How the Eastern Orthodox REWROTE Trinitarian Dogma

[lazaruscomeforth]

It's turning out that the Eastern Orthodox are emotionally serious without being intellectually serious.

[hap]

Eastern Orthodox will deny basic doctrines found in both east and west (such as Filioque) then point to outliers to make their case. Pray for them.

[PrzybyszzMatplanety]

Oh no, are you saying that just as Rabbinic Judaism was re-formed against Jesus Christ, so Eastern Orthodoxy was re-formed against Rome? Both with contempt for their origins and traditions? How rude.

[CatholicDwong]

To study the Church Fathers is to reject Eastern Orthodoxy

[jordanmiller]

So many Catholic W’s I can’t keep track of them all

[aguspare]

This is maybe the best video on filioque.

The video makes it all make sense. It's mind blowing.

The depth of the doctrine of the trinity. So beautiful. I sound like a clueless person. But I am at awe.

Thank Godnfor Wagner digging old Latin book.

[VictoireOuMort]

We're finally getting some anti orthodox stuff. I am tired of their lies and how they slander Christ's true apostolic Catholic church.

[catholiccrusader]

Was reading a part of Gregory of Nyssa's Contra Eunomius the other day and I took away three things:
1. Father's constitutive property is that He begets the Son
2. Gregory of Nyssa destroys Dyers critique of the same act not being able to do different things in God (e.g. create and destroy), St. Gregory of Nyssa refutes him with examples of same hand movement doing different works and other great examples.
3. Eunomius actually held to a kind of essence energy distinction which while maybe not identical is certainly much closer to EO neopalamism than anything the Cappadocians taught.

[irodjetson]

I can't believe this is so hard for people to grasp. The fact that language points to things that have a quality only in a relational context (up, down, left, right, light, darkness, father, brother, son, even words like roof point to a relational reality since a roof is called that only in relation to the whole architectural structure), I really don't get how is it so hard to understand that if in the natural world we have this reality in a temporal and material way that the cause of this very reality will be given by someone who is substantial relations instead of accidental relations or monolithic distinctions or modalist distinctions, just silly to me. Thank you for your work brother.

[luxither]

I literally read the SVSPress version of the Five Theological Orations of Saint Gregory the Theologian, and the Trinitarian Chapters of Saint John of Damascus from an Old Translation by the Catholic University of America Press, and both taught Relation of Opposition. They conflate the teaching of these figures, that the Fatherhood, Sonship and Sanctify being not merely relational distinctions but truly a sort of quality of the Hypostasis with meaning that it isn't relational. It's both, held as such by the perfection of each Hypostasis of the Godhead in their nature. This idea that it one or the other to the Eastern Fathers is just absurd. While I am not Thomist and lean towards the Eastern Fathers, such as Saint Maximus, Saint John of Damascus and the Cappadocians, I consistently cringe when I see Eastern Orthodox try and insult the Thomist tradition or just compromise the Eastern Tradition just to own the Latins. It's revolting, and is foreign to even figures like Gregory Palamas, Photius of Constantinople and Mark of Ephesus.
Eastern Orthodox Dogmatics has taken the Tradition of the Church to only decide on matters when heretics get it wrong, and warped it to basically means that anything the "heretics" (Catholics) say, they believe the opposite. It's this weird clown Magesterium, which while in the process, rejects views that they formerly held. The Immaculate Conception is the perfect example. The Eastern Orthodox Fathers, from Photius onwards, taught it. There is no debate on this. But as so as the Catholics say it's a Dogma, suddenly a common view of all the Pillars of Orthodoxy is a "Papist Innovation." They would have done this for the Assumption if it wasn't such a major feast of their Calendar.

[emirobinatoru]

So goated so fire like always.
Ave Christus Rex et ave Maria, mater Dei.

[wesley-chambers]

This is the best video I've ever seen you do. Very clear explanation of relations of opposition, and your the use of Aristotelian terms, to show how the early Greek Fathers implicitly accepted the relations as the distinguishing marks in the Divine Persons, was excellent. The only thing I'd add is that it's sometimes helpful to contrast relations of opposition with reflexive relations, such as "identical to", which are not of opposition.

[TheFastfoodcritic]

unity is what was wanted im a supporter of the eastern catholic church in communion with rome best of both worlds and closer to a unified church the better, to come together and see each other as brothers in christ

[masterultraminer]

I don’t think you are really getting at the same point the EO apologists are talking about. The question is not “do Aristotelean models of how names can refer to relational opposition apply to the names of the persons of the trinity, ” like obviously to be father relates to having a son, the question is if that is the primary mode by which the persons are revealed or not? If I say ‘the East’ I’m opposing it to the ‘West’ and implying the object I’m referring to exists in relation, but the intelligibility of the objects in question depends on prior understanding the map and the cardinal directions. Without the map the relation would be meaningless, so the intelligibility of a relational opposition depends on a formal context by which the relation can hold. The EO critique is not that once we all have a map we can understand what East and West mean, the issue is whether we first need the formal context of the single essence of God to make the revealed the persons intelligible. They would posit that we are first revealed the persons and the persons reveal themselves as father, son and spirit. It’s an epistemic priority question, ie does the essence or the hypostases of the persons take first place in the intelligibility of the persons. Once everyone is looking at a map everyone understands what East a West is as an oppositional relation, hence eastern fathers that can in the context of defending agaisnt ariansm or whatever employ the relational content of the names, the question is whether that’s what those things primarily (as in epistemic priority) are. I typed this out on my phone and very tired forgive any errors or clunkiness in explanation.

[demilovesjesus]

this sounds like the “christ alone” that prots believe. They single out one person of the trinity to distance from the Church and don’t even realize they’re teetering on heresy. Scripture is very clearly teaching the Filioque, have no idea why theyd reject it other than to distance from us. Father and son are one. Father and son sends the Spirit. The entire reason the Filioque is in the creed is because of heretics who deny Jesus is divine as the Father.

[mertonhirsch]

The river flowing from the Throne of the Father and the Lamb directly debunks a pre-eternal, hypostatic filioque as the Creed confirms, the Son was born, died, rose, ascended and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. The Lamb specifically refers to the "incarnate Word" of God. Only the incarnate Word of God is the Lamb that can undo the curse of sin which is death. If someone pulls The river flowing form the dual throne as a trump card for the filioque it proves they have nothing.

[quietbarringaluminum]

This was extremely clarifying, thank you.

[norwardradtke]

Explaining it so even a toddler could understand:

Think of God as a happy family: there’s God the Father (like a daddy) and God the Son (Jesus, like a big brother). Now, imagine the Holy Spirit is the special love they share—like the warm, cozy hug between daddy and big brother. In Catholic teachings, we say that Holy Spirit comes from both the Father and the Son. Here’s how some early Latin Church Fathers explained it, but in very simple words:

1. **St. Augustine of Hippo**

* Augustine said the Holy Spirit is the “bond of love” between the Father and the Son.
* Imagine daddy and big brother holding hands. The love in their hands stretches out to you—that’s like the Holy Spirit. Because daddy and big brother are both holding hands, the love comes from both of them together.
* So Augustine teaches: the Holy Spirit isn’t just from daddy alone; it’s from daddy and big brother sharing their love.

2. **St. Ambrose of Milan**

* Ambrose talked about how the Spirit belongs to both. He said that because Jesus (the Son) is one with the Father, the Spirit he breathes out is the same Spirit that the Father breathes out.
* Think of blowing bubbles with daddy and big brother. Neither one makes a bubble alone; they both blow air together and a bubble appears. That bubble is like the Holy Spirit—coming from both breathes (Father and Son).

3. **St. Hilary of Poitiers**

* Hilary said the Spirit is given by the Father through the Son, but also that the Son gives the Spirit just as the Father does. In simple terms, if daddy gives you a toy and big brother does, you know both gave it to you. It’s their gift together.
* The Spirit is a gift from God, and because Jesus is God too, he joins daddy in giving that special gift.

**Why do we say it this way?**

* In the Trinity, there are three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They all share the same Godness.
* The Spirit is not a separate “thing” that just pops out of the Father alone; the Spirit is the loving breath of both Father and Son together.
* By saying “the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son” (that’s what “Filioque” means), we’re saying: “Hey, Holy Spirit, you’re daddy and big brother’s shared love, and we love you for that!”

So, when you hear “Filioque, ” just remember this: Holy Spirit is like the warm hug or the bubble that comes when both daddy (Father) and big brother (Son) share their love together. And that’s how Augustine, Ambrose, and Hilary—early Latin teachers—help us understand it.

[newglof]

Catholic Trinitarianism > Photian Trinitarianism

[brendansheehan]

That makes sense. A Father is definitionaly a relation. Just like a Son. To claim that transcendence would somehow exclude a relation in the use of the these terms is to render the terms used irrational.