[Music] welcome back thinking about becoming Eastern Orthodox already Eastern Orthodox believe in the Trinity take this into [Music] account the year is 1264 Pope Urban IV former patriarch of Jerusalem is anxious to reunite the Greek and Latin churches however there's an obstacle to the reunion of the churches this comes in the form of the filio in both the Catholic and easn Orthodox Churches to this day the nyine Creed is the primary form of the profession of the Catholic faith yet there's actually a major difference between these two Creeds in the Greek version of the Creed it says we believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord The Giver of Life on the other hand in the Latin version of the Creed used in the west it says we believe in the Holy Spirit the Lord The Giver of Life who proceeds from the father and the son the difference is found in the last three words and the song This in Latin is the [Music] filio de I know still [Music] you this was the major doctrinal difference between the East and the West these debates stretching centuries before the great schism in the 11th century all way back to the 8th Century even causing a Schism in the 9th century these were the issues discussed in the 13th and the 15th century and the great reunion councils because of this Pope Urban IV as the Vicor of Christ decided to consult the greatest Theologian of his day St Thomas aquinus in response to this call from Pope Urban IV St Thomas aquinus wrote the work against the error of the Greeks although this title as we will see is a bit of a misnomer although not entirely inaccurate and this misnomer has actually caused a great deal of Orthodox objections to this work by the great Angelic doctor this is especially absurd considering the skills of petrology that St Thomas aquinus was at that time and even to this day famous for St Thomas unlike other Scholastics always made sure to go to original sources when he could in order to verify the veracity of certain quotes and if he even suspected that they were forged he would never use them thus St Thomas ainus more than any other Theologian East or West was able to use mostly genuine sources but like any other medieval Theologian both East and West certain inauthentic works of course would creep in yet when we look at this work against the error of the Greeks it is impossible to impute any wrongdoing to St Thomas for when we look at the reason why Pope Urban IV asked St Thomas aquinus in the first place to write this work it was meant to be in response to the work of a bishop named Nicholas of croaton he was a Latin representative to Constantinople he wrote a work called the libellus in the lelus Nicholas of croon argued that many of the differences between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology in his day were purely nominal obviously Pope Urban IV was not convinced of this so he sent the work to St Thomas aquinus and asked for him to comment on it what St Thomas did is he showed the genuine sense of the sources that Nicholas of croone quoted in that work in the second book of the work he actually largely argues against Nicholas of kroon's thesis arguing that the formulations that the Latins have given represent genuine Apostolic Doctrine and are contradictory to the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox so it is completely dishonest to say that St Thomas aquinus used forgeries rather he commented on the forged works of a different Theologian now what is quite interesting and quite ironic is that actually since Nicholas of croon was the papal legate to Constantinople it was from Constantinople that he got these forgeries so all of these forgeries that were used by Nicholas of croone were Simply Greek forgeries that he had translated into Latin yet it is my personal opinion that St Thomas aquinus knew that Nicholas of kroon's quotes were forgeries to begin with we could know this by looking throughout all of the sections where St Thomas aquinus discussed these matters St Thomas aquinus was known for being a very cons consistent thinker he would often treat certain issues multiple times during his life and in each of these times he would quote basically the same authors and give more or less detailed arguments depending on the audience now he treated the filio eight times in his life and for those forg documents that Nicholas of croone used St Thomas never quotes those again but enough of that this video is not meant to be some sort of argument from tradition or scripture D Wong and I have produced many videos that fact rather this video I wanted to bring forward what is the most famous of St Thomas's theological Arguments for the [Music] filio now that we've gotten that out of the way what is St Thomas's theological argument for the filio well he has a few some from the psychological analogy some from the nature of the power of spiration some from the nature of the order of the persons but his most famous one is called the argument from relative opposition so what does relative opposition mean relative opposition is meant to designate a certain relation that excludes the identity of the subjects of the relation for example the relationship of fatherhood the relationship of sunship have relative opposition because if you're a father you can't also be in that same relation the son these must posit two different subjects but on the other hand we can have other relations that don't have this so if you have the relationship of Brotherhood friendship that may exist in the same subject without positing two really distinct subjects so what St Thomas argues is that if there is not relative opposition between the Son and the spirit then like our relation of Brotherhood and friendship one will simply posit two relations in the same subject rather than a relation that necessarily designates two subjects that are really distinct further he's going to argue that this relative opposition that we must posit between the Son and the spirit must include a relation of procession relation of principle and thing principle but let's slow down for a second and work out this argument a bit more carefully first we have to realize that there are two ways of properly predicating something to God first you can predicate something relatively to God second you can predicate something absolutely to God for something to be absolute it has to be essential to the Trinity for example if we said that God is loving just wise these would be absolute predications of God on the other hand when it comes to relative predications it means that there is some sort of order to another and this comes from procession for example if we use terms like father son Spirit these would be relative terms because the father is the father of of the son the son is the son of the spirit the spirit is the spirit of the Sun and so on and despite what some Eastern Orthodox apologist say this distinction of names into absolute and relative is a distinction that is agreed upon by all of the fathers both East and West as representing the Eastern fathers St Cel States quote the relative names as they are applied are signified by both conveying the mutual knowledge of each therefore it is easier if one learns the right hand to know the left throat and certainly that the opposite is also true as anyone would agree so the name father belongs to the relational names and similarly the name son he who denies the father denies the son and he who denies the son does not have the father either and this is very fitting and true for if there is no father Since By Nature he has begotten one would not Grant the existence of the son for a son is because he is begotten and if there is no son as begotten neither would there be a father according to the fitting and consequent reason reasoning of Concepts a father because he has begotten end quote this is more clearly affirmed by St Augustine in day tritate he States quote in God nothing is said to be according to accident because in him nothing is changeable yet everything that is said is not said according to substance for it is said in relation to something as the father in relation to the Son and the son in relation to the Father which is not accident because both the one is always father and the other is always son and end quote now you are forced to ask yourself a question when it comes to the distinction between the Son and the spirit is this distinction something which is absolute or is it something which is relative it can't be something which is absolute because if it was absolute we would have some sort of Distinction of the absolute attributes that is you would have a distinction of what is essential what is substantial to the persons which we obviously have to deny since the persons are consubstantial and this is recognized by each one of the fathers who discuss this problem so obviously the persons are going to have to be distinguished by that which is relative now it is easy to see how the father and the son are distinguished by that which is relative since the father is the father of the son the son is the son of the father is also to see how the father and the spirit are distinguished by that which is relative the spirit is the spirit of the father but how are the Son and the spirit distinguished by relation someone might say that the Son and the spirit are distinguished by relation because they have different relations to the father but this obviously doesn't work as we mentioned above relation does not simply distinguish two persons rather only relational opposition to make this clear of why this is the case we could simply ask the question again what distinguishes those two relations from each other is it something absolute or is it something relative if it is something which is absolute that would obviously distinguish the essence if it was something which is relative then you would simply ask the question again and again again and again and you would have an infinite regress and this infinite regress would result in no Foundation the distinction between the Son and the spirit this is why we have to go one step further and not simply state that there is a distinction of relation but there's a true relative opposition between the two persons an instance of this is actually found when we look at the Father the father has two relations the father is related as the father of the Son and the father is related as the active spirator of the spirit yet are there two fathers since there are two relations no there's one father what is the reason for there only being one father well the reason is between these two relations there's no relative opposition so in what Foundation you have a relation of the spirit to the father and a relation of the son to the father and have two persons the spirit and the son clearly without relative opposition the persons would collapse merely being related to the same subject is not sufficient for distinguishing the persons rather you need true relative opposition between them at this point the distinction between the two persons is clear the son is the son because he's begotten of the Father the spirit is the spirit because he proceeds from the father and the son so from this there is true relative opposition between the Son and the spirit because the spirit proceeds from the son yet somebody may have a different objection they would state that the fathers say that we cannot know the dis distinction between the spirit and the son yet this response is ineffective first when these fathers say that we cannot know the distinction they're clearly not saying that we can't know anything about the distinction because we obviously know that procession results in the Holy Spirit getting results in the S that's some sort of Distinction rather what they're saying is that we cannot know the intimate character or the fullness of what distinguishes them just like we can't know the infinite character exhaustively of anything about God this is especially seen in the fact that these fathers actually do account for the distinction between the two they account for it the way that the Latins account for the distinction between the two that is that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son and the son is begotten of the father there are two quotes from St Gregory of Nissa to this effect first in on not three Gods he writes quote while we confess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause that which is caused by which alone we apprehend that one person is distinguished from another by our belief that is that one is the cause that is the father and another is of the cause the Son and the spirit and again in that which is of the cause that is the son of the spirit we require another distinction for one is directly from the first cause that is the Son and another that is a Spirit by that which is directly from the first cause that is the son so that the attribute of being only begotten abides without doubt in the sun and the interposition of the sun while it guards his attribute of being only begotten does not shut out the spirit from his relation by way of nature to the father end quote further in his homy on the Lord's Prayer he States quote it is common to the Son and the Holy Spirit that they do not exist as un begotten lest any confusion arise on this matter again we can find an incommunicable difference in their properties so that what is common may be preserved and what is proper may not be confused for the only begotten son is said by scripture to be from the father and in this way the word defines what is proper to him but the holy spirit is said to be from the father and is also testified to be from the son son who of God is Not and is not said to be the son of the spirit the terms of the relationship cannot be reversed end quote second because intrinsically this response makes no sense as we already went over above there are two possibilities either it is absolute or it is relative if it is not absolute then it is relative one cannot appeal to mystery in this case without falling into contradiction in order to better understand the sequence of this argument we can actually put this in a little bit more formal terms by reverse engineering the way it works and then putting it in a group of syllogisms first if the son and spirit are really distinct then there is relative opposition since in God everything is one except there be relation of opposition as is seen from The Case of the person of the Father the Son and the spirit are really distinct as all must concede therefore there is relative opposition further second if there is relative opposition between the Son and the spirit then there's relation between the Son and the spirit since relative opposition implies relation as the name indicates there is relative opposition as established above therefore there is a relation between the Son and the spirit further third there is relation between the Son and the spirit there must be procession for relation in God follows B procession there is relation between the Son and the spirit as established above therefore there is procession further four if there is procession then either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is the principle of the sun since there is a Terminus aquo and Terminus adem of every procession there is procession as established above therefore either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is the principle of the son further fifth either the son is the principle of the spirit or the spirit is a principle of the Sun as established above the spirit is not the principle of the Sun as admitted by all therefore the son is the principle of the spirit which is the doctrine of the filio this relies on the fact that the sequence from procession to real distinction is that procession leads to relation which leads to relative opposition which leads to real distinction thus if we posit real distinction as everyone has to then we posit procession if there is procession the procession is the procession of the spirit from the Sun and not the other way around this argument is found throughout the works of of St Thomas to greater or lesser complexity from the time that he was a bachelor student to the time that he almost died as in apologetic works and also in catechetical works and also in simple theological works and is even found throughout his disputed questions so there are a lot of places where St Thomas discusses this there are actually eight places Each of which I'm going to list so if you want to read on your own go ahead and read it you actually should read it on your own because they're really good first first book of sentences distinction 11 question 1 Article 1 in the question whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Sun or only from the father second suic cons Gentiles book four chapters 24 to 25 which are titled that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Sun and arguments of those who would prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Sun and their solution third de potentia question 10 articles 4 through 5 which are titled whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and whether the the Holy Spirit would still be distinct from the son if he did not proceed from him fourth compendium theologia book 1 CH 49 which is titled that the Holy Spirit proceedes from the father and the son fifth Deion chapter 4 which is titled how the Holy Spirit proceedes from the father and the son sixth commentary on The Gospel According to St John chapter 15 lecture 5 and chapter 16 lecture 4 7 suia primar question 36 article 2 which is titled whether the Holy Spirit proceed from the Sun lastly as we mentioned in the introduction against the errors of the Greeks book two and there's a lot of different chapters where he discusses a lot of different issues to definitely read the whole thing in conclusion it is easy to see how the foundational principles of trinitarian theology necessarily lead to the filio without the filio there is no Trinity because it immediately follows from the principles of our theology these principles are not merely Latin principles these are principles admitted by the holy fathers of both the East and the West this is not simply an argument that was made up in Latin scholasticism this was not simply an argument that St Thomas came up with this is an argument that necessarily and immediately flows from the very terminology defined at the councils and held by the fathers these principles are foundational to our theology they're foundational to the very Trinity of itself the filio immediately and necessarily follows obviously upon all of these principles so for the Orthodox out there and for any of those questioning the filio whether it makes sense theologically you simply have to ask yourself how do I distinguish the Sun from the [Music] spirit my window anding kind of love blow the eyes that me don't go the kid I get living is a sing sing [Music] la [Music] la