Transcript for:
Filioque Debate: Orthodoxy vs Catholicism

this video is on the filio Quay it's on Eastern Orthodoxy versus Catholicism and it's going to make a positive case for the filio Quay so the filio is about the Eternal hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit the Eastern Orthodox position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone this means only the father communicates the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit through spiration which is unique to the father alone the Catholic position is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son this means the father and the sun communicates the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit through one common principle of spiration now what about saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the son the Eastern Orthodox clarified their position of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father through the son at the dogmatic Council of blackr at the dogmatic Council of blackr the Eastern Orthodox condemned John beckos one of the Patriarchs who reconciled with the Catholic church at the Council of second Leon because he was convinced of the filio in their toos against beckos Canon four concerning through the son they say quote in certain texts of the fathers the phrase denotes the spirit's shining forth and manifestation indeed the very paraclet shines from and is Manifest eternally through the sun in the same way that light shines forth and is Manifest through the intermediary of the sun's Rays it further denotes the bestowing giving and sending of the spirit to us end quote so for Eastern Orthodox through the sun can mean Eternal manifestation which is the Eternal shining forth of the spirit through the sun most Orthodox theologians equates Eternal manifestation with energetic procession which is the holy spirit's procession from the father and the sun to manifest a Divine energy eternally the Council of La says this denotes the spirit's shining forth and manifestation now there are two interpretations of Eternal manifestation the majority opinion of Eastern Orthodox theologians is that energetic procession is the same thing as Eternal manifestation or The Shining forth of the Holy Spirit you see most Eastern Orthodox apologists online hold this view such as J dire and David the real Med white the second interpretation is a minority view which is the fact that energetic procession is not the same thing as Eternal manifestation and so we will only deal with the first interpretation of Eternal manifestation which is that Eternal manifestation is the same thing as energetic procession furthermore for E Orthodox through the sun can mean economic procession the holy spirit's activity of being sent in time and space from the father through the son right the Council of blacker says it furthered notes the bestowing giving and sending of the spirit to us now at the Council of blacker in the Tomos against speos Canan 4 the Eastern Orthodox clarified what through the son cannot mean concerning the phrase that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the son they say quote it does not however mean that it subsists through the Sun and from the Sun and that it receives its being through him and from him for this would mean that the spirit has the son as cause and Source exactly as it has the father not to say that it has its cause and Source more so from the son than from the father for it is said said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being to those who believe and say such things we pronounce the above resolution and judgment we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God for there is no other hypostasis in the Trinity except the fathers from which the existence and essence of the consubstantial Son and Holy Spirit is derived end quote and that's from Thomas against beos Canon 5 so for the Eastern Orthodox through the sun cannot mean that the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence or his existence from the son or even from the father through the son if someone asserts the son plays any role in the holy spirit's reception of the Divine Essence The dogmatically Binding Council of blacker will quote banish them from the flock of the Church of God now what is the Catholic position on through the sun well we have The ecumenical council of Florence in session six which says quote texts were produced from Divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors some saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son others saying the procession is from the father through the son all were aiming at the same meaning in different words the Greeks asserted that when they claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father they do not intend to exclude the son but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son as from two principles and two irations they refrained from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son Latin asserted that they say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son not with the intention of excluding the father from being the source and principle of all deity that is of the son and of the Holy Spirit nor to imply that the son does not receive from the father because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son nor that they posit two principles or two aspirations but they assert that there is only one principle and one inspiration of the holy spirit so for the Catholic position of from the father through the son it's talking about hypostatic origination we believe that the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father through the son can refer to the Eternal communication of the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit from the father and the son can also be used with regards to the temporal manifestation of the persons as well the holy spirit is sent from the father through the son and so despite popular opinion the Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position on the filio are dogmatically opposed it's not a mere semantic distinction but a substantial distinction the catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 246 says the Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son filio the Council of Florence in 1438 explains the holy spirit is eternally from the father and the son he has his nature and subsistence at once from the father and the son he proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and and through one spiration and since the father has through generation given to the only begotten son everything that belongs to the father except being Father the Son has also eternally from the father from whom he is eternally born that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Sun end quote whereas the Eastern Orthodox position says quote it does not however mean that it subsists through the Sun and from the Sun and that it receives its being through him and from him for this would mean that the spirit has a son as cause and Source end quot Tomos against speos Canon 4 furthermore in the sonon of the Holy Spirit the E Orthodox pray quote to those who confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone with no intermediary just as the son is begotten from the father alone with no intermediary memory Eternal so we see that the Eastern Orthodox pray that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone in the same manner that the son is begotten of the father alone with no intermediary so the son has no role in the communication of the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit and they also pray quote to those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds and has his existence from the father and the son that is God there's one cause of procession and one principle that is both the father and the son together and who by this teaching alienate the Holy Spirit from the godhead anathema to summarize Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit receives Essence from the father and the son whereas the Eastern Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit receives Essence from the father alone and so dogmatically the positions are in opposition with one another and so in this video we're going to work with the presupposition that either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is true now most people who dig into church history have already come to this conclusion either be Catholic or E Orthodox the main differences in teaching have to do with the filio way and the papacy if we prove the filio is true then Catholicism is true objection this is not a church dividing issue I agree that it's not a church dividing issue when it comes to the Ley as most don't even understand the intricacy of the debate nor do they care however a Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine on the filio are dogmatically opposed The ecumenical filio document from 2003 says these differences though subtle are substantial and the Very weight of the theological tradition behind both of them makes them all the more difficult to reconcile theologically with each other so showing the Holy Spirit receives Essence from the Sun would disprove the Eastern Orthodox position because we know the Council of blackr which is dogmatically binding says it does not however mean that it subsists through the Sun and from the Sun and that it receives it being through him and from him for this would mean that the spirit has a son as cause and source so according to the Council of blacker Tomos against speos Canon four if we even show that the Holy Spirit receives being or Essence from the Sun or through the sun this would mean the spirit has the Sun as cause and source so in other words they affirm that the sun playing any role in the communication of the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit entails the Florentine teaching of the filio Quay and so in this video we will prove the filio Quay using John 16 Revelation 221 the synthesis of the church fathers argument from the taxis of persons showing that the economy reveals the imminent Trinity using the psychological analogy refuting the essence Energy's real distinction and showing that the filio synthesizes Theology and so much more argument one the father gives all to the son premise one the father communicates all to the son except paternity premise two the father Spates conclusion therefore the son Spates premise one the father communicates all to the son except paternity premise two the father Spates conclusion therefore the son Spates if this is sound then the filio Quay is true because the Holy Spirit would proceed from both father and son John 16 proves this argument in John 16: 13 to 15 we see Christ Christ says when the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth for he will not speak on his own authority but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come he will glorify me for he will take what is mine and declare it to you all that the father has is mine therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you end quote once again premise 1 says the father communicates all to the son except paternity we see John 16 proves premise 1 in John 16:15 we see all that the father has is mine because the father gives all to the son all that the father has is the son's now you might be wondering where this accept paternity Clause is from well to maintain the distinctions of persons the persons must have hypothetic Properties or individual differences which constitute their personhood so when Jesus says all that the father has is mine it is implicit that he means everything except for paternity otherwise the father and son would not be distinct persons which is clearly false but since Jesus refers to the father as a distinct person it's presupposed that there's the distinct hypothetic qualities therefore premise one is true now on to premise 2 the father Spates no one denies premise 2 both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic theologians agree that the father Spates the Holy Spirit therefore premise 2 is true conclusion therefore the sunp does this conclusion follow though before we show that the conclusion follows and before we elaborate on an expanded version of this argument we shall show that the holy scriptures prove that this conclusion does in fact follow in case you do not believe the conclusion follows John 16 tells us it does conclusion 3 is affirmed in John 16 in John 16:3 we seee he will not speak on his own authority but whatever he hears he will speak end qu John 16:14 says he will glorify me for he will take what is mine end quote now what is the holy spirit taking here well he's taking what he hears or Knowledge from the son John 16:15 says quote all that the father has is mine therefore I said that he will take what is mine end quote so we see that the Lord Jesus Christ affirms that the Holy Spirit receives from him because the father has given all to the son right whatever he hears he will speak he would take what is mine and the justification for this comes from John 16:15 all that the father has his mind right because the father has given all things to the son the son gives knowledge to the Holy Spirit objection what if the taking receiving and hearing in John 16 is with regards to the economic Trinity and not the imminent Trinity well let's define our terms first for those who are not aware of the distinction between the imminent and economic Trinity economic Trinity or economia is a relationship of God within time and space it's the temporal missions where the Divine persons are revealed so this has to do with God external to himself or at extra the imminent Trinity or theologia is with regards to the inner life of the Trinity it's about the Eternal essential and ontological aspects of the Trinity this has to do with God internal to himself or at intra and so concerned with the imminent Trinity we have the Divine processions the hyp itic Origins and the relations so clearly the filo is about the imminent Trinity since this has to do with the internal life of God the way the Divine persons reveal themselves in Salvation history is the economic Trinity revisiting the objection the taking receiving and hearing that Christ is talking about is within the economic realm right since this is happening in Salvation history is the holy spirit receiving knowledge imminently or economically we know the Holy Spirit does not gain knowledge economically he's omniscient from all eternity he does not learn things within time and space the holy spirit is omniscient from the communication of the Divine Essence since he has the Divine Essence and is God he is all knowing from all eternity meaning the Holy Spirit receives knowledge or Hears by hypostatic origination or receiving the Divine Essence which is pure intellect but the scriptures attest to the fact that the holy spirit is receiving Knowledge from the Sun but the Holy Spirit only receives Knowledge from receiving the Divine Essence therefore the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from the Sun and so this could only be the case if both father and Son communicate the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit meaning filio right according to Divine Simplicity everything in God is God so God is all of his attributes the Divine Essence is pure intellect it is being it is existence so if the Holy Spirit receives Knowledge from the son then he must receive being Essence and existence from the son meaning the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son objection Christ gains knowledge in the economic realm in Luke 2:52 we see and Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and Grace with God and men now since Christ is Incarnate he can gain knowledge in the economic realm according to his human nature but his divine nature is omniscient from all eternity since the holy spirit is not an incarnate person he cannot gain knowledge in the economic realm as if he was lacking or missing knowledge only way the Holy Spirit receives knowledge is by receiving the Divine Essence which is pure intellect so the holy spirit's reception of Knowledge from the Sun means he receives the Divine Essence from the Sun proving the sun Spates as well but that just means that both Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit which means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son or filio we also see great doctors of the Holy Catholic Church make the same argument St Bonaventure in his commentary on the sentences says again the spirit will glorify me because he will receive from me from this Authority it is argued in this way everyone is all that he has and everyone is all that he receives but the Holy Spirits since God is supremely simple is all that God has therefore he is all that he receives there therefore if the Holy Spirit receives something from someone he receives being but from whom the spirit receives being from that one he proceedes therefore if the spirit receives something from the sun he proceeds from the Sun if you say that to receive that being is in a temporal fashion then it put forward against this that everything that receives something from someone temporally is changed Etc and we see St alans Lor make this argument as well quote it is said therefore that he receives from the son because he proceeds from him and from from him receives by communication the nature and all the attributes of the son end quot the history of heresies in the reputation reputation 4 paragraph 5 page 240 objection buus claims that John 16 does not say the Holy Spirit receives hearing or Knowledge from the Son and he says the spirit only receives Knowledge from the father in The mogoi of the Holy Spirit book 2:22 he says quote what other hypostasis from whom the spirit is said to receive could be meant other than the father because it cannot be as has been recently contended against God that he receives from the son and it certainly cannot be from the spirit who himself does the receiving end quote according to fius John 16 cannot say that the Holy Spirit receives from the Sun why is that well fius thinks that if the holy spirit is said to receive from the Sun then he must proceed from him implying the filo but of course fius thinks the filio is something that's not true so fius says John 16 is not about the Holy Spirit receiving from the Sun let's revisit John 16 when the spirit of of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth he will not speak on his own authority but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come he will glorify me for he will take what is mine and declare it to you all that the father has is mine therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you the way fius reads it is that all that the father has is mine therefore I said that he would take Knowledge from the father alone which is also mine and declare it to you now the problem with fodi's interpretation is that it goes against the consensus of the church fathers St epiphanius of Salamis is a saint both East and West he says quote Christ is believed to be from the father God from God and the spirit to be from Christ or indeed from both as Christ says who proceeds from the Father John 15:26 and he shall receive of mine John 16:14 St epiphanius is saying that the son is from the father alone and the spirit is from Christ and the father and his justification for this is that we see scriptures say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and we also see scriptures say that the Holy Spirit receives from the Sun clearly if St epiphanius deduced the Holy Spirit has hypostatic origin from Christ from he shall receive a mine in John 16:14 St epiphanius believes the knowledge the Holy Spirit receives is from the Sun let's see what St Hillary has to say he's a saint both East and West he lived from 310 to 367 ad in on the Holy Trinity Book 99 paragraph 31 he says the only begotten therefore taught that he had all that the father has and that the Holy Spirit should receive of him as he says all things whatsoever the father hath are mine therefore I said he shall take of mine all that the father hath are his delivered and received but these gifts do not degrade his divinity since they give him the same attributes as the father end quote furthermore in paragraph 73 he says quote that all things which the father has are his he alludes to the divine nature and not to a joint ownership of gifts bestowed for referring to his words that the Holy Spirit should take of his he says all things whatsoever the father has are mine therefore said I he shall take of mine that is the holy spirit takes of his but takes also of the father's and if he receives of the fathers he receives also of his end quote clearly St Hillary is asserting from John 16 that the holy spirit is receiving from both Father and Son which fius had to deny otherwise it would contradict his monop patriotism so it is clear that St Hillary also holds the Catholic interpretation of John 16 that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son and not F's interpretation that the Holy Spirit receives from the father alone let's see what St Ambrose of Milan has to say he's a saint both East and West he lived from 340 to 397 ad he says quote all things that the father has are mine John 16:15 also of the Holy Spirit saying that the spirit is Christ's and has received of Christ as it is written he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you John 16:14 end quote sermon on the giving up of the basilicas St Ambrose also holds the Catholic interpretation St Leo the great he's a saint both East and West he lived from 400 to 461 ad here's what he has to say quote for while the son is the only begotten of the father and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the father and the son not in the way that every creature is the creature of the father and the son but as living and having power with both and eternally subsisting of that which is the father and the son all things that the father has are mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shall announce it to you John 16 sermon 75 part 3 so clearly St Leo is saying that the holy spirit is a spirit of both and subsists of that which is the father and son and his justification is using John 16 indicating that he believes that the Holy Spirit receives from the son as well St athenus says quote and indeed the Lord himself said the spirit shall take of mine and I will send him and to his disciples receive the Holy Ghost and if as the Lord himself has said the spirit is his and takes of his and he sends it end quote discourse against the Aryans 1 Chapter 12 St Gregor of Nissa says quote he the Holy Spirit ever searches the Deep things of God ever receives from the son end quot on the Holy Spirit against the macedonians St s of Jerusalem says and the father indeed gives to the Son and the son shares with the Holy Ghost for it is Jesus himself not I who says all things are delivered unto me of my father and of the Holy Ghost he says when he the spirit of truth shall come and the rest he shall glorify me for he shall receive of mine and shall show it onto you end qu catechetical lecture 16 St s of Alexandria says in this way then the statement that his Spirit receives something from the only begotten is wholly unimpeachable and cannot be caval at for proceeding naturally as his attribute through him and having all that he has in its entirety he is said to receive that which he has end quote on The Gospel according to John book 11 CH 1 so it is clear that the church fathers unanimously agree that the Holy Spirit receives from the son according to John 16 so the holy spirit's reception of Knowledge from the Sun means he receives the Divine Essence from the sun proving the sun Spates as well but that just means that both Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit which means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son or filio objection what if this is speaking about energetic procession or Eternal manifestation all right we shall now debunk the doctrine of Eternal manifestation or energetic procession before we debunk the doctrine of Eternal manifestation or energetic procession just realize how ad hoc it is to use eternal manifestation or energetic procession even the Eastern Orthodox Saint fius says that the receiving in John 16 cannot be from the Sun and so he didn't even know about the doctrine of Eternal manifestation or energetic procession that wasn't even on his radar back then all right we're going to have to address the essence Energy's real distinction this is because the essence energy real distinction is the entire basis or foundation for the doctrine of energetic procession or Eternal manifestation which a lot of neop palamite theologians expells now if we could undermine this basis then we could actually undermine the appeals to energetic procession and eternal manifestation thereby making our case for the filio a lot easier to establish and so we're just going to bite them right at the jugular and strike the essence energy real distinction head on the essence Energy's real distinction has been advocated by many neop palamite theologians and YouTubers such as J D Vladimir Loi and John mondorf now what is the essence Energy's real distinction the essence energy real distinction is the belief that God's Essence is really distinct from his Energies now this probably doesn't mean anything to you if you don't know what the terms mean so let's break it down according to the neop palamite essence is what constitutes God's Divinity this is absolutely Transcendent inaccessible and imp participle all three persons of the Trinity have the Divine essence essence answers what are they energies are God's operations which shine forth and manifest his divinity energies communicate the Divinity to the creature these are knowable and participle energies answers the question what is it that they are doing real distinction is a difference grounded in reality apart from the activity of thinking so a pear and an apple are really distinct cuz even if I'm not thinking they are not the same thing and a real distinction is opposed to a merely conceptual distinction a merely conceptual distinction is a difference that's not grounded in the object rather a difference that actually emerges from the activity of thinking say for example Batman and Bruce Wayne the terms are conceptually distinct because through the activity of thinking we make a difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne but in reality they are identified with one and the same object all right so what are the commitments of the essence Energy's real distinction well the first one is that the essence and the energies are not identical right that's what really distinct means the second is that the energies are fully Divine the energies are fully God we could call these operations that manifest God's Divinity God himself they could also divinize and ground the process of theosis see the barlam debates the energies are uncreated they're Eternal they're mutable and they manifest God in time and space so the light of Mount tabore and the burning bush in Exodus according to the neop palamite theologians are these uncreated Divine energies so they're uncreated they're fully Divine yet they still change within time and space and the last commitment is that the essence infinitely transcends the energies whereas the essence is unknowable the energies are knowable whereas the essence is imp participle the energies are participle and so the essence energy real distinction has these four commitments now when you see the neop palamite proof text for the essence energy real distinction you have to ask yourself are these four commitments necessitated by the text being deployed because a lot of times the text that the neop Palam mites use to try to prove the essence energies of Distinction might commit you to one or two of these commitments but most of the time they will never commit you to all four of the commitments at once so so energies just means activities or operations and according to even St Thomas aquinus we could talk about the operations passively considered versus actively considered actively considered the operations is simply the Divine will and the Divine Essence passively considered considered the operations are the effects we could talk about God's activities qua his effects of those activities all right so we will logically demonstrate the impossibility of the neop palamite project of the essence energy real distinction we shall show that the essence energy real distinction will either Force the neop palamite into positing a composite God or they will have to reject the four commitments of the essence Energy's real distinction so the first question is how does one establish a real distinction between thing a and Essence B does thing a have Essence B if we say yes then thing a would have to be composed to be really distinct from Essence B if we say no then thing a is already really distinct from Essence B since it lacks the essence therefore it's nonidentical with it why does thing a have to be composed if it has Essence B to be really distinct from it if thing a has Essence B thing a can only be distinct from Essence B by having a non-essential feature why a simple proof by contradiction will help us understand assume the opposite if thing a had no distinctions from Essence B it would simply be Essence B so for thing a to be really distinct from Essence B it would need to have a non-essential feature meaning thing a would be composed of essence B plus some non-essential feature to be really distinct from Essence B for example St John is really distinct from the essence of humanity so St John is thing a and Essence B is the essence of humanity St John is really different from the essence of humanity now why is that well what is St John St John is a composite of the essence of humanity plus an act of existence plus matter Plus form right and so St John is really distinct from the essence of humanity because he's a composition of the essence of humanity and non-essential features in other words he's more than just the human Essence and so we see that St John is thing a and he's really distinct from the essence of humanity Essence B by way of composition so we clearly see that thing a has Essence B and is really distinct from Essence B by being a composition of essence B and non-essential features now we revisit the question does things a have Essence B if we say yes thing a would have to be composed to be really distinct from Essence B if we say no then thing a is already distinct from Essence B since it lacks the essence for the essence energy real distinction we ask the question do the energies possess the Divine Essence if we say yes then the energies now have the Divine Essence but we need some non-essential features to ground the real distinction between the energies and the Divine Essence meaning God is now composed now if you say no that means the energies now lack the Divine Essence and we cannot explain theosis and theophanies well why is this we know the Divine Essence is pure act now if the energies lack the Divine Essence that means they are not pure act and if something is not pure act then it's necessarily A mixture of act and potency anything that is a mixture of act and potency is limited is finite and therefore cannot be God and so if you say that the Divine energies do not possess the Divine Essence then you're contradicting palamite commitment of the Divine energies being fully uncreated and fully God right and for justification of the division of being that all being is divided either into pure act or a mixture of act and potency go watch maa's theology lecture Series so either you're going to accept the neop palamite teaching and get a composite God or you going to reject the neop palamite teaching and get created effects or created energies which is the very thing you're trying to avoid in the barlam debate and so from here we show that the essence Energy's real distinction either entails a composite God or you're going to have to reject the commitments of the essence energies real distinction such as the energies being fully Divine uncreated being fully God Eternal mutable and manifesting God in time and space but this just undermines your own theology right now a common objection you always hear is that distinction does not entail division or composition right so the argument basically goes as follows the persons are really distinct from each other but they're not composed therefore the essence Energy's real distinction does not lead to composition now this sounds good at first but if you actually do the metaphysics and understand trinitarian theology you recognize that this objection is really weak and does not hold for the essence Energy's real distinction so the first thing we have to talk about is the real distinction between persons we believe that the real distinctions exist between persons and the unity is in the essence catechism paragraph 253 says in the words of the fourth lat in Council each of the persons is that Supreme reality the Divine substance essence or nature paragraph 255 says the Divine persons are relative to one another because it does not divide the Divine Unity the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another so comparing the essence energy distinction to the distinctions of the persons is a false comparison because each person is fully the Divine Essence there's not a real distinction between person and Essence there's only a real distinction between the person's and each other the persons are only distinct by their relations of opposition or relations of Origins to each other on the other hand the neop palamite argues that there's a real distinction between Essence and energies and so this is a false comparison we said that in order to ground a real distinction between Essence and energies you're going to need composition you're going to need some non-essential features to ground this distinction we believe there is no real distinction between person and nature there there's only real distinction between person and person by relations and so it does not lead to composition but anyone who's arguing that the essence and energies are really distinct will be led to composition in the godhead there's an asymmetry because we're making different claims now let's actually examine what grounds the real distinction between the persons and show how this cannot be used to ground the essence Energy's real distinction and how our argument before holds all right so distinction does not entail composition is only true for the Divine Productions since the Divine Productions are imminent processions anal to action passion relations all right this sounds very complex but let's break it down so we distinguish between two types of action passion relations we have transient action passion relations which are actions external to the agent so think of a puncher punching the punched so there's a real distinction between the agent acting the puncher and the recipient of the action the punched so the transient action of punching itself results in two correlative distinct terms the agent and the recipient right the puncher punches the punched the punch is the action the puncher is the agent acting and the punched is the recipient of the action and so we have agent action and recipient and there's a real distinction between the correlative terms of puncher and punched because there's a relation of opposition between the two right even if you punch yourself there is still a real distinction between the active point of contact your fist and the passive point of contact your face the puncher and punch are distinct thus this transient action passion relation results in a real distinction between correlative terms now the other type of action passion relation is an imminent or internal action passion relation and so these are types of actions that remain in the agent acting so a thinker thinking a thought there's a real distinction between the agent acting right The Thinker and the internal product of the action the thought the thought remains in the agent the thought remains in the thinker but the thought is really distinct from The Thinker and the action of thinking is the imminent or intern internal action that produces the two correlative terms of thinker and thought and so in this type of action passion relation we have an internal action that remains in the agent that has two distinct correlative terms the agent producing The Thinker and the produced term the thought and so because thinker and thought and agent producing and produced term are relatively opposed they're not reducible to one and the same thing all right so how does this compare to the Divine Productions well we use a psychological analogy to help understand the imminent divine sessions when we know something we generate a concept or a word right I have a concept or self-image of myself but the self-image is lacking it's not who I fully am it doesn't capture its own being now on the other hand the father is pure act and perfectly knows himself and in perfectly knowing himself he eternally generates his word or self-image that captures all that he is so the word is all knowing all loving perfect and fully captures the same exact pure Act of existence that the father is yet the word is generated whereas the father is ungenerated and so this allows for a real distinction between the persons by their relations of opposition and this real distinction by relations of opposition is grounded in this imminent production since the father's word captures his very identical Essence the father's word is substantially identical and not accidental like the human word so the persons are all the same one pure act but they're distinct qua relations that which is generated is not that which is ungenerated there's this incommunicable irreducible distinction between the persons yet they are still the same entity they're still the same Divine substance so this imminent procession is analogous to an action passion relation and it grounds a real distinction between the co-relative terms the persons right the father and the son the ungenerated and the generated while also allowing for numerical Unity of essence they are the exact same pure act but they are distinct persons and so since the Divine production is the perfect communication of pure act right they're each the same God each the same pure act not different copies but the same numerically one concrete Divine Essence each person is fully identical to the same pure act so there's unity in essence but distinction in persons now given that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all the same pure act there's no composition why since pure Act is without Parts pure act has no composition of potency and act it's just pure act so there's no parts the persons are not parts of God rather each person is fully the one true God but each person is really distinct from each other because of their relations or their directedness towards each other right the father is not the son nor is he the Holy Spirit the son is not the father nor is he the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is not the father nor is he the son why because the father is from no one the son is from the father and the Holy Spirit is from the father and the son therefore they're directed opposed to each other and so all persons are the same pure act and pure act has no parts so the distinctions of persons in no way leads to composition the imminent Productions only establish a real distinction between persons with each other not between the person and the Divine Essence each person is fully the same God but they are not the same person they are distinct persons so although person and nature are virtually distinct and have different modes of signification as person is relative and Nature's absolute each person is fully the divine nature and so there is no real distinction between person and nature and that's why the distinction of persons does not entail a composition we actually have to ground and establish the real distinctions and examine if it leads a composition or not now for the neop palit they believe that there's a real distinction between Essence and energies and in order for the energies to be really distinct from the essence and possess the essence there has to be some distin dising feature and this distinguishing feature has to be a non-essential attribute now this just means that the energies would be a composition of the Divine Essence plus non-essential attributes meaning there would be composition in the godhead so distinction does not entail composition is true for the Divine Productions since there's no real distinction between person and nature there's only a virtual distinction but for the neop palamides who claim that the essence is really distinct from the energies and that the energies possess the essence that does lead to composition in the godhead as we proved earlier so when when the neop pelite says distinction does not entail composition they're wrong when it comes to the essence energy real distinction they actually have to ground the real distinction they actually have to do the metaphysics and explain why it doesn't lead to composition but we Pro that it does now after debunking the neop palamite claims they're immediately going to object and say your relational augustinian model of the Trinity is just clearly wrong here many Eastern Orthodox apologists claim that the cidian hypostatic properties model of the Trinity is actually the correct model and the relational augustinian model of the Trinity is wrong right so they'll prefer capid oian theology over augustinian Theology and put them in dialectical tension now if you actually understand proper trinitarian theology you recognize that these two models are not in opposition with one another the relational model and the hypothetic properties model are two perspectives of viewing the same one Trinity I like to say that the relational model of the Trinity is a dynamic view of the Trinity whereas the hypothetic model of the Trinity is a static view but both the relational model and the hypostatic model are in unison with one another they explain the same one Trinity but before we explain any further let's show that the Greek fathers did not view the two models in opposition like modern Eastern Orthodox apologists St Gregory nazianzen is a saint both East and West in oration 29:16 he says quote but it is the name of the relation in which the father stands to the Son and the son to the father for as with us these names make known a genuine and intimate relation so in the case before us too they denote an identity of nature between him that is begotten and him that begets end quote so we see that the relations allow for a real distinction between the persons but identity and nature meaning the father and the son are really distinct by their relations of opposition but both are the exact same pure Act of existence so each person is fully the Supreme Being meaning person is only virtually distinct from nature and person and nature are really identical but each person is really distinct from the other person by their real relations of opposition in oration 319 he says quote their Mutual relations one to another has caused the difference of their names for indeed it is not some deficiency in the son which prevents his being father for sunship is not a deficiency and yet he is not father according to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the father in respect to his not being son for the father is not son and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of essence but the very fact of being unbegotten or begotten or proceeding has given the name of father to the first of the son to the second and of the third him of whom we are speaking of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the three persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the godhead end quote so once again we see that St Gregory nananas describes a mutual relations as grounding the distinctions of persons while also recognizing you could assert the same truth through the hypothetic properties of being unbegotten begotten and proceeding this is because the relations and hypothetic properties are two views of the imminent communication of the numerically W Divine Essence the relational model emphasizes the imminent processions and their Mutual references whereas the hypostatic properties model describes a static View of these processions so St Gregory nanen is clearly in line with theistic Doctrine in oration 30 he says quote and he is called the word because he's related to the father as word to mind not only on account of his passionless generation but also because of the union and of his declaratory function perhaps too this relation might be compared to that between the definition and the thing defined since this is also called logos clearly St Greg nanen is using the psychological analogy asserting the sun is the word of the mind or the infinite object produced through an intellectual emanation showing the psychological analogy is used by the capedan Fathers as well in oration 3020 he says quote and the image as one of substance with him and because he's of the father and not the father of him for this is of the nature of an image to be the reproduction of its archetype and of that whose name it Bears only that there is more here for an ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that which has motion but in this case it is the living reproduction of the living one and is more exactly like than was Seth to Adam or any son to his father for such is the nature of simple existences that is it is not correct to say of them that they are like in one particular and unlike in another but they are complete resemblance and should rather be called identical than like end quote so once again we see father and son are identical in substance meaning they are the exact same pure act right person and nature are only virtually distinct they're not two copies of pure act the Divine Essence is a concrete primary substance there's numerically one Divine Essence it's not not a generic Universal like but the distinctions of persons emerges from their relations of opposition it says he's of the father and not the father of him the son is of the father and not the father of him and by this relation of opposition they are distinct St basil the great in against eunomius 2 says quote the Divinity is common but the paternity and the affiliation are properties and combining the two elements the common and the proper brings about in us the comprehension of the truth thus when we want to speak of an unbegotten light we think of the father and when we want to speak of a begotten light we conceive of the notion of the Sun as light and light there is no opposition between them but as begotten and unbegotten one considers them under the aspect of their opposition the properties effectively have the character of showing the alterity within the identity of substance the properties are distinguished from one another by opposing themselves but they do not divide the unity of the substance end quote we see St basil the great clearly showing the distinction of persons by relations of opposition right the term he uses when translated to Latin is opposit the same exact term used by the Scholastics and I got the little hint from Eric yar's book on the filio showing that his view of the hypothetic properties are not divorced from the doctrine of relations rather the hypothetic properties are grounded in relations of opposition furthermore he says there are two modes of predication common and proper under the analysis of substance that is under the analysis of light and light they are identical to the same pure act but under the analysis of the relations unbegotten begotten they are really distinct which is why he says the properties are distinguished from one another by opposing themselves but they do not divide the unity of the substance because the persons are distinct coar relations of opposition and the Divine processions are the communication of the numerically one pure Act of existence each person is fully the same exact pure act and therefore there is no division or composition of substance but because they are distinct qual their relations they are really distinct and so we see that the hypothetic properties are grounded in relations of opposition here's a capid ocian father exactly making our Point St Gregory of Nissa on not three Gods says quote we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alone we apprehend that one person is distinguished from another by a belief that is that one is the cause and another is of the cause and again in that which is of the cause we recognize another distinction for one is directly from the first cause and another by that which is directly from the first cause 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 so we see the persons are only distinguished by their relations of opposition as St Gregory of Nissa says quote one is the cause and another is of the cause so there's an irreducible distinction between producing term and produced term like we previously said and from the fact that the relations of opposition are the only reason the persons are differentiated we see he affirms that the son is from the father as he says for one is directly from the first cause and the Holy Spirit is from the father and the son and he says and another by that which is directly from the first cause right that which is directly from the first cause is the Son and if the holy spirit is by that which is directly from the first cause that means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son clearly this is about the Holy Spirit and why he's a unique person and so this is is about hypothetic properties of the persons and about or about the Divine processions meaning St Gregory affirms the son actively Spates the Holy Spirit and he does so based off of the doctrine of relative opposition this is why he says 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 this simply means the son actively spirting the Holy Spirit grounds the real distinction between son and spirit but the spirit is still related by nature to the father since he proceeds from both Father and Son filio the entire context is about the hypothetic differences and about the Divine processions so this is about the communication of the Divine Essence not about energies furthermore he even says this relation is by way of nature which the neop palamite thinks is really distinct from the energies so no this is not about energetic procession and no you cannot sneak your way out of this we have St Cal who says quote the relative names signify each other mutually and both produce knowledge of the other for father is a relative name and so is the son end quote so we see that Mutual relations allow for a distinction in persons which is simply what the doctrine of relations of oppositions describe St Augustine on on the Trinity book 5 chapter 14 says quote but in their Mutual relation to one another in the Trinity itself if the begetter is a beginning in relation to that which he begets the father is a beginning in relation to the son so clearly he's saying that the Divine processions show a mutual relation begetter and begotten that is a Rel of opposition in chap 12 he says quote but whereas in the same Trinity something severely or specially predicated there are in no way said in reference to themselves in themselves but either in mutual reference or in respect to the creature and therefore it is Manifest that such things are spoken relatively not in the way of substance end quote so St Augustine also affirms that there are two modes of predication we have relative predicates and we have substantial predicates or predicates common to all three persons and concerning the Divine processions those are relative predicates so they could apply to one or two persons in book 5 5: 6 he says quote but because the father is not called the father except in that he has a son and the son is not called son except that he has a father these things are not said according to substance because each of them is not soall in relation to himself but the terms are used reciprocally and in relation each to the other nor yet according to accident because both the being called the father and the being called the son is etal etal and unchangeable to them wherefore although to be the father and to be the son is different yet their substance is not different because they are so-called not according to substance but according to relation which relation however is not accident because it is not changeable end quote so we see the persons are really distinct by relations or relations of opposition and they are identical in substance and we see that the relations are not accidents meaning the relations are subsistent the Divine relations are only only virtually distinct from the Divine substance as the Divine substance is pure Act and the Divine relations are all pure act but they have two modes of signification even the arch heretic Aras who denied the vinity of Christ said the following which shows the doctrine of relations was used by Orthodox trinitarians at the nine debates in aras's writing to Pope St Alexander I he says quote for he is neither Eternal nor co-eternal nor co- unbegotten with the father nor does he have his being together with the father as some speak of relations end quote this is from father Em's book TR church and human person so the doctrine of relations was used at the Council of NAA by Orthodox Defenders of the Triune God against Aras showing that this is clearly something that was taught by the fathers both east and west from the very beginning and the doctrine of relations is an Aristotelian category which has simultaneous Mutual oppose reference so clearly the doctrine of relations of opposition is something that is grounded in both east and west and so anyone who tries to divorce the relational model from the hypothetic model does not actually understand trinitarian Theology and they don't understand the capid oian fathers and this is why St Thomas finus is a great synthesizer of the East and the West cuz he actually understands what he's talking about he actually understands philosophy and metaphysics he actually understands scripture he actually understands the church fathers and so he synthesizes them beautifully and so we clearly demonstrated that the relational model of the Trinity is something that is true the relational model and the hypostatic model of the Trinity are two views of the same one Trinity anyone who tries to divorce the relational model of the Trinity from the hypostatic model of the Trinity and put them in dialectical opposition does not actually understand trinitarian theology all right so let's revisit the objection the objection was distinction does not entail division right so the argument was that the persons are really distinct but they're not composed therefore the essence energy distinction does not lead to composition well we analyze this claim and realize that the distinction does not entail division for the persons due to the imminent Divine processions which ground distinct relations while maintaining unity in essence but this cannot apply to the essence energies real distinction why first reason this would be giving the energies the Divine processions and would be confusing them with the persons you would have generated or expirated energies which is clearly false the second problem is that the imminent Divine Productions provide a real distinction between the persons who are really distinct relative to the other persons but the imminent Divine Productions do not provide a real distinction between the persons and the Divine Essence we say that the persons are each fully the Divine Essence and that the persons are only really distinct from each other and are only virtually distinct from the essence so the doctrine of relations canot help neop palamides affirm a real distinction between the essence and the energies so if you do the basic metaphysics you will see that this objection does not help the neop palamides and so we go back to our initial objection we ask do the energies possess the Divine Essence if you say yes the energies now have the Divine Essence plus they will need some non-essential features to ground the distinction meaning that God is now composed and so you're led to a composite God now if you say the energies lack the Divine Essence that means the energies are not pure act but if the energies are not pure act they must must be a composition of act and potency but if they're a composition of act and potency then they're not God they're not Divine they're not uncreated they would be limited composite finite and now you can't explain theosis theophanies plus this contradicts palamite teaching so pick your poison do you want a composite God or do you want to undermine your neop palamite commitments there's a Third Way admit there's no Essence energy real distinction and undermind your neop palamite theology tomis is so much better than neop palamism cuz it's actually true now why do I keep saying neop palamism well because there's a neop palamite traditional palamite to real distinction your own palamite Saints disagree with you philotheos cinos is an Eastern Orthodox Saint living in the 1300s he was ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople he is regarded as a protector of Orthodoxy along with Fus Mark of Ephesus and Palos here's what he has to say about the essence energy distinction quote according to the theologians and the fathers the Divine Essence and the Divine energy are two things in the sense that it is proclaimed that they differ from each other not really but conceptually and that these two things are one thing their unity in its turn being taken and proclaimed as existent not conceptually but really end quote whoa you're telling me philos kinos a protector of Orthodoxy is saying that the essence energy distinction is not a real distinction but only conceptual and their Unity is a real Unity wait a second philos kinos was the Theologian of official palamism he's the one who threw the anathemus at barlam isn't he the one who wrote the hag to under the supervision and inspiration of palamos the one that taught official palamite teachings isn't he the one who canonized palamos and wrote the book on his life so you're telling me kinos was a student and friend of Gregory palamos who helped construct the dogmatic hatic Tome for the palamite councils and he is the one who standardized palamite teaching yet he didn't believe in the essence energies real distinction that's exactly what I'm saying and as we see the essence energy real distinction is an evolution of Dogma not something even held by the Protectors of Orthodoxy who who composed the palamite council's documents this is why Fus doesn't even know about the essence energies real distinction it's evolution of dogma and this is why we have St Gregory of Nissa who says yet there is nothing uncreated except the divine nature end quot wait a second neop palomides claim that the energies are really distinct from the divine nature but are also uncreated St Gregory of nista says only the divine nature is uncreated let's see what St Leo has to say quote no man is truth wisdom justice but many are partakers of Truth wisdom and justice but God Alone is exempt from any participating and anything which is in any degree worthily predicated of him is not an attribute but his very essence for in the unchangeable there is nothing added but there is nothing lost because to be is ever his peculiar property and that is eternity end quote wait a second whatever predicated of God is not just an attribute of him but it's very essence but all of these neop palamides are saying that whatever we predicate of God we're predicating of his energies right remember Jay Dyer said that love is an energy of God existence is an energy of God existence even it itself is an energy of God existence is not the Divine Essence wrong St Leo the great says whatever we're predicating of God that's about his Essence and so we have proved the neop palamism traditional palamism real distinction we have showed that in order for the neop palamite project to work you're either going to lead to a composite God or you going to have to reject all the commitments of the neop palamite project we've also showed that your own palamite Saints The Defenders of Orthodoxy did not believe in the essence energy real distinction now that we have debunked the essence energy real distinction this will make it so much easier for us to prove the filo as the essence Energy's real distinction is a basis for the energetic procession or Eternal manifestation now that that's gone we could also rule out Eternal manifestation and energetic procession and make it so much easier for us to prove the Eternal hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit from the father and the son so revisiting what we were talking about earlier we said that John 16 shows that the Holy Spirit receives from the Sun and then we debunk the essence energy real distinction so if if the Holy Spirit receives Knowledge from the son then he must receive being Essence and existence from the son meaning the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son now let's acknowledge some more interesting biblical parallels the first one is that the father gives all authority to the son in Matthew 28:18 we see quote and Jesus came and said to them all authority in heaven and on Earth has been given to me end qu in Matthew 11:27 we see Jesus say all things have been handed over to me by my father end the son's reception of Authority from the father indicates that he receives the Divine Essence or has his hypothetic origin from the father all three persons in the Trinity are co-equal and have the same Authority there's no gradation or subordination of authority but the reception of authority is meant to just indicate the hypothetic origination of the persons all right St John Chrome says quote all authority hath been given unto me by my father referring all to him that begat him not as though of himself he were not sufficient but to signify that he is a son and not unbegotten and quote homy 39 on 1 Corinthians paragraph 11 so according to St John christom the son's reception of authority is to show something about his hypostatic origin and personal properties St ananus says quote he said was given unto me and I received and were delivered to me only to show that he is not the father but the father's word and the Eternal son who because of his likeness to the father has eternally what he has from him and because he is the son he has from the father what he has eternally end quote discourse 3 against the Aryans 27 likewise St athus says the son's reception of authority reflects his hypostatic origin from the father since he is the Eternal Word of the father now John 1613 parallels John 5:19 and John 12:49 John 1613 says quote when the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth for he will not speak on his own authority but whatever he hears he will speak end quot John 5:19 says Jesus gave them this answer very truly I tell you the son can do nothing by himself he can do only what he sees his father doing because whatever the father does the son also does end qu in John 12:49 says for I have not spoken on my own authority the father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak and quote so we see both son and spirit do not speak on their own authority right in John 16:13 it says he will not speak on his own authority in John 5:19 we see the son can do nothing by himself and in John 12:49 we see I've not spoken on my own authority but the Son and the spirit receive their authority to speak from another right in John 16:13 we see but whatever he hears he will speak and in John 5:19 we hear he could do only what he sees his father doing and in John 12:49 we see the father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak we also see similarities in John 8:28 which says quote so Jesus said when you have lifted up the son of man then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as a father taught me end quote now the reception of authority points to the reception of the Divine Essence or hypostatic origin the son receives Authority and his speech from the father since he has his hypostatic origin from the father here's what St Augustine has to say on John 5:19 quote the father then shows a thing which he does to the son in such wise that the son sees all things in the father and is all things in the father for by seeing he was begotten and by being begotten he sees end quote track 821 so St Augustine says a son does whatever he sees a father doing because the son is begotten of the father this quasi dependency on sight is based on hypothetic origination St Hillary on John 5:19 says quote he says that the son can do nothing but what he sees a father do he displays this nature which is his by birth a nature which derives its power of action not from successive Gifts of strength to do particular Deeds but from knowledge by the action of the divine nature he had come to share the subsistence of the divine nature or in other words he had been born as son from the father end quote on the Trinity book 717 quote the next words are for whatever things he the father does these also the son likewise this likewise is added to indicate his birth whatsoever and same to indicate the true Divinity of his nature on the Trinity book 7:18 likewise St Hillary indicates the son doing only what he sees the father doing indicates that he is begotten or born of the father St s of Alexandria on John 8:28 says quote thus therefore does the only begotten himself hear to affirm that he learned of the father for what he knows what he is because of the father from whom he is for he is light of light this he said that he leared of him having a sort of untaught learning of God befitting works and words from the own nature of him who begat him end quote commentary on John 828 so according to St s of Alexandria the son learning from the father indicates the son received the all- knowing Essence from the father that's what he meant by a sort of untaught learning from the own nature of him who begat him so the reception of authority points to the reception of the Divine Essence or hypostatic origin according to the church fathers the son receives Authority and his speech and his actions from the father since he has his hypothetic origin from the father now revisiting John 16 we see when the spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth for he will not speak on his own authority but whatever he hears he will speak and he will declare to you the things that are to come he will glorify me for he will take what is mine and declare it to you so we see the Holy Spirit receives Authority and speech from the father and the son the spirit does not speak on his own authority but speaks what is received from the son this is just like what we previously said the spirit receives Authority from the son since he's communicated the Divine Essence from the father and the son in other words the spirit has hypostatic origination from the father and the son this is why we see in John 16:15 all that the father has is mine therefore I said he would take what is mine right the father giving all things to the son is the justification or explanation why the Holy Spirit receives from the son that is to say the only reason the Holy Spirit receives from the son is because the father has given all things including spiration to the son so argument one is Thoroughly proved by John 16 premise one the father communicates all to the son except paternity premise 2 the father Spates conclusion therefore the son Spates that's why we see he take what is mine therefore I said he would take what is mine why because the father has given all to me all that the father has is mine before we go to formal arguments and objections let's see some church fathers interpretation of this St Augustine on track 899 on John 1613 chapter 4 says accordingly he shall not speak of himself because he is not of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak he shall hear of him from whom he proceedes to him hearing is knowing but knowing is being as has been discussed above because then he is not of him himself but of him from whom he proceeds and of whom he has essence of him he has Knowledge from him therefore he has hearing which is nothing else than knowledge end quote so St Augustine says he shall hear of him from whom he proceeds and from whom he proceeds of him he has essence of him he has Knowledge from him therefore he has hearing but John 16 says the Holy Spirit hears from Christ so that must mean that he has Knowledge from Christ and has Essence from Christ and therefore proceeds from Christ but the blackr says that the sun cannot communicate the Divine Essence or the Divine being to the Holy Spirit but St Augustine is saying that exact thing and he says knowing is being and he has knowledge therefore being from the Sun so St Augustine is directly contradicting the counil of blacker which is dogmatic for Eastern Orthodox and that's because St Augustine is a fili oquist in tract 8 99 chapter 5 we see St Augustine say quote and be not disturbed by the fact that the verb is put in the future tense for it is not said whatsoever he has heard or whatsoever ever he hears but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak for such hearing is Everlasting because the knowing is Everlasting but in the case of what is eternal without beginning and Without End in whatever tense the verb is put whatever in the past or present or future there is no falsehood thereby implied the Holy Spirit therefore is always hearing because he always knows Argo he both knew and knows and will know and in the same way he both heard and hears and will hear for as we have already said to him hearing is one with knowing and knowing with him is one with being for him therefore he heard and hears and will hear of whom he is and of him he is from whom he proceeds but the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the father into the Sun and then proceeds from the Sun to the work of the creature sanctification but he proceeds at the same time from both although this the father has given onto the son that he should proceed from him also even as he proceeds from himself and as little can we say that the holy spirit is not the life seeing that the father is the life and that the son is the life in the same way as a father who has life in himself has given given to the son also to have life in himself so he is also given that life should proceed from him even as it also proceeds from himself but we come now to the words of the Lord that follow when he says and he shall show you the things that come he shall glorify me for he shall receive of mine and shall show it onto you all things that the father has our mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shall show it unto you end quote so we see St Augustine makes this very argument that we made and supports it with John 16 right St Augustine says quote he also given that life should proceed from him even as it also proceeds from himself the father communicates all to the son except eternity the father Spates therefore the son Spates and we see that this is an everlasting hearing therefore this is not an economy and St Augustine says that he proceeds from both at the same time meaning both actively spirate but there's a distinction in the mode of aspirative power the father has aspirative power of himself and the son is given aspirative power from the father he proceeds at the same time from both although this the father has given unto the son that he should proceed from him also even as he proceeds from himself this is why the council Florence says the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is identical to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father through the son the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son filio helps recognize that both are actively communicating the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit actively spirting the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father through the son helps us recognize the communication of the Spire of power the father has the Spire of power of himself and he gives that identical Spire of power to the son and so the father and the son hold Aspire of power in distinct manners but it's the same numerically identical aspirative power and they Aspire it with the exact identical aspiration St epiphanius of Salamis is a saint both East and West living from 310 to 4003 ad he says the following quote Christ is believed to be from the father God from God and the spirit to be from Christ or indeed from both as Christ says who proceedes from the Father John 15:26 and he shall receive of mine John 16:14 end quote so clearly the context here is about hypostatic origin as Christ is God from God not by energies nor by Eternal manifestation nor by economy but by Eternal generation or hypothetic origination likewise the holy spirit is God from both by hypothetic origination and he uses John 1526 who proceeds from the Father which is read by the Fathers as pertaining to hypothetic origin and he equates that with he shall receive of mine so in other words St epiphanous of Salamis is saying that the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from both father and son and he's using John 16 to justify this St Isidor of sevil was a St both East and West living from 560 to 636 ad he says quote the holy spirit is spoken of however as proceeding by the testimony of the Lord saying I have yet many things to say to you but you cannot hear them now but he the spirit of Truth who proceeds from the father will come and he shall receive of mine he shall show everything to you this Spirit moreover proceeds not only by its nature but it proceeds always in ceaselessly performing The Works of the Trinity between the son who is born and the Holy Spirit who proceedes is this distinction that the son is born from one the Holy Spirit proceedes from both therefore the Apostle says now if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his so clearly this is talking about the hypostatic origin of the holy spirit because the son who is born is talking about the Nativity or generation of the sun and the Holy Spirit who predes is talking about his hypostatic origin now the distinction between the son's origin and the holy spirit's origin according to St Isidor is that the sun is from one whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds from both meaning filio now how did St Isidor derive the hypothetic filo well he used John 15 26 he used John 16 where we see that he shall receive of mine meaning the holy spirit will take from the Sun and he also used the fact that the holy spirit is called the spirit of the father and the son right in Romans 88:9 we hear that the spirit is called the spirit of Christ this quasi belonging or possessive case or genitive case used indicates hypothetic origination St Hillary is a saint both East and West he lived from 310 to 367 ad and he says the following quote accordingly he the Holy Spirit receives from the son who is both sent by him and proceeds from the father now I ask whether to receive from the son is the same thing as to proceed from the father but if one believes that there's a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the father surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the father will be regarded as one in the same thing end quote on the Holy Trinity book 8 CH 20 for our Lord himself says because he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you all things whatsoever the father hath are mine therefore said I he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you that which he will receive whether it will be power or Excellence or teaching the son has said must be received from him and again he indicates that this same thing must be received from the father for when he says that all things whatsoever the father hath are his and that for this cause he declared that it must be received from his own he teaches also that what is received from the father is yet to received from himself because all things that the father hath are his such a Unity admits no difference nor does it make any difference from whom that is received which given by the father is described as given by the son end quote all right so St Hillary is asking the question is proceeding from the Father the same thing as receiv receiving from the son St Hillary says yes and he says this will be regarded as one and the same thing so he believes Holy Spirit proceeds and receives from both father and son and St Hillary's justification for this belief is John 16 where we see that the Holy Spirit receives of Christ because the father has given him all things right St Hillary even says quote he teaches also that what is received from the father is yet received from himself because all things that the father hath are his end quote this matches perfectly with our argument the father communicates all to the son except paternity the father Spates therefore the son Spates that's exactly what St Hillary saying but he's saying it in the mode of reception the Holy Spirit receives from the father and the son because the father gives all things to the son including the ability to spirate the Holy Spirit objection St Hillary does not affirm the filio his answer was only about reception as he said quote surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the father will be regarded as one and the same thing reply to objection St Hillary can interchange receive and perceive because they will be regarded as one and the same thing a Divine procession has two correlative terms the term producing and the term receiving or the produced term so the Holy Spirit receiving Essence from both means he proceeds from both it's two sides of the same exact coin that's just a basic understanding of trinitarian theology furthermore If you deny this you will have to say that St Hillary asked a question about procession at first which he did not at all address in the entire paragraph dedicated to answering that question and just in case you doubted St Hillary says in the Holy Spirit I ought not to be silent and yet I have no need to speak still for the sake of those who are in ignorance I cannot refrain there is no need to speak because we are bound to confess him proceeding as he does from Father and Son Ail endus on the Holy Trinity book two chapter 29 now what St Hillary says is we are bound to confess him the Holy Spirit proceeding as he does from Father and Son ailo endus now in medieval Latin as opposed to classical Latin the meaning of Octor is usually causer founder or originator octar is a word used more than a dozen times in on the trinity in all of these other usages it always is using the term to pertain specifically to the fact that the father is the son's Octor or origin so St Hillary thinks that the Holy Spirit has both Father and Son as his Octor or Eternal origin top Eastern Orthodox apologist Craig truglia even admits this in his blog in a comment on his blog Craig truglia says John I agree with your rendering of the Latin personally which is why I find this passage problematic to the Orthodox it Con certainly be read according to the Roman Catholic view granted Hillary is not clear enough but I think the simpler explanation given to the stress he puts on the word Octor is he is talking about the spirit's origin we can use Mental gymnastics to say that he's really saying something Orthodox somehow but this would not be the simplest explanation so St Hillary is a fili oquist what St Hillary says here perfectly matches what he says about the Holy Spirit receiving from both Father and Son the reason why father and son are both Originators of the holy spirit is because the Holy Spirit receives from both Father and Son all right this interpretation clearly has more cerence with his body of thought elsewhere we also see St Hillary use the perili formula according to hypothetic origination on the Trinity book 1256 he says quote let me in short adore you our father and your son together with you let me win the favor of your Holy Spirit who is from you through your only begotten for I have a convincing witness to my faith who says father all mine are yours and yours are mine end quote so clearly here he says that the holy spirit is from the father through your only begotten and so we see St Hillary both affirm both per filum or through the son and filio right he says your Holy Spirit who is from you through your only begotten son and he also says we are bound to confess him proceeding as he does from both father and son and he says the Holy Spirit receives from both father and son so St Hillary agrees perfectly with The ecumenical counil Florence which says the perum formula and the filio formula are substantially identical but they highlight different things through the sun helps us recognize that the father communicates the Spire of power to the son filio helps us recognize that both Father and Son actively INSP spirate or communicate the Divine Essence to the Holy Spirit St Hillary is agreeing with us perfectly we already show that St Augustine St epiphanius St Isador and St Hillary all use John 16 to prove the filo but let's keep going there's more St Ambrose he's a saint both East and West he lived from 340 to 397 ad in on the Holy Spirit Book 2 11:18 we see him say but if you're willing to learn that the Son of God knows all things and has four knowledge of all see that those very things which you think to be unknown to the son the Holy Spirit received from the Sun he received them however through Unity of substance as a son received from the father he says he shall glorify me for he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you all things whatsoever the father hath are mine therefore said I he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you what then is more clear than this Unity what things a father hath pertain to the son what things a son hath the Holy Spirit also has received and in on the Holy Spirit Book 2 12: 134 we see the son received all things from the father for he himself said all things have been delivered unto me from my father Matthew 11:27 all that is of fathers the son also has for he says again all things which the father has are mine and those things which he himself received by unity of nature the Spirit by the same Unity of nature received also from him as the Lord Jesus himself declares when speaking of his Spirit therefore said I he shall receive of mine and shall declare it unto you John 16:15 therefore what the spirit says is the sons and what the son has given is the father's so neither the son nor the spirit speaks anything of himself for the Trinity speaks nothing external to itself so St Ambrose affirms the reception is at intra by way of substance so St Ambrose reads John 16 and recognizes that this reception of knowledge is about the imminent life of God by way of substance so the holy spirit's reception of knowledge is from the Divine Essence which he receives from the son through Unity of substance as the son received from the father clearly this is talking about hypothetic origin the way the son receives Knowledge from the father is by the essence and he receives the essence from the father and so if the Holy Spirit receives the knowledge from the son in the same manner that the son has received from the father this is because he receives the essence from the Sun now some people see this and read this as mere consubstantiality oh look it's just talking about mere Unity of substance this is not just talking about mere consubstantiality although consubstantiality is part of it it's talking about consubstantiality by way of reception right as the son received from the father and this can't be about mere consubstantiality cuz if it was about mere consubstantiality you could say oh the sun receives Knowledge from the Holy Spirit clearly we don't see any of the church fathers say this why because there's actually a Taxis or order to the reception of the Divine Essence the father has the Divine Essence from no one the son has it from the father and the Holy Spirit has it from the father and the son and that's why we could say the Holy Spirit receives Knowledge from both father and son and we say the son receives Knowledge from the father but we don't say that the father receives Knowledge from the Holy Spirit we don't say the son receives Knowledge from the holy spirit because they don't have hypothetic origination from the Holy Spirit let's see what the great St aanus has to to say about John 16 quote on the other hand the son sends the spirit for if I go he says I will send the paraclete the son glorifies a father saying father I have glorified you whereas a spirit glorifies a son who says he will glorify me the son says those things which I have heard from the father are what I speak to the world while the spirit in turn receives from the son he will take from what is mine he says and declare it to you son came in the name of the father whereas the son also speaks of the Holy Spirit whom the father will send in my name therefore since the spirit has the same relation of Nature and order with respect to the son that the son has with respect to the father how can the one who calls a spirit a creature escape the necessity of thinking the same about the sun first letter to sarapan so St atius makes some interesting parallels the first thing he notices in the son to Father relation is that the son glorifies the father secondly he notices the son hears from the father and declares him thirdly he says the son comes in the name of the father and fourth he says the father sends the son now St ananus is smart and he recognizes that the spirit to son relation parallels a son to Father relation so in the spirit to son relation he notices first the spirit glorifies a son secondly the spirit hears from the Sun and declares him thirdly the spirit comes in the name of the son and fourthly the son sends the spirit now from the parallel between the spirit to son relation and the son to Father relation St aanus draws the following conclusion quote the spirit has the same relation of Nature and order with respect to the son that the son has with respect to the father whoa St athus is a fili oist so what is the son's relation of Nature and order to the father well the son receives Essence from the father and he's ordered posterior according to taxis to the father right the father is the first person and the son is the second person well if the spirit has the same relation of Nature and order with respect to the son that the son has with respect to the father what does that mean that means a spirit receives Essence from the Son and he's ordered posterior to the sun according to taxis and that's why the holy spirit is a third person due to the filio so it is clear that St aanus supports and believes in the filio and he deduces it from verses from John 16 furthermore we remember that fius says that we can't say that the Holy Spirit receives from the sun because that imply the filio but St ananus is doing that very thing he's saying that the Holy Spirit receives from the Sun it has the same relation of Nature and order to the son as the son has to the father this is because he affirms the filio and in case you didn't believe that let's go even further St athanasius in discourse 3 against the arens CH 28 paragraph 44 says quote First that if the spirit knew much more must the word know considered as the word from whom the spirit receives end quote wait a second so the spirit receives Knowledge from the son but knowledge is only received by the communication of the Divine Essence not through the energies nor by economic procession so if the spirit is receiving Knowledge from the word that's because he's receiving the Divine Essence which is pure intellect from the word and remember what St Augustine said he says of whom he has essence of him he has Knowledge from him therefore he has hearing but St athenus says that the Holy Spirit has Knowledge from the Sun that means he has has Essence from the Sun and that could only be by way of hypostatic origination furthermore St aanus in discourse 3 against arens chapter 25 paragraph 24 says quote for he as has been said gives to the spirit and whatever the spirit has he has from the word and quote everything the spirit has he has from the Sun why because the spirit has the Divine Essence and receives all the Divine attributes from the Sun clearly St aanus is a fist and he used John 16 to prove his belief as well so we show that St Augustine St Hill St aanus St Ambrose St Isidor and St epiphanius used John 16 to prove the filio and many of them made the same argument we made now that we have shown that this interpretation of John 16 is clearly Orthodox we shall theologically examine argument 1 and debunk all the common objections to the filio so revisiting our argument here is our argument with the implicit premises explicitly stated premise one the father communicates all to the son except for paternity the father father has spiration spiration is not paternity therefore the father communicates spiration to the son if spiration is communicated to the sun then the spirit proceeds from the Sun therefore the spirit proceeds from the Sun premises 1 and three are the contested premises premise one says the father communicates all to the son except for paternity and premise three is spiration is not paternity these are the two premises that Eastern Orthodox apologists will deny the first objection comes from St Gregory nazianzen or Rian 34:10 which says but if all that the father has belongs likewise to the son except causality end quot so Eastern Orthodox apologists will quote this and say look premise one says the father communicates all to the son except for paternity we should change as to the father communicates all to the son except causality so the father and the son are not both causes of the Holy Spirit or principles of the Holy Spirit rather the father alone is cause or principle of the Holy Spirit now let's let's examine the underlying motivation for why St Gregory nansen says all that the father has belongs likewise to the son except causality so we could tackle with the logic and theology behind the quote and show why it's right or wrong the first interpretation of St Gregory's claim is that we need to maintain hypothetic properties of the persons right the persons must be distinguished by hypothetic properties to actually be distinct from each other the father cannot communicate a hypothetic property to the son or else there will be no distinction between Father and Son and some think that St Gregory thinks that causes ity or origin of the processions of the persons is a hypothetic property of the father so the as spiration of the spirit cannot be communicated to the son otherwise there's no distinction between Father and Son or in other words the son becomes the father all right let's examine this does the filio lead to no distinction between Father and Son the answer is clearly no why this is because the father is still unbegotten and actively generates whereas the son is begotten that which is unbegotten cannot be that which is begotten that which actively generates cannot be that which is generated so there's this irreducible distinction between the persons whether or not there's a common notion of active spiration does not affect the distinctions of persons because the father would still be distinct from the Son and the son would still be distinct from the father so they would still be unique distinct persons even if the filo were true so one cannot say that the Philo Quay collapses the distinctions of the persons since they would still be differentiated so the argument that the filio Quay makes the father and the son indistinguishable is clearly false and should not be a motivation to reject the filo objection this makes the son into a father wrong once again the term father is relative to the term son to be a father only necessitates a son since these are relations of opposition the claim that the production of the holy spirit makes a son into the father implies that the production of the holy spirit is a sufficient condition for fatherhood in other words you were making the Holy Spirit into a son and saying the father could be father just by spirting the Holy Spirit without generating the son which is false it's a simple reductio ad absurdum if the son becomes a father just by spying without generating a son then the condition of fatherhood is fulfilled in just spiration but that just means the father could be father just by spirting but the condition of fatherhood is having a son so you have just made the Holy Spirit into a son by this objection so if you were consistent with the logic used in this objection You' be making the Holy Spirit into the son which means you're certainly wrong objection spirting the holy spirit is the Father's hypothetic property false the father has a productive power of the entire godhead because he's unbegotten and the first person however communicating the SP ation in no way takes away from his hypothetic property of being unbegotten source of the godhead if the communication is a perfect communication we think that the father's hypothetic properties are being unbegotten and generating his son the fact that he is a source of life in the godhead comes from the fact that he is unbegotten or from no other we can still distinguish the persons even with the filo even St Gregory nazianzen affirms the father's hypothetic property is being unbegotten in oration 25 he says quote teach also that we must not make the father subject to another source L we posit a first of the first and thus overturn the Divine existence nor should we say that the son or the holy spirit is without Source L we take away the father's special characteristic end quote so the father's special characteristic is that he's without Source or unbegotten the filio does not make the son unbegotten furthermore St G nanzen in oration 25 affirms that fatherhood is constituted by the generation of the son he says quote rather teach that the father is truly a father much more truly even than human father are because he's a father uniquely and distinctively in a way different from corporeal beings unique being without a mate of one who is unique namely the only begotten only a father since he was not formerly a son completely a father and father of one who is complete which is not clear with us and father from the beginning since he did not become a father at a later point in time end quote so St Gregory nanzen affirms that the father is truly a father because he is a father uniquely and distinctively of one who is unique namely the only begotten so in other words the father is a father because he generates the son exactly the same point we're making so just as we confirmed earlier spiration is not the father's hypothetic property the unique characteristic of the father is that he's unbegotten and that he generates the son fatherhood is grounded in being unbegotten and active generation now the second interpretation that Eastern Orthodox make of St Gregory nansen's quote from oration 34 is that he's trying to preserve the monarchy of the father maybe St grigory thinks that causality or origin of the processions of the person is unique to the father meaning the father's a source of life of the godhead and he wants to preserve this now the Catholic Church's dogma of the filio defined at the Council of Florence actually preserves the monarchy so source of the father even the top Eastern Orthodox apologist cabain admits that fqu does not destroy the monarchy of the father Catholics would say Well then why does the East object because we still preserve the monarchy of the father and it's true that Rome preserves the monarchy of the father and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about the father is still the sole source of the deity as as he is the only one who's unbegotten the son has communicated the numerically identical Spire of power of the father and does not have his own emergent power as if something in the godhead that was slacking was suddenly gained both Latins and Greeks affirm that the father is the source of life in the godhead we just believe the father communicates The Identical spir of power to the son and they actively spirate together but this in no way takes away from the father being the font of life in the godhead the father and the son are not two sources of spiration but one common source of SP spiration the father is a source in an UND derivative manner the father communicates the numerically identical aspired power to the son and so both father and son spirate with the same spiration the father is the source of life in the godhead or font of the entire deity because he's unbegotten and the source of the processions the Divine Productions and anybody who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about objection is the father spiration lacking right so a lot of Eastern Orthodox will make this claim and ask us why must you say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son does this mean the father's spiration is lacking no the father's spiration is not lacking the reason the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son is not because the father needs needs a son to supplement his spiration but because the father gives all to the son except for paternity spiration is not paternity therefore the sun Spates the son spiration is identical to the father's not a copy that is similar but the same exact spiration the only difference is that the son is communicated the spir of power from the father whereas the father has as spired power in himself objection the filio leads to subordination within the Triad claim the Father and Son spirting subordinates the Holy Spirit making him lesser than both the objections reasoning is as follows the holy spirit is lacking the Spire of power meaning he's ontologically lesser than the two who have it now if the productive Powers leads to an inequality within the godhead by that logic the father would not be equal to the son or the Holy Spirit since he has the productive power of the persons which they lack that would mean that under the Eastern Orthodox view they cannot say the persons are co-equal since the father would be ontologically greater than both for having powers neither have so if the father Son and Holy Spirit can be co-equal even if the father has productive Powers which the others lack then the productive powers do not make the person's ontological Al greater or lesser thus the father Son and Holy Spirit will still be co-equal if both the father and the son aspirate the Holy Spirit since this productive power does not ontologically differentiate the co-equal as regards their glory honor and power so this objection as advocated by fius is debunked as well if fius was consistent and prayed the rosary he would realize the absurdity of his claims now I could already anticipate the Eastern Orthodox apologist making the objection but wait we see scriptures say the father is greater than I you do believe in n and Orthodoxy don't you the father's greater than I has two interpretations by the church fathers the first one is that it's said of Christ according to his Humanity right since Christ is one person with two Natures his human nature is lesser to the father's divine nature because his human nature is created whereas the divine nature is uncreated this is the common interpretation by modern theologians Latin fathers and the aonian Creed the second interpretation is that this is said not in a manner which disrupts equality of glory and honor of the persons rather it is said regarding the order of origins of the persons the father is the first person in the godhead due to his inasaba and is greater according to order of origin to both not temporally since they proceed from him anyone who says that Fila leads to subordinationism needs to stop reciting their favorite online apologist and actually use their own reason to see what such an objection entails if the SP of power makes a son greater than the spirit then the eent Orthodox cannot maintain the father's equal to the son in spirit since he has the productive Powers which they lack so if you were consistent with the objection you would subordinate the Son and the spirit now clearly this is heretical so if you believe in N Orthodoxy you believe all three persons are co-equal and they're all co-equal despite the fact that the father has the productive Powers which some of the other persons lack and if this is the case then we know the productive powers do not increase or diminish the ontological greatness of the persons we'll get into more why this is the case afterwards later when we talk about the notional predicates but for now this will suffice objection either it's common to all three or unique to one Eastern Orthodox apologists will attempt to say that the Father and Son cannot share a common notion or that will undermine the they say that there are two modes of predication you have things that are hypostatic or apply to a single individual person or you have things that are essential that apply to all three persons now the difference is Latin trinitarian theology is more complex and more developed so we have the idea of the notional predicates and this emerges from the taxis of persons we'll get more into this later but we believe that there are two modes of predication absolute and relative predicates absolute predicates apply to all three persons relative predicates apply to either one or two persons relative predicates emerge from the taxis of persons and their hypothetic origination and because there's a Taxis of persons we can have notional predicates which apply to two persons but before we get into this deep theology let's recognize that the Eastern Orthodox admit a common notion between the father and the son in their doctrine of Eternal manifestation or energetic procession Gregory palamos says quote the Eternal joy of the father and the son is the holy spirit since he is common to both with respect to his use so we see that the holy spirit is common to both and he's the Eternal Joy of both and so we have something that's a shared notion between Father and Son but then the Eastern Orthodox will reply and say well this is a common notion but not a common hypothetic property awesome that's what we've been saying active spiration is not a hypothetic property it's only a common notion only passive spiration the Holy Spirit receiving the Divine Essence from the father and the son is a hypostatic property in our theology now what is the proper interpretation of oration 34 when St Gregory nansen says all that the father has belongs likewise to the son except causality the term he uses is AAS which for him means principal causality the father alone has principal causality meaning he has the productive powers in an UND derivative manner right even St Augustine draws a distinction between principal causality and the son's causality of the spirit we see him say the father alone is he from whom the word is born and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds and therefore I've added the word principally because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son also but the father gave him this too what does he mean by this well St Augustine is recognizing that the father is the principal cause of the holy spirit in the sense that he had aspirative power of the holy spirit in an UND derivative manner whereas the son is communicated the Spira of power from the father but they both actively spirate the Holy Spirit and that's why we see earlier that St Augustine says that the Holy Spirit receives Essence from the Sun and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both at the same time likewise when St Gregory nazianzen is saying that the father communicates all to the son except causality or interpretation of that is that he's talking about principal causality so although both actively spirate the Holy Spirit and therefore we believe in the filio only the father has aspirative power in an UND derivative manner later in this video we will further substantiate this thesis the distinction between the son's causality and principal causality and we will show that the church fathers both Latin and Greek teach it in oration 41 chapter 9 we see St G nazan and says all that the father has the son has also except the being unbegotten right that matches perfectly with premise one which says the father communicates all to the son except paternity all that the father has the son has also except the being unbegotten and that's because being un begotten is the reason why the father is the monarch of the godhead or has the productive powers under derivatively whereas the son is communicated this productive power derivatively and so we revisit the argument premise one the father communicates all to the son except for paternity the father has a spiration spiration is not paternity therefore the father communicates spiration to the son if spiration is communicated to the sun then the spirit proceeds from the Sun therefore the spirit proceeds from the sun we show that the father communicates all to the son except for paternity we show that the father has the spiration we know that spiration is not paternity as a father is Father by generating a son therefore the father communicates spiration to the son if spiration is communicated to the sun then the spirit proceeds from the Sun therefore the spirit proceeds from the Sun this is the same argument used at The ecumenical council Florence from the Bull from July 6 1439 we see quote and since all that the father has the father himself in begetting has given to his only begotten son with the exception of fatherhood the very fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son the son himself has from the father eternally by whom he was begotten also eternally end quote and we see St s of Alexandria make this exact argument from John 16 on The Gospel according to John book 11 1 he says quote but it is because he is consubstantial with the son and divinely proceeds through him in this way then the statement that his Spirit receives something from the only begotten is wholly unimpeachable and cannot be caved at for proceeding naturally as his attribute through him and having all that he is in its entirety he is said to receive that which he has end quote and he also makes this argument in tomone four against theorious all things that the father hath are mine therefore I said unto you that of mine shall he take and declare it unto you for as the holy ghost proceedeth out of the father being his by Nature in equal wise is he through the son himself too his naturally and consubstantial with him end quote right the father communicates all to the son the father Spates therefore the son Spates we show that the Holy Spirit receives Knowledge from the Son and therefore receives the Divine Essence from the Sun as we debunk the essence Energy's real distinction and therefore energetic procession and eternal manifestation we show that the son's reception of authority and the son's reception of speech knowledge and action from the father indicated that he was begotten of the father likewise we show that the Holy Spirit has the same reception of speech action and knowledge from the Sun indicating that he proceeds or receives Divine Essence from the sun we showed St aanus St Hillary St Ambrose St Augustine St epiphanius St Isidor all using John 16 to prove the filio and some of them making our very exact argument then we answered all the common objections to the filio and show that they are wrong and then we made a clarification on what St Gregory nazianzen meant when he said that everything everything belongs to the son except for causality this he meant principal causality and so we see this argument works and it fits with scripture and the church fathers now we're going to make a second argument that is similar to this and it comes from the doctrine of relations of opposition we already showed that the church fathers unanimously taught the doctrine of relations of opposition so if the basis for the real distinctions between the persons exist based on relative opposition as we have shown from the church fathers and from philosophy then that must mean that for the Holy Spirit to be really distinct from the Sun there has to be relative opposition between the two so this means either the sun produces the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit produces the sun there has to be some sort of relative opposition but the Holy Spirit does not produce the sun therefore the sun produces the Holy Spirit we shall now go on to the notional actions and the imminent Divine processions and explain how the father can communicate spiration to the sun all right now to understand the Divine processions we use the psychological analogy to help give us insight the father is always knowing and willing through his Essence and through the infinite facundity of his vital operation of knowing he produces a perfect word which has communicated the numerically identical pure act as himself the only distinction is this relation of opposition the word is generated whereas the father's ungenerated they are the exact same pure act Not Mere copies but identical pure Act of existence therefore there's unity in essence but the word and the father are really distinct by this incommunicable irreducible Direct towards each other which we call a relation of opposition and that simply means the father who is ungenerated cannot be the one who is generated due to the principle of non-contradiction so they are distinct who's but the same what all right the father and the son are the same pure act and they have the exact same vital operations of knowing and willing but the infinite fruitfulness of the imminent knowing is exhausted in the generation of the Sun and so the sun does not produce another Sun but we know that the infinite fruitfulness of the Divine will is not exhausted in the general generation of the son so the father and the son share the same exact infinite fruitfulness of the imminent will and therefore together they spirate or breathe forth a love product that is the Holy Spirit the kiss of the father and the son or their Blossom of Charity now since the holy spirit is communicated the same exact pure act through the mode of operation of of the imminent will he knows and wills with the exact same knowing and willing of the father and the Sun but the distinction is that he receives the Divine Essence as spired and as a third person so the infinite facundity of both knowing and willing are exhausted for lack of a better term so he does not generate or aspirate any persons now we must draw a distinction between the notional action of generation inspiration and the essential operation of knowing and willing so although Father Son and Holy Spirit both know and will only father generates because the Divine facundity of the knowing is exhausted in the generation of the son and only the father and the son aspirate because the Divine facundity of the imminent will is exhausted in the aspiration of the Holy Spirit and so all three persons know and will with the exact same knowing and willing only father generates the son and only Father and Son inspirate the Holy Spirit now we must abstract out any imperfections from the psychological analogy the first being temporal succession in the psychological analogy we proceeded from father then to son and then to Holy Spirit now clearly there's no temporal succession in the Divine processions as each person is co-eternal the Father's always knowing and always generates the word and the holy spirit's always breathe forth by both Father and Son furthermore since the Divine processions are the communication of pure act there's no transition of potency to act right a transition of potency to act would not be the communication of pure act that would be the communication of an act potency composite so the Divine processions are just pure act from Pure act or God from God light from light in fact there's no transition at all because the transition implies a state of non-being so there's no true causation or dependency and this is why in John 526 we see for as the father has life in himself so he has granted the son also to have life in himself right the father has a SE and he has given the son a SE now this seems counterintuitive at first because it seems as if giving someone a SE requires a dependency relation but if the father is communicating pure act to the son that means the father and son are the exact same pure act and there's no transition of potency to act so there's no true dependency relation in other words the Divine Essence simply is existence and the sun has communicated the Divine Essence and therefore he has existence within himself so he's pure subsistent existent itself so he's Al say according to Essence all right so once we abstract out all of the imperfections from the psychological analogy all that is left is pure act with subsistent relations from the two vital operations of knowing and willing so what does subsistent mean well subsistent just means self-maintaining because each relation is identical to Pure act they are all aay so they're subsistent and the four relations are active generation passive generation active aspiration and passive aspiration now each one of these relations is simply identical to Pure act meaning active generation is pure act passive generation is pure act active spiration is pure act and passive insiration is pure act and they are all the exact same pure act due to Divine Simplicity whatever is in God is God now there could still be a real distinction between these relations by way of relative opposition in other words that which actively generates cannot be that which is passively generated this's this irreducible Mutual reference of one to the other allowing us to have each person be fully identical to God without allowing for composition in the godhead while still maintaining a real distinction between the persons and because of this we have to have the filio for the Son and the Holy Spirit to be different persons they have to have relative opposition meaning either the sun produces the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit produces the sun now clearly the Holy Spirit does not produce a sun therefore the sun produces the the Holy Spirit and so from these four real Revelations only three of them are really distinct and these three really distinct subsistent relations are the persons right active generation that's the Father the one who begets passive generation that's the son the one who's generated and passive spiration the one who spired that is the Holy Spirit and so although they are all the same exact pure act there's a real distinction between them due to this relative opposition or Mutual simultaneous directedness against each other and so this is why the father and the son spirate with the same spiration because there's no relative opposition between active generation and active spiration and passive generation and active spiration and so they spirate with the exact same spiration objection the Bible only says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father read John 1526 John 15:26 but when the comforter is come whom I will send unto you from the father even the spirit of Truth which proceedeth uai from the father he shall testify of me Catholicism debunk if only it was that easy this is solar scriptura level logic that's like saying look 2 Timothy 3:16 Says all scriptures God breathe therefore solar scriptura is Right proving a shared belief does not refute a claim Protestants hold that scripture alone is infallible Catholics and Orthodox hold that scripture is infallible and the magisterium is infallible claiming that scripture is infallible does not prove protestantism both Catholics Orthodox and Protestants affirm scripture is infallible proving a shared belief is not what determines whether or not a position is true the status of whether the magisterium is infallible is what determines which position is correct another example of this saly logic could be seen in this following example imagine you make the claim Bob is only wearing a blue shirt and I make the claim Bob is wearing a blue shirt and blue pants now if we see Bob and he's wearing a blue shirt that doesn't prove either of our claims right both of our claims affirm this could be the case that Bob is wearing a blue shirt and blue pants it could be the case that Bob is wearing a blue shirt and black pants so either claim could be true you must demonstrate the pants is blue or not blue to determine which claim is true now revisiting the objection we see the easn Orthodox hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone the Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son John 15:26 affirms the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father now both Catholics and Orthodox affirm the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father both claims affirm this this does not refute or prove either claim to prove the Eastern Orthodox position you must show either the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone or the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the son just showing the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father does not prove the Eastern Orthodox position objection well okay you are right but there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the son therefore no one should believe it there's only evidence for the procession of the Holy Spirit from the father so we should only affirm that we already showed proof for the filio Quay from John 16 but since you're obstinate we shall give more proof argument number two Revelation 221 and he showed me a river of Water of Life clear as Crystal proceeding from the Throne of God and of the Lamb so we see the river of Water of Life proceeds from the Throne of God and of the lamb now if we go to John 7 38-39 we see he that believeth on me as the scripture hath said out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water but this spake he of the spirit so we see the rivers of Living Water is equivalent to the Holy Spirit who is the lamb in John 1 129 we see the next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith Behold the Lamb of God so it is clear here that the Son of God AKA Jesus is also the Lamb of God now if we go back to Revelation 221 which says and he showed me a river of Water of Life clear as Crystal proceeding from the Throne of God and of the Lamb so the river of Water of Life proceeds from the Throne of God and of the Lamb since the river of Water of Life is the holy spirit Revelation 221 translates to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the lamb aka the son so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son objection this is talking about economic or temporal procession not hypostatic origination well the word for proceeding in Revelation 221 is uraman the term uraman when used in context of multiple Divine persons is about theology proper or about the imminent Trinity meaning this verse should be read as regarding hypothetic origin if you reject this fact then you also undermine your basis for reading John 1526 as regarding hypothetic origin since you could just say that the term used in John 1526 is Also regarding economic procession the usage of eaman in Revelation 221 matches perfectly with the Greek nyine Creed which says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father the term used in John 1526 is the same exact word but in a different than that of the nine creed the term uses so the Greek n Creed says Revelation 221 says so in God's Divine forn knowledge he even Vindicated the filio by inspiring the holy fathers of NAIA to use the term that best matches with the true procession of the Holy Spirit uan absolutely vindicating the filo now the question is is eaman hypostatic or not if you say yes then you're led to the fact that Revelation 221 is about hypothetic procession and if it's about hypothetic procession then the Holy Spirit hypothetically proceeds from the father and the son meaning the fqu is true now if you say no then John 15:26 is now undermined because the only reason you thought John 15:26 was about hypothetic procession was because of the term uai now some might try to say well look John 1526 makes the distinction between economy and theology because it says I will send the Holy Spirit and then he proceeds from the father therefore making a distinction between economic and imminent processions this relates to economic procession what is that the the holy spirit being sent to Creation this relates to the Holy Spirit getting his hypothetic existence from the father in the manner of proceeding from the essence of the Father the only problem with this is that there's actually synonymous parallelism going on the two are meant to mutually inform each other not to be put in contrast so now you don't have any basis for reading John 15:26 as hypostatic but that means both John 1526 and Revelation 221 are economic procession but then if the Bible only has stuff about the economic procession of the Holy Spirit the only way to know the imminent processions is by the economy then but if the only way to know about the imminent processions is by the economic processions then that means the economy reflects the imminent Trinity proving the filio is true right and it makes sense that the economy reflects the imminent Trinity we have this saying that action manifests being you hear all these Eastern Orthodox apologists when it comes to christology make the same argument action reveals being action manifest being but for some reason they think that the Divine actions in the economy does not reveal the imminent Divine being they divorce the econ e om from the imminent Trinity because they know it will lead to the philio we prove the economy reflects the imminent Trinity in argument 5 and answer common objections against it a lot of times you hear the fact that oh wait didn't the Holy Spirit conceive of Christ does that mean that the son is born of the Holy Spirit or they'll say look the Holy Spirit consecrates the Eucharist does that mean that the sun proceeds from the Holy Spirit no the reason they don't understand this is that they don't understand the different ways to read the economy back into the imminent Trinity we have the doctrine of divine sendings Divine Appropriations Divine missions so forth but they don't have these Nuance distinctions they hear this gener axium that the economy reflects the imminent Trinity but they don't read things properly according to Latin trinitarian theology regardless of whether or not you believe is about hypothetic origin whether you're consistent or not you will be led to the filio all roads lead to Rome all right fine I'll grant you that but it still says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the throne not from the persons but from the throne time to understand basic symbology the throne represents the one shared Authority the father gives to the son not merely a physical Throne although in John's Vision there might have been a physical Throne to communicate the uncreated reality but revealing the uncreated reality is the intent behind the physical reality in the vision Mark 1462 says and Jesus said I am and ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the Clouds Of Heaven sitting on the right hand of power is symbolic of the co-equal between Father and Son likewise the throne is symbolic of the shared authority of father and son so proceeding from the Throne of God and of the Lamb is trying to communicate that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the shared Authority or sped of power of both Father and Son notice how it says proceeding from the Throne of God and of the lamb and not the Thrones this proves there is one common source of the procession one Throne yet this one source is from two persons father and son this perfectly matches with the definition at Florence there's one common principle of spiration Father and Son not two sources but one so Revelation 221 which reads and he showed me a river of Water of Life clear as Crystal proceeding from the Throne of God and of the Lamb perfectly matches with the council Florence Revelation 221 says the Holy Spirit proceeds from One Source or one Throne the Council of Florence says the Holy Spirit proceeds from One Source One common inspiration revelation 221 says the Holy Spirit proceeds from two persons God and lamb the Council of Florence says the Holy Spirit proceeds from two persons Father and Son Revelation 221 says this is about hypothetic origin uan the Council of Florence says this is about hypothetic origin filio Revelation 221 maintains the monarchy of the Father the Throne of God and of the Lamb it's the father's Throne first and foremost but the lamb shares it because the father has given it to the lamb the Council of Florence preserves the monarchy of the Father the sped power is the Father's and he has it under derivatively because he's un begotten yet he communicates it to the son who has it derivatively yet they share one common spiration one numerically identical spiration and so we see Revelation 221 perfectly matches with the Council of Florence and the term used in the Greek nyine Creed is the exact same term used in Revelation 221 it's not a mere coincidence that the god breathed scriptures match perfectly with the doctrine as defined at the Council of Florence Christ established the Catholic Church on St Peter and gave him the Keys of the Kingdom the filio was bound on Earth and in heaven which is why it matches perfectly so the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son by One Source because all that the father has is given to the son which is represented by the Throne of the father and the son this perfectly ties back to argument one the father communicates all to the son except paternity the father Spates therefore the son Spates okay but this is a novel interpretation no church father has interpreted this verse in this way so you're wrong not all scripture has to be previously interpreted by the church fathers if you believe all scriptures need to be previously interpreted by the church father to be true then you undermine the fact that scripture is God breathed scripture is true even without the church fathers however we should obviously resp respect the consensus of the fathers furthermore let's use a simple reductive ad absurdum if scripture is only true because it's interpreted by a Church Father this means that each Church father's interpretation had to be preceded by some previous Church Father going all the way back to the apostles and that means that the apostles immediate interpretation contained 100% of the meaning of the scripture and that nothing more could be gained from the god breathed scripture meaning all true interpretations throughout all church history were known to the apostles this is obviously false not even the apostles knew all possible interpretations of scripture since the true author is the omnicient god the Holy Spirit who reveals the interpretations of scripture throughout time again we respect and reverence the church fathers and do not go against the consensus of the fathers but that doesn't mean theology stops with the church fathers that aside St Ambrose says quote and this again is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the Throne of God this is certainly the river proceeding from the Throne of God that is the holy spirit whom he drinks who believes in Christ as he himself says if any man thirst let him come to me and drink he that believes in me as says the scripture out of his belly shall flow rivers of Living Water but this spoke he of the spirit John 7: 37-38 therefore the river is the spirit end quote on the Holy Spirit book 3 chapter 20 Andrew of cesaria is a bishop of cesaria from 563 to 637 ad Wikipedia says his commentary is identified as the earliest Greek patristic commentary on the apocalypse or the Book of Revelation in his commentary on the apocalypse he says quote the river of God having been filled with Waters running through the Heavenly Jerusalem is a life-giving spirit which proceeds from God the father and through the lamb through the midst of the most Supreme Powers which are called Throne of divinity the sen of Ain 809 ad we have St ad ofan using Revelation 221 to prove the filio in Howard's book The Schism between the Oriental and Western churches with special reference to the addition of the filio to the Creed page 26 we see quote John who inquired whether the Holy Spirit may be said to proceed from the son in the same manner as he proceeds from the father St Aden who makes this statement uces from Revelation 2 2 21 he showed me a pure River of Water of Life proceeding out of the Throne of God and of the lamb as an evident proof of the procession from the father and the son end quote although there aren't that many commentaries on Revelation there are ancient Christians who read Revelation 221 as proving the filio the third argument for the filio Quay is the taxis or order of persons go ye therefore and teach All Nations baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19 as we see the father is the first person the son is a second person and the Holy Spirit is a third person in the godhead as we know all three persons are co-eternal and so there's no prior or posterior between the persons in the temporal sense however there still is an ordering of the persons we believe that the ordering of the persons is best explained by the order of origination which is best expressed by the filio the Eastern Orthodox also teach the ordering of persons as mathoma has demonstrated elsewhere side note go watch maa's theology series anyways it is taught in Metropolitan Fett's catechism fette is considered a saint by the Eastern Orthodox and Wikipedia says that he was the most influential figure in the Russian Orthodox Church for more than 40 years in Fett's catechism he teaches the taxis of persons in question 75 the first person of the Holy Trinity God the Father the second person of the Holy Trinity God the son the third person of the Holy Trinity the Holy Ghost here it is clear that the taxes of persons is something taught both East and West furthermore we have church fathers such as St bzo who teach the taxis of persons as therefore the son stands in relation to the father so the spirit stands in relation to the son according to the ordering of the traditional baptismal formula but if the spirit is ordered to the Son and the son to the father it is evident that the spirit is also ordered to the father so it is a consensus both East and West that the father is first the son is second and the spirit is third now let's compare the explanatory power of the different models the Eastern Orthodox model says the Son and the Holy Spirit have their hypostatic origin from the father alone if the Son and the Holy Spirit have origination from the father alone why is the son the second person in and the godhead and the Holy Spirit the third person is it just some contingent accident could the Sun be the third person there seems to be no logical necessity for the taxes of persons objection Eternal manifestation explains the order of persons first off we already debunk the essence Energy's real distinction and therefore undermine the basis for Eternal manifestation or energetic procession now in the Catholic model we believe the Holy Spirit has hypothetic origination from both father and son so under the filio it makes sense that the son is a second and the Holy Spirit is a third person this is because the father is from no one so he's first the son is from the father alone so he's second the holy spirit is from the father and the son so he's third there's a logical necessity for the taxes of persons based on hypothetic origination and so we see that the Catholic model has greater explanatory power than the Eastern Orthodox model for the taxis of persons and this is one reason to accept the filio we see St athania say quote since the spirit has the same relation of Nature and order with respect to the Sun that the son has with respect to the father so what is the son's relation of Nature and order to the father well the son son receives Essence from the father and he's ordered posterior according to taxis to the father right the father is the first person and the son is a second person well if the spirit has the same relation of Nature and order with respect to the son that the son has with respect to the father what does that mean that means the spirit receives Essence from the Sun and he's ordered posterior to the sun according to taxis and that's why the holy spirit is a third person due to the filio so clearly the taxis of persons is based off of the filio and St Greg of Nissa in against eunomius book one chapter 45 says our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also the difference is only in the place assigned in order for as the son is bound to the father and while deriving existence from him is not substantially after him so again the holy spirit is in touch with the only begotten who is conceived of as before the spirit's subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause extensions in time find no admittance in the eternal life furthermore to say the father Spates the Holy Spirit already presupposes the father generates as we already saw earlier the father is truly a father because he is a father uniquely IND distinctively of one who is unique namely the only begotten so to speak of the Father spirting the Holy Spirit presupposes the father generates a son as a condition for fatherhood is met by generation of the son now if the son is ordered prior to the Holy Spirit not temporally but by priority of origination and receives the Divine facundity of the imminent will then he will spir it as well hey if you like this video pray the rosary and subscribe this concludes part one of our filio video in the next part we will go over more patristic evidence for the filio and show that it is something that is rooted in the church fathers both East and West thank you Arya from Microsoft Edge for having such a lovely voice and for being able to speak audibly and record your voice even when my parents are asleep two doors down peace and blessings