully (if another debate takes place) the next debate will give greater precedence to the patristics and less to the formulations that flowed down stream from the Patristics. If not careful, the debate can quickly turn into a battle of semantics and the goal of each side become clouded.

Kuddos to both Ubi and Christian.

MountAthosandAquinas

Ubi landed some fair shots while Christian did too, but I think Christian overall won the debate.

Remember winning the debate doesn't mean you are right necessarily. Though I agree with Wagner

TheChunkyCrusader

Why did you not quote St. Ambrose: The Water is the Grace of the Spirit, the Spirit is also the Fount of this Grace, and that the Father is River, and the Son is River, and the Holy Spirit is River, even quoting from the Scripture?

And again from St. Ambrose, which is also copiously used by St. Palamas in his Apodictic Treatises: That the Holy Spirit also sends the Son, and further than this the Holy Spirit also begets the Son according to the Flesh in the Incarnation, by which we confess '...the Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary...'?

adothariman