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

[Vetus Ordo]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

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

[The Theosist]

Funny how listening for hours to two fake Benedictine monks in a trailer park is not considered a waste of time.

Amusant. Like most of the Dimond's arguments, it is bogged down in philosophical presuppositions which are never questioned and just presumes Roman ideas of absolute divine simplicity and the Trinity, which are distortions and even inversions of those of the Greek fathers and incoherent, and ultimately boils down to an appeal to the supposedly infallible proclamations of the Roman church. If one accepts neither Thomism nor Roman dogma as given truths, it's rather uninteresting.

Trinity Doctrine, Catholicism Vs Orthodoxy & Palamas on Essence - Energy

Eastern & Latin Theology & The Essence - Energy Distinction

Refuting Roman Catholicism & Ecumenism: Palamas, Aquinas & Augustine

Roman Catholics & Protestants Refuted by Nicea & St Basil

Defense of Traditional Philosophy Ep 3 - Absolute Simplicity, Essence - Energy & the 6th Council

I Am That I Am, Essence-Energy, St. Athanasius & Wandering Bishop Sedevacantist Cults (begins around 51:00)

Orthodox Critique of Aquinas' Divine Simplicity and Created Grace

Debate Between An Orthodox & Barlaamite (R Catholic) - St. Gregory Palamas

Debating Roman Catholic Absolute Simplicity & Aquinas: Jay Dyer Vs. Dr. Francis Feingold

Classical Theist Refuted on Palamas & Thomas Aquinas - Uncreated Energies

And no, I'm not Eastern Orthodox or enamoured of them. I have no reason to place as much faith in the Fathers and dogmas of post-Constantinian councils as Jay Dyer.

[The Theosist]

All this is hardly necessary being it takes, like with epistemological relativism, a three-line argument to show the incoherence of absolute divine simplicity. But as with epistemological relativists since the time of Plato and their burial with the "Is the proposition of epistemological relativism true?" question, arguments that destroy a world view before it can even get started are simply waved off.

[Daniel]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

I might take a look at it a little later, but I'm not too hopeful. As far as I know, the Filioque is a new teaching.

All this is hardly necessary being it takes, like with epistemological relativism, a three-line argument to show the incoherence of absolute divine simplicity.

I see the problems with the Thomistic version of divine simplicity, but how does this refute the Filioque?

[Vetus Ordo]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

I might take a look at it a little later, but I'm not too hopeful. As far as I know, the Filioque is a new teaching.

The Filioque is a scriptural teaching (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6) that was denied for the first time in Church history only in the 7th century. It has apostolic, patristic and ecumenical authority. The double procession of the Holy Spirit has been solemnly defined and proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons and the Ecumenical Council of Florence that the Eastern Church participated in and accepted. There's really no way around it.

[The Theosist]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

I might take a look at it a little later, but I'm not too hopeful. As far as I know, the Filioque is a new teaching.

The Filioque is a scriptural teaching (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6) that was denied for the first time in Church history only in the 7th century. It has apostolic, patristic and ecumenical authority. The double procession of the Holy Spirit has been solemnly defined and proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons and the Ecumenical Council of Florence that the Eastern Church participated in and accepted. There's really no way around it.

It takes an idiot, a liar, or someone who doesn't understand the Filioque to say those verses imply the Roman doctrine 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. It was denied the first time it appeared.

Please learn the distinction of hypostatic procession, economic procession and eternal manifestation.

[Vetus Ordo]

Amusant. Like most of the Dimond's arguments, it is bogged down in philosophical presuppositions which are never questioned and just presumes Roman ideas of absolute divine simplicity and the Trinity, which are distortions and even inversions of those of the Greek fathers and incoherent, and ultimately boils down to an appeal to the supposedly infallible proclamations of the Roman church. If one accepts neither Thomism nor Roman dogma as given truths, it's rather uninteresting.

Absolute divine simplicity is de fide, it's not simply a philosophical presupposition. Not just for Catholics but even for Traditional Protestants who inherited the theological tradition of the Church. Palamism, that Dyer fastidiously defends in the videos you posted, is a heresy that resurrected polytheism from its grave. Fr. Joseph Pohle (1910) in his work God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise, aptly summarizes the question:

"Two centuries later there arose among the schismatic Greeks the heresy of the Palamites - so called from its author, Gregory Palamas. This heresy two Constantinopolitan synods (A.D. 1341 and 1347) did not blush to proclaim as a schismatic dogma. The quintessence of the Palamite error may be stated as follows: Between the essence (οὐσία) and the activity (ἐνέργεια) of God there is a real distinction, inasmuch as the latter radiates from the former as something inferior, though still, in a sense, divine (θεότης). [According to them] God's different attributes are merely radiations of the Divine Essence, and they solidify as it were by taking on the shape of an uncreated but visible light, which the Blessed in Heaven perceive by means of bodily vision. It is the same light that the disciples beheld on Mount Tabor. Here on earth this heavenly bliss is possible per anticipationem [through anticipation] only, as the fruit of severe mortification, in the ἡσυχία [stillness/quietness], that is, the repose of contemplative prayer. Hence the name Hesychasts; hence also the contemptuous nickname...Umbilicans, given to these heretics by Barlaam, the learned Abbot of St. Saviour's at Constantinople. Except between the Divine Hypostases [or Persons], no real distinction can be admitted to exist in the Godhead, because if there were in it any sort of real distinction, the Divine Essence would consist of distinct parts, which is repugnant. St. Bernard of Clairvaux justly traces this erroneous view to polytheism..."

The Catholic Encyclopedia echoes the same sentiments: "Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism." (Greek Church, Hesychasm)

And no, I'm not Eastern Orthodox or enamoured of them. I have no reason to place as much faith in the Fathers and dogmas of post-Constantinian councils as Jay Dyer.

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

[The Theosist]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

I might take a look at it a little later, but I'm not too hopeful. As far as I know, the Filioque is a new teaching.

All this is hardly necessary being it takes, like with epistemological relativism, a three-line argument to show the incoherence of absolute divine simplicity.

I see the problems with the Thomistic version of divine simplicity, but how does this refute the Filioque?

It forms the basis for the Western trinitarian theology which underlies the Filioque. Its refutation, apart from pulling up Western theology by the root, undermines the Filioquist argument and removes the motivation. See hypostatic versus economic procession, eternal manifestation versus economic mission.

[The Theosist]

Amusant. Like most of the Dimond's arguments, it is bogged down in philosophical presuppositions which are never questioned and just presumes Roman ideas of absolute divine simplicity and the Trinity, which are distortions and even inversions of those of the Greek fathers and incoherent, and ultimately boils down to an appeal to the supposedly infallible proclamations of the Roman church. If one accepts neither Thomism nor Roman dogma as given truths, it's rather uninteresting.

Absolute divine simplicity is de fide, it's not simply a philosophical presupposition. Not just for Catholics but even for Traditional Protestants who inherited the theological tradition of the Church. Palamism, that Dyer fastidiously defends in the videos you posted, is a heresy that resurrected polytheism from its grave. Fr. Joseph Pohle (1910) in his work God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise, aptly summarizes the question:

ADS is an incoherent nonsense lifted from Neoplatonism, that entered "orthodox" Christianity through Augustine. I'm well-aware of Protestants and theists in general sharing this nonsense with you. So do the Muslims, which further explains your fury.

[Vetus Ordo]

A rather lengthy exposition, the video is about 2 hours long, but it's worth the watch for the wealth of information presented.

I don't usually share MHFM material but this one is very well done.

I might take a look at it a little later, but I'm not too hopeful. As far as I know, the Filioque is a new teaching.

The Filioque is a scriptural teaching (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6) that was denied for the first time in Church history only in the 7th century. It has apostolic, patristic and ecumenical authority. The double procession of the Holy Spirit has been solemnly defined and proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons and the Ecumenical Council of Florence that the Eastern Church participated in and accepted. There's really no way around it.

It takes an idiot, a liar, or someone who doesn't understand the Filioque to say those verses imply the Roman doctrine 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. It was denied the first time it appeared.

Please learn the distinction of hypostatic procession, economic procession and eternal manifestation.

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.

[The Theosist]

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.

[Daniel]

Absolute divine simplicity is de fide, it's not simply a philosophical presupposition.

When did the Catholic Church ever declare Thomistic simplicity to be a dogma? I find that hard to believe, seeing as Thomistic simplicity leads to absurdities:

If God's act of creating is the same thing as God, then it follows that God couldn't have not-created the world. And if God couldn't have not-created the world, then the world emanates from God. And if world emanates from God, then the world is God. This is all wrong. The Church teaches that God is a person who can make real choices, who chose to create the world, and that the world is not the same thing as God.

Amusant. Like most of the Dimond's arguments, it is bogged down in philosophical presuppositions which are never questioned and just presumes Roman ideas of absolute divine simplicity and the Trinity, which are distortions and even inversions of those of the Greek fathers and incoherent, and ultimately boils down to an appeal to the supposedly infallible proclamations of the Roman church. If one accepts neither Thomism nor Roman dogma as given truths, it's rather uninteresting.

Absolute divine simplicity is de fide, it's not simply a philosophical presupposition. Not just for Catholics but even for Traditional Protestants who inherited the theological tradition of the Church. Palamism, that Dyer fastidiously defends in the videos you posted, is a heresy that resurrected polytheism from its grave. Fr. Joseph Pohle (1910) in his work God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise, aptly summarizes the question:

"Two centuries later there arose among the schismatic Greeks the heresy of the Palamites - so called from its author, Gregory Palamas. This heresy two Constantinopolitan synods (A.D. 1341 and 1347) did not blush to proclaim as a schismatic dogma. The quintessence of the Palamite error may be stated as follows: Between the essence (οὐσία) and the activity (ἐνέργεια) of God there is a real distinction, inasmuch as the latter radiates from the former as something inferior, though still, in a sense, divine (θεότης). [According to them] God's different attributes are merely radiations of the Divine Essence, and they solidify as it were by taking on the shape of an uncreated but visible light, which the Blessed in Heaven perceive by means of bodily vision. It is the same light that the disciples beheld on Mount Tabor. Here on earth this heavenly bliss is possible per anticipationem [through anticipation] only, as the fruit of severe mortification, in the ἡσυχία [stillness/quietness], that is, the repose of contemplative prayer. Hence the name Hesychiasts; hence also the contemptuous nickname...Umbilicans, given to these heretics by Barlaam, the learned Abbot of St. Saviour's at Constantinople. Except between the Divine Hypostases [or Persons], no real distinction can be admitted to exist in the Godhead, because if there were in it any sort of real distinction, the Divine Essence would consist of distinct parts, which is repugnant. St. Bernard of Clairvaux justly traces this erroneous view to polytheism..."

The Catholic Encyclopedia echoes the same sentiments: "Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism." (Greek Church, Hesychasm)

I don't know anything about Palamas or Palamism, so this is an honest question: If Palamas was a heretic and/or taught heresy, then why is he venerated as a saint in some of the eastern Catholic churches? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Palamas

[The Theosist]

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.

[The Theosist]

Absolute divine simplicity is de fide, it's not simply a philosophical presupposition.

When did the Catholic Church ever declare Thomistic simplicity to be a dogma? I find that hard to believe, seeing as Thomistic simplicity leads to absurdities:

If God's act of creating is the same thing as God, then it follows that God couldn't have not-created the world. And if God couldn't have not-created the world, then the world emanates from God. And if world emanates from God, then the world is God. This is all wrong. The Church teaches that God is a person who can make real choices, who chose to create the world, and that the world is not the same thing as God.

Then you're going to have to find a theology of God as being "one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance" with a respectable pedigree that doesn't lead to that argument.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm


Here is Ed Feser's take on that:

As I have indicated in earlier posts, the doctrine of divine simplicity is absolutely central to classical theism. To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence. Divine simplicity is affirmed by such Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes. It is central to the theology of pagan thinkers like Plotinus. It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the fourth Lateran council and the first Vatican council, and the denial of which amounts to heresy.

The doctrine of divine simplicity has a number of crucial implications, which are, accordingly, also essential to classical theism. It entails that God is immutable or changeless, and therefore that He is impassible – that is, that He cannot be affected by anything in the created order. It entails that he is eternal in the sense of being altogether outside of time and space. It entails that He does not “have” existence, or an essence, or His various attributes but rather is identical to His existence, His nature and His attributes: He is His existence which is His essence which is His power

I don't know anything about Palamas or Palamism, so this is an honest question: If Palamas was a heretic and/or taught heresy, then why is he venerated as a saint in some of the eastern Catholic churches? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Palamas

And why does Rome allow it? It makes as much sense as ADS itself.

If Vetus were logically consistent in his appeals to Roman authority, he'd have to accept that Palamas was not a heretic and, given the date of his writings and confrontations with Rome, Palamism not a heresy. But, regardless of the Filioque, Palamas  contradicts and denies absolute divine simplicity, which Vetus declares a dogma of the faith. Go figure. Once a person can accept that ADS is coherent and meaningful, and must be because Rome teaches it, belief in square circles is possible.

[Xavier]

I did research and wrote an article on the Filioque for 1P5. It is the clear consensus of the Latin Fathers. Per Filium or through the Son is the clear consensus of the Greek and Eastern Fathers. Florence decreed that the two formulas are equivalent and both acceptable. The Holy Father proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is the same as saying He proceeds from the Father through the Son. Thus St. Thomas also.

From: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/

[1] Five Ecumenical Councils approved a letter of Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria that taught the Dogma of the Filioque!

Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine gives a manifest proof establishing the doctrine from the authority of five ecumenical councils:

Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, ‘The Spirit is called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is Truth, and so He proceeds from Him likewise as from the Father.’ This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods. We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?

Patriarch St. Cyril and the five ecumenical councils mentioned by Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine give us the patristic and Church-authorized interpretation of the Word of Christ in Sacred Scripture. As we will see subsequently, Bishops like St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine had already done this in the West in the 4th century.

[2] Greek Orthodox Bishops and Patriarchs, at Nicene Ecumenical Councils, confess doctrine practically equivalent to the Filioque.

As if that were not enough, we have the testimony of two Eastern saintly bishops, one of whom was patriarch of the Greek Church and made a dogmatic confession.

Bp. St. Leontius of Caesarea, at Nicaea I, testifies that “the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is proper to the Son and gushes forth from Him” [3]. This is the Faith of the 318 fathers gathered at Nicaea. As Cardinal St. Robert writes, it was not explicitly defined in Nicaea, because the necessity had not yet arisen, as the ancient fathers testified, “I for my part cannot sufficiently wonder with what boldness Jeremias, who calls himself Ecumenical Patriarch, dared to write recently in his censure of the confession of the Lutherans that it was defined by the Synod of Nicaea and all subsequent general Councils that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone[.] … Let us then consult the Nicene Creed, and let us see whether it teaches in very expressive words that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The whole Nicene Creed is cited by Cyril among the Greeks, by Ruffinus among the Latins, but nothing else is read in that Creed about the Holy Spirit than this opinion ‘and [I believe] in the Holy Spirit.’ Now Nazianzen testifies that the Nicene Synod did not hand on the perfect doctrine about the Holy Spirit for the reason that the question about the Holy Spirit had not arisen. Let Jeremias see in which Nicene Creed he has read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.”

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople, at Nicaea II, declared, in the Creed, “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God” [4]. Just as the 150 fathers at Constantinople I added to the Creed of Nicaea the words, “the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father,” etc., Patriarch St. Tarasius here adds the words “through the Son,” etc. This shows the Faith of the Universal Church at Nicaea II.

[3] Great Latin bishops and fathers exegete and interpret the words of Sacred Scripture in favor of the Filioque doctrine.

Bishop St. Hilary of Poitiers says it is one and the same thing to proceed from the Father, receive from Him and from His Son ...