The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"

[The Theosist]

Let's be clear again:

The proposition that the Holy Spirit has his essence and subsistence from both Father and Son and proceeds from both as of a single principle by a single spiration, which is the def fide teaching of Rome on the Filioque, is heresy to the Eastern Orthodox and absolutely irreconcilable with their dogmatic theology. It doesn't matter if one can reconcile by with through the Son in some sense.

[Xavier]

Hi Theosist. Its a difficult issue because of the history. But it can be resolved imo. From the article:

"This letter of Pope St. Leo I is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Is there another Pope, saint, and great who teaches Filioque? Yes: Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6thcentury shows the dogmatic Roman and universal tradition when he confesses, “We can also understand His being sent in terms of His divine nature. The Son is said to be sent from the Father from the fact that He is begotten of the Father. The Son relates that He sends the Holy Spirit[.] … The sending of the Spirit is that procession by which He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Accordingly, as the Spirit is said to be sent because it proceeds, so too it is not inappropriate to say that the Son is sent because He is begotten” [17]. This statement shows that, contra the Greeks, sending reveals hypostatic relation. That is why, throughout the Holy Scriptures, we never read that the Father is sent. The Father does not proceed from anyone. The Son proceeds from the Father alone, by generation, therefore He is said to be sent by the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, therefore the Son explicitly says many times, “But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you” (Jn. 16:7) that we may understand the eternal relation implied here.

3 Objections of the Greek Church and a brief response to them — is the Filioque doctrine true, certain, established from Scripture, fathers and the early councils?

Objection I: It seems the texts cited refer not to the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, but to His temporal mission — i.e., He is sent by the Son only in time.

This is an expected objection — one the texts themselves anticipate and answer. When the Fathers say (1) the Father gave it to the Son, in begetting Him, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, they show that the procession from the Father through the Son is eternal as the generation of the Son is eternal. (2) When the Fathers say He proceeds from the Father just as He proceeds from the Son, they show that just as the procession from the Father is eternal, so it is from the Son.

Objection II: Even if the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father is mediated through the Son, it doesn’t seem to follow that He proceeds through the Son. It could be that it is merely His energetic manifestation that happens through the Son, but not that His divine hypostasis receives essence from Father through Son.

There are only two processions in the Holy Trinity, using “procession” in a broad sense (as both St. Augustine and St. Cyril do) to explain it.

(1) The eternal procession specifically called generation, by which the Person of the Father is distinguished from the Person of the Son, so that He Who begat is one Person, and He Who is begotten is another. (This second objection is almost like someone saying the Son’s hypostasis is not eternally begotten of the Father.)

(2) And the eternal procession specifically called spiration, by which the Person of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from both the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son. For He from Whom He proceeds is One Person, He through Whom He proceeds is the Second Person, and He Who proceeds is the Eternal Third Person.

This is the sense in which Pope St. Leo the Great explains it in the source cited above. Since the hypostases are distinguished, it is clearly hypostatic procession.

The answer to energetic procession is as follows: there is only One Grace and One Energy of the Three Divine Persons. For, e.g., the Grace of the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the Grace of the Son, but is identical to it. Therefore, when Son and Spirit are distinguished, as by St. Cyril, it must be Persons Who are spoken of."

[truly-a-philosofan]

Let's be clear again:

The proposition that the Holy Spirit has his essence and subsistence from both Father and Son and proceeds from both as of a single principle by a single spiration, which is the def fide teaching of Rome on the Filioque, is heresy to the Eastern Orthodox and absolutely irreconcilable with their dogmatic theology. It doesn't matter if one can reconcile by with through the Son in some sense.

Yeah. That’s why we are Catholics here and not EO.

[Vetus Ordo]

Let's be clear again:

The proposition that the Holy Spirit has his essence and subsistence from both Father and Son and proceeds from both as of a single principle by a single spiration, which is the def fide teaching of Rome on the Filioque, is heresy to the Eastern Orthodox and absolutely irreconcilable with their dogmatic theology. It doesn't matter if one can reconcile by with through the Son in some sense.

Yeah. That’s why we are Catholics here and not EO.

The contention that the Filioque is "absolutely irreconcilable" with Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology has been factually disproven by the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Florence that were accepted by the Eastern Church.

An Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church cannot solemnly teach heresy, much less about the very nature of God. This is self-evident. Florence was an Ecumenical Council even by the standards of the Eastern Orthodox since it fulfilled all the conditions that they require. The a posteriori rejection of said council by an unspecified number of people during an unspecified period of time simply demonstrates the abject failure of their epistemological edifice. The Church has the authority to teach and rule all nations. She does not require the democratic consent of anyone before passing her judgments, nor is an Ecumenical Council subject to the subsequent approval of the laity or of individual priests and bishops in order to be valid and binding. Such paradigm would effectively divest the Church of God of any authority and render void her role as mother and mistress of truth.

The Council of Florence forever sealed the question of the Filioque.

[Daniel]

Sadly, your newly-found philosophical hero is another internet fraud with a foul mouth,

[Vetus Ordo]

Sadly, your newly-found philosophical hero

This is just another dumb claim to add to the list of dumb claims by SD's resident Dunning-Kruger effect.

The YouTube star "trained in Western academic philosophy," whose 10 anti-Catholic videos you just spammed this thread with, has been exposed as a fraud.

Here's a quick summary of the video in question:

• Dyer has changed his religion at least five times, including apostasy from Christianity around 2010 and a repudiation of Eastern Orthodoxy after having embraced it the first time;
• Dyer lied about the number of his religious changes, saying there were only three when there have been at least five. He also failed to clearly tell people about the first time he embraced Eastern Orthodoxy and then rejected it to return to Catholicism;
• When Dyer apostatized from Christ, he embraced various non-Christian religions to some extent, including the Kabbalah, Esotericism, Perennialism, etc. Dyer also publicly argued against the Incarnation and the Trinity after having spent many years involved with what he deemed to be Christianity;
• Dyer was a drug user who smoked a lot of weed. He thought that he got insights about God from his drug use;
• In 2019 Dyer featured an image of himself in front of an inverted cross alongside a musician that promotes the occult;
• Dyer misrepresents Catholic teaching on divine simplicity;
• Dyer completely contradicts himself on whether the ‘uncreated energies’ are the divine nature (his core position), demonstrating that he has no idea what he’s talking about and that he makes it up as he goes along;
• Dyer completely contradicts himself on whether a divine person is the divine essence/nature;
• When cornered, Dyer says that “God transcends such logical categories” to argue that contradictions in his position don’t matter, which means that God’s reality can be contrary to the law of non-contradiction;
• Dyer rejects and mocks Actus Purus and thus rejects and mocks God’s immutability – a dogma affirmed by the councils;
• Dyer's stupid argument that if the act of creation is eternal in regard to God as Agent that means that the creation must be eternal is refuted;
• Dyer’s huge and revealing blunder, in which he falsely claims that according to Thomism and Actus Purus the act of walking on water and the destruction of the world are the same thing as the divine essence. This further demonstrates that he has no idea what he’s talking about;
• Dyer's false claim that the Catholic position would make creation necessary is refuted;
• Dyer's false argument that real distinctions between the Three Divine Persons are comparable to, or somehow provide a basis for, the ‘Palamite distinction’ is refuted;
• An important quote from the Second Council of Nicea contradicts Palamism;
• Dyer blatantly misrepresented the content of MHFM first video on Eastern Orthodoxy, further establishing his dishonesty or ineptitude;
• Dyer’s specious arguments concerning Agatho’s letter are refuted. Agatho’s letters actually crush Dyer’s position and Palamism. Dyer calls Agatho’s letter a “damned letter” in a revealing demonic utterance;
• Dyer teaches that God’s ‘uncreated energies’ are really plural and many, which is heresy against Agatho’s letter;
• Dyer argues that God’s energy can be both one and many in the same respect. That’s heresy and literally nonsense. Nothing can be both one and many in the same respect, but only in different respects;
• Dyer’s false argument with regard to the synodical letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem is refuted;
• Dyer publicly endorses a video that calls the Son and the Holy Spirit ‘accidents’, which is modalism (denying that they are true hypostases). The same video heretically asserts that the divine essence has ‘parts’;
• Briefly revisiting Dyer’s false claim that Ex. 3:14 is not about the divine essence, directly contrary to what Eastern fathers say;
• Dyer admits that he has no objective standard by which to determine that a council is ecumenical or binding;
• Dyer argues that knowing that a council is true comes down to each individual person “knowing God” – which is akin to sola scriptura subjectivism;
• More on Dyer’s public immorality, wickedness, astounding hypocrisy, etc;
• About three years ago Dyer publicly endorsed the use of Tarot cards and pagan nature religion.

[truly-a-philosofan]

One should have nothing to do with those who deny God’s Simplicity and Immutability, such as those obnoxious palamites. God’s Existence, Essence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, and His other attributes are identical in reality. We believe in the Trinity because God, who is Truth Himself, had revealed the doctrine. And it is not contradictory with the Catholic doctrine of Divine Simplicity because God Himself had also revealed that the Trinity cannot be arrived at or comprehended by natural human reason alone.

Who dares question these doctrines revealed by God, Who’s Truth? Fallible, mutable, wretched mortals who, in their pride, daily inflict upon themselves their own miseries?

[Vetus Ordo]

The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit has been dogmatically defined and solemnly proclaimed by three ecumenical councils of the Church.

The apostolicity of the doctrine is unquestionable. You and Dyer are grasping at straws and vomiting slurs doesn't change that.

I'm well-aware that the ultimate defense of your claim is Roma locuta est, making it unfalsifiable, regardless of any actual facts or sound arguments that demonstrate its contrary.

The idea of absolute divine simplicity has its origin in Neoplatonism and  doesn't appear in "the Church" before , surprise, a Neoplatonist convert becomes one of its "Fathers". Your appeals to authority don't change that.

Two centuries before the birth of the Doctor of Grace, St. Irenaeus already spoke of divine simplicity. It is part of the deposit of faith:

But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. (Isaiah 55:8 ) For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God. (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 13, 3)

[TheReturnofLive]

Here's the cannon ball that destroys both arguments.

Both Absolute Divine Simplicity and the Energies-Essence distinction are illogical.

Absolute Divine Simplicity is incoherent because it's logical conclusions are absurd; if there is no distinction between the acts of God and the substance of God, God's eternal begetting of the Son is identical with God creating Adam and Eve; or God's permissive and active Will, God actively willing babies to get cancer and die.

The Energies-Essence distinction is incoherent because it implies a literal distinction within the divine essence per se, which contradicts the Council of Nicaea.


When confronted with both these incoherencies, both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike appeal to "God transcending logic," "God is incomprehensible," "It's a mystery, shut up"


To me, it's absurd that people are debating over which belief system of God's essence is more logical when both admit that both beliefs systems transcend logic and can't be explained by logic.

[TheReturnofLive]

One should have nothing to do with those who deny God’s Simplicity and Immutability, such as those obnoxious palamites. God’s Existence, Essence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, and His other attributes are identical in reality. We believe in the Trinity because God, who is Truth Himself, had revealed the doctrine. And it is not contradictory with the Catholic doctrine of Divine Simplicity because God Himself had also revealed that the Trinity cannot be arrived at or comprehended by natural human reason alone.

Who dares question these doctrines revealed by God, Who’s Truth? Fallible, mutable, wretched mortals who, in their pride, daily inflict upon themselves their own miseries?

If God's essence is beyond logic and cannot be comprehended, why are you arguing about how illogical and incomprehensible the Eastern Orthodox's position on God's essence is?

Any argument you make at them, they will shoot back at you with the same exact response "Mysterium Fidei"

[truly-a-philosofan]

If God's essence is beyond logic and cannot be comprehended, why are you arguing about how illogical and incomprehensible the Eastern Orthodox's position on God's essence is?

Any argument you make at them, they will shoot back at you with the same exact response "Mysterium Fidei"

It is one of the essential components of the official doctrine of the Trinity itself that the relational-yet-real distinctions between the Divine Persons and how they reconcile with Divine Simplicity are fully comprehended only in the Divine Mind. And considering the fact that the First Vatican Council officially taught that the Mysteria Fidei cannot ever be fully comprehended by natural human reason alone at least in this mortal life, describing the Holy Trinity to be humanly incomprehensible is not a mere rationalization due to apologetics.

Relations of opposition in God, such as God-as-Knower-of-Himself and God-as-Known-by-Himself, can be discovered through natural human reason alone. But, these same relations being truly distinct cannot be naturally discovered by the same natural human reason alone. God had to reveal this fact in a supernatural manner (and we have to believe Him since He’s Truth Himself). If this naturally undiscoverable aspect had never been supernaturally revealed, we would have continued to regard those same relations of opposition to be merely logically distinguished.

And God wouldn’t have revealed the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament anyway if He first had not revealed in the Old Testament that there are aspects about Him that are not discoverable by natural human reason alone. Hence the words of God written by the Holy Prophet Isaias [55:8-9]:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts.

The doctrine of the Palamites on the other hand, affirm ideas that are contradictory to the first ecumenical council, as you just apparently admitted. So even if they excuse their heresy with Mysterium Fidei, it wouldn’t stand due to the doctrines of Nicaea I being chronologically prior. Divine Simplicity, Divine Immutability, and the Trinity are doctrines held by the early Church. Palamites deny the first two a millennium after Nicaea I.

[TheReturnofLive]

The doctrine of the Palamites on the other hand, affirm ideas that are contradictory to the first ecumenical council, as you just apparently admitted. So even if they excuse their heresy with Mysterium Fidei, it wouldn’t stand due to the doctrines of Nicaea I being chronologically prior. Divine Simplicity, Divine Immutability, and the Trinity are doctrines held by the early Church. Palamites deny the first two a millennium after Nicaea I.

The Palamites do not admit that their ideas are contradictory to the First Ecumenical Council; rather they affirm one divine essence, but a distinction between the energies and the essence, and they hold that this real distinction yet being one divine essence is beyond human comprehension.

Jay Dyer in all his videos and apologia literally argues this.

Once you admit that God is incomprehensible via logic, you cannot belittle another person's faith system on what God is in His essence on the grounds that it is illogical, otherwise ADS would fall apart. The only thing you can really argue is which Faith system is more consistent with what came prior, because both are absolutely developments in theology.

Also, if you truly believe that the Fathers of the First 6 or so Ecumenical Councils held to an understanding of God's Essence that is identical to what Thomas Aquinas taught in the Summa, boy do you have another thing coming; Saint Thomas Aquinas had to refute Saint John Damascus who explicitly taught distinction between God's essence and energies and cites Maimonides as an authority in doing so.

Also, Vatican I being absolutely correct by virtue of coming from the Papacy is not a logical or persuasive argument for the Eastern Orthodox.

[TheReturnofLive]

But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. (Isaiah 55:8 ) For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God. (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 13, 3)

Wasn't it you who told me that citing the Fathers is a fruitless effort because you will inevitably read into it your current belief system and any Patristic citation can be dismissed on the grounds of "oh Church Fathers aren't infallible"?

[TheReturnofLive]

Sadly, your newly-found philosophical hero is another internet fraud with a foul mouth, a style that you're fond of replicating:

While I fully agree Jay Dyer is an absolute fraud, especially as it pertains to his conspiracy garbage, as he clearly doesn't believe in the nonsensical conspiracy snake-oil he sells to the masses, and he has more of a cult of personality rather than actual, produced, substantive content,

delegitimizing someone because of their past, or because they have a "foul mouth," is fucking retarded.

[The Theosist]

Let's be clear again:

The proposition that the Holy Spirit has his essence and subsistence from both Father and Son and proceeds from both as of a single principle by a single spiration, which is the def fide teaching of Rome on the Filioque, is heresy to the Eastern Orthodox and absolutely irreconcilable with their dogmatic theology. It doesn't matter if one can reconcile by with through the Son in some sense.

Yeah. That’s why we are Catholics here and not EO.

The contention that the Filioque is "absolutely irreconcilable" with Eastern Orthodox dogmatic theology has been factually disproven by the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Florence that were accepted by the Eastern Church.

Stop lying. The Eastern Orthodox never accepted Florence. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign for Alexandria, and Jersualem and Antioch refused to ratify the actions of their delegates. Only Constantinople "accepted" it. We needn't even go in to the politcal nature of that "council" and the monetary blackmailing of the East.

Mark of Ephesus on how the correpondence between St. Cyril and Theodoret show the Filioque was alreayd considered heretical in the 5th century:

An Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church cannot solemnly teach heresy, much less about the very nature of God. This is self-evident.

This is not "self-evident" to anyone; it's an article of your faith.