Used a new editing thing for this one and kinda messed up. L.

@videonmode8649

Ай бұрын

Looks like an AI filter

@InquisPrinciple

Ай бұрын

Thumbnail is new and clean though. Very simple yet grabs attwntion

My man used the handsome Squidward filter.

Bro lookin like Mr. Clean

Christian P. (Plastic) Wagner

vaticancatholic is currently making a new video "AI upscaling your videos is the mark of the beast"

@Onlyafool172

Ай бұрын

Lfmao

@ghostapostle7225

Ай бұрын

Nah, he runs from Wagner

as an orthdox this, minus the ai upscaling, is a good video, i think the argument around the immediacy of relation is an interesting argument. subbed

dwong and Scholastic Answers both posting a Filioque video on the same day?? EO in shambles

@user-je5ib5nv8u

Ай бұрын

Man you realized too. Fr

@franknwogu4911

Ай бұрын

@FredCaillou452 is that why you have to comment hop?

@BaikalTii

Ай бұрын

LOL- he keeps saying "Greek fathers" but never gives an actual, attributable quote from any. just more post-schism defense for the indefensible. and he ignores the history of the heresy- that it was promulgated by weak minded Spanish priests to fight a resurgence of Arianism on the Iberian peninsula in 6th and 7th centuries.

had to watch twice cause me dummy. you and dwong going hard on filioque today.

Great format brother. You should make more videos like this in the future. Scheeben’s arguments are strong.

@hardearnedpeso9147

Ай бұрын

dwong! hi

@bluckobluc8755

Ай бұрын

The legend himself came huzzah huzzah

@dwong9289

Ай бұрын

@@hardearnedpeso9147

Christian CGI Wagner

@traditionallenses

Ай бұрын

Bros 4K

Filter looks like one of those old super secret settings in minecraft

Stop destroying the orthodox theology, they havern tought this further

@traditionallenses

Ай бұрын

Learn how to spell 😂

@TrveLatinCel

Ай бұрын

​​@@traditionallenseslol "edited" comment

@franknwogu4911

Ай бұрын

@@TrveLatinCel 😅

Wow I’m impressed by how much sense that made!

Feel so bad for the orthobros, they cant even find solace in football caus all their teams are getting destroyed in the Euros

@traditionallenses

Ай бұрын

It’s called soccer you foreigner

@javierduenasjimenez7930

Ай бұрын

Even Turkey won Georgia

@krkenheimer

Ай бұрын

@@javierduenasjimenez7930 more retribution for their rejection of the council of Florence

@javierduenasjimenez7930

Ай бұрын

​@@krkenheimer Lol😂

@AveChristusRex789

Ай бұрын

😂😂

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

This was an excellent and helpful video. Thank you.

Excellent. These are the same arguments we have always presented to our Monopatristic schismatic brethren. We should have a contest as to who can present these arguments in the clearest manner. So far, I would say, Scholastic Answers has presented them the clearest.

Bro's got that AI photoshop Edit: I saw Wagner's comment

Thanks so much for this video bud.

I'm brazilian and I really like your content, some subtitles in portuguese wouldn't be bad. God bless u

Wagner this editing is making me laugh 😂😂😂🤣🤣

Excellent. Makes it harder to dialogue with orthodox. It was they who provoked me to dive into the filioque and all it made me realize how correct and important it is.

Really appreciate this video.

Don’t you know that hypostatic idioms are uncommunable?? It is basic theology.. Πέμπω and εκπορευω are two different words.

So true

Where is the buzz cut

your skin is perfect :0

I just started getting into Scheeben. So good.

this is amazing

This is what Wagner will look like in 2017

he looks like a monster.

Brilliant. Truly if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone then He would also be The Son. The trinity makes no sense without the Filoque.

@egonomics352

Ай бұрын

Literally read the Nicene Creed. The Son doesn't proceed from the Father, rather He is the only begotten.

@timothyjordan5731

Ай бұрын

Without the Filioque, there is no eternal interaction between the Son and the Spirit. End of discussion.

@timothyjordan5731

29 күн бұрын

What is hard to understand about this?

@Jeem196

Күн бұрын

@@timothyjordan5731That’s an excuse to utilize the Equality of Opportunity which is found nowhere in Scripture. What God did prior to Creation is arbitrary speculation on our part, it isn’t revealed. Saying the Son must proceed the Spirit because the Father does, and both are God, is equality of opportunity (which would then imply the Spirit lacks an ability the other Persons possess.)

@timothyjordan5731

Күн бұрын

@@Jeem196 Did I say anything about "Equality of Opportunity"? I never said that the "Son must proceed (Process would be the proper term) the Spirit because the Father does" and just leave it at that. It is true, but it must be qualified. As for one or two Persons having an ability or abilities that the other do not possess, yes, the Spirit neither generates, filiates nor processes. The Father neither filiates nor proceeds. The Son does not generate. Here is the summary; The Father originates two (2). The Son originates one (1). The Spirit originates none (0). The Spirit derives from two (2). The Son derives from one (1). The Father derives from none (0). I'm sure the Holy Spirit is not resentful or envious of the other two. Without the Divine Act of Love, God the Father would be just the God of Deism as He generates the Son but doesn't love Him. Without the Holy Spirit, God the Father would be little more than a deadbeat dad.

Is there pdf of little cathesticsm on logic?

wait, Christian was AI all along?

Imma keep it real Wagner, the filter is kinda distracting

Nah, Hahn likes scheeben. Kidding. Happy to see this brother. I'm old so I guess I should say based...whatever.

@krkenheimer

Ай бұрын

Based is already like 10 years old, now we say kino or gem

I will give $100.00 to any orthobro who can show me from Sacred Scripture that the Father and the Father alone is the only "source" of the other two Persons. I will give another $100.00 to anyone who can show me where Jesus refers to His Eternal Father as "Cause" (a Hellenic philosophical rather than a personal and Biblical term).

If i could ask a question, based a bit upon the tree apology you used. If there are three, that being roots, tree, and fruit. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the roots (the Father) is the origination of the tree and the fruits. Where the the substance of the roots is what leads to the fruit (the Spirit proceeding from the Father). However, the procession is though the tree (the Son). The Fruit is originated from the tree by means of procession though the tree from the roots? Distinct, yet not seperate? Proceeding From the Father alone, but proceeding though the Son? I think i phrased it right, but my apologies if it got it wrong. Thanks!

@sillythewanderer4221

Ай бұрын

Your comment sounds like the Orthodox view to me. the creed before the addition of the filioque was: I BELIEVE in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us man and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became Man; and he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures, and he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who precedes from the Father (This is where the filioque “, and the Son” was added); who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In One, Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. Sorry for the wall of text, but I thought it might be helpful. Glory to God for all things!

@igorlopes7589

Ай бұрын

Yes, the catholic view is that the Spirit exists from the Father through the Son, just like the fruit exists from the roots through the tree or a lake from the spring through the river. The thing is that the word proceed has a very ample meaning that also includes the "through", there is a sense in which we can say that the fruit/lake/Spirit proceeds from the tree/river/Son. Proceeding not only includes ultimate sources but also intermediary sources

@iagoofdraiggwyn98

Ай бұрын

@@sillythewanderer4221 It might sound a bit like the Orthodox, ive been looking into them and the nature of the creed. Thanks for posting it, the wall of text is a good thing in my mind. So thanks again. Im a bit on the outside in my studies, but im trying to see what the major difference was that actually was changed with addition of the clause. Both sides of the debate accuse the other of changing the nature of the Godhead, and i can see where each come from respectfully in those accusations. However, the accusations seem to be more of a misunderstanding of what the practical application is of the clause. Like using the same words, but the words have different meanings kinda thing, like a language barrier. From what ive gathered thus far, the Orthodox position against the Catholic one is that it causes an imbalance in the Trinity. The Spirit is the product of the Father and Son in the same way, ergo creating a lesser in the Spirit. While the Catholic side against the Orthodox is that there is an imbalance in the Trinity by means of denying the wholeness and continuity of the Godhead. Like was said in the video, two lessers to one greater, rather than a equality but in their proper ordering. What i was asking a bit, which is likely why it sounds Orthodox, is if the concept of "and the Son" means origination in terms of substance (who came first sort of thing) rather than cause (who did what). I think i worded that right. My general conclusion after this and the responses here, is that (at least in terms of practicality) everyone is talking about the same thing, but its being said in a way that leads to a misunderstanding in conclusion. One debate sortof i had awhile ago the person mentioned that Our Lord would "send a helper" in relation to procession from the Son. Thats when had the thought that the debate is about different things than whats actually being debated, at least in terms of practicality. Thanks for your post again! And id love to hear your thoughts about what i posted here in the response. Im still learnings haha.

@iagoofdraiggwyn98

Ай бұрын

@@igorlopes7589 Thank you for the answer, it really does add clarity to the debate. I responded to the other post here in the response to my post, id love to hear your take on my understanding thus far. Thanks and God bless!

@igorlopes7589

Ай бұрын

@@iagoofdraiggwyn98 Actually there is a difference between the catholic and orthodox views. For the catholics the Father originates the Spirit through the Son, while for the orthodox the Son has no role in the origination of the Spirit. They only accept a temporal procession (Jesus sending the Holy Spirit to us) and an eternal manifestation (not origination) through the Son

Wait, are you speaking about Matthias Joseph Scheeben? (I'm watching without headphones and the subtitles say "schabin" ...) Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, sept parties, 1873-87? Would you mind telling me his position on Genesis 1 to 11, whether it's in Creation, Scripture or Dispensations prior to the NC?

The love proceeding from the Father is a divine person, the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the Son is as fully God as the Father is, the love proceeding from the Son must also be a divine person. But since there are not four divine persons, only three, the love proceeding from the Son must be the same Holy Spirit that proceeds from the Father. The Holy Spirit exists as proceeding from both the Father and from the Son, not alone as proceeding from the Father. The correct wording should be “proceeds from the Father and from the Son”, not “proceeds from the Father and proceeds from the Son”.

wow you're so smooth

This is over my head and this might be a dumb question. But if you can't have correct trinitarian theology without the filioque, wouldn't that mean the church was wrong before it was added to the creed?

@UnionistInitiative

Ай бұрын

Everyone who took the creed in the 4th century believed it. Watch @catholicdwong on it

@MaxPower-zs7we

Ай бұрын

Yes correct which is why filioque is blatantly false. It wouldn’t have needed to been added to the creed if that’s what was common belief at the time.

@emiliobazzarelli4270

Ай бұрын

No, the church didn’t teach everything in the creed, the fact that a teaching is not found there is not relevant. The cappadociens were largely concerned with Macedonians (also called Pneumatomachians) who denied that the Holy Spirit was from the Father and denied his consubstantiality with the Father and Son (think sort of like Arians beliefs applied to the Holy Spirit) as such the filioque wasn’t really in dispute as both sides were aware of the teaching that the spirit is from the son and neither denied it

@franknwogu4911

Ай бұрын

@@MaxPower-zs7we their was literally an update to the Nicene creed that you accept, you lack consistency

@javierduenasjimenez7930

Ай бұрын

No because there was no eplicit denial of the filioque. The part about the Holy Spirit added in Constantinople did not explicitely deny the filioque. The orthodox deny the filioque as opposition against catholics

Where can I read the writing of Matthias Joseph Scheeben on the filioque? Is it available online, or is a small booklet available (rather than his entire book)?

Fedbois got Wagner. Finita est

10/10

contra Orthofratelli

wagner are you video?

Shave.

@MilitantThomist

Ай бұрын

Already did

@lollloloolool4172

Ай бұрын

@@MilitantThomistI meant your head.

@filipradosa6062

Ай бұрын

Debate me broo!

The Father, The Son Father, and the Holy Spirit, Son Of The Two Fathers 🥴

@planteruines5619

6 күн бұрын

copingthodox

Do you really think that people who deny the filioque have denied that God is triune? Personally, bringing up mutilating God or heresy (with the connected anathemas) on this topic sounds absurd to me; it’s an extreme form of contentiousness St. Paul condemns in Ephesians. Even if every point of doctrine mentioned in this video we’re correct, the only mutilation worth mentioning is the mutilation of the body of Christ caused by the Schism.