Orthodox vs Catholic | “Is the Filioque True?” | David Erhan vs Jesusandwhatnot

0:01All right, welcome everyone. Um, it's

0:03been a long time, long while since I

0:05streamed, but welcome to a debate that I

0:09will have between myself and Jesus and

0:12whatnot. I actually um, you know,

0:15apologies. I actually don't even know

0:16your name or if you want to be addressed

0:17by your name or just Jesus and whatnot

0:19because it's kind of long. But, um, I'm

0:21glad to have you here. Um, and we can

0:23just, you know, get into debating the

0:24filio and just discussing the two

0:26different viewpoints between our

0:28respective traditions, right? what the

0:29Orthodox uh church teaches regarding it,

0:32what the Roman Catholic Church teaches

0:34regarding it, and the arguments in favor

0:35and against, and and yeah, uh I'm happy

0:38for this debate. I'm excited for this

0:39debate. Of course, it's been a while

0:40since I've streamed, so I might not be

0:42match fit, so to speak, but I think this

0:45will be a fun debate. Uh you can

0:46introduce yourself to my audience or

0:49even to your audience and kind of just

0:51get into it.

0:53>> Yeah. Um my name is Jesus and whatnot,

0:55but you can just call me Noah. Um like

0:57the flood. Um, and I'm very excited to

1:01talk to David. Um, I I've kind of always

1:02viewed him as like the the best of the

1:04best when it comes to Eastern Orthodox

1:06debaters. He's um very very intelligent,

1:08but also very charitable and um

1:10respectful in his debates, which I think

1:12earns him a lot of points. Um, and you

1:14know, I I've had my my few run-ins with

1:17the Eastern Orthodox scene. And so, I'm

1:18I'm glad to finally have a a debate

1:20opponent who I think will actually, you

1:21know, address the arguments and and

1:23really uh get into it with me. So, um I

1:27I would I would just like to ask

1:28everybody um to to you know, I actually

1:30have an open mind. I think I think David

1:31and I we kind of express the same

1:33sentiment beforehand that a lot of times

1:35with filio quite a bit. It's very

1:36tribalistic. Like we have like one side

1:38like thinks um they're right all the

1:41time. Um the other side's just like

1:42spamming like W Catholic or Worth

1:44Orthodox. Maybe just like sit back and

1:46and hear the actual arguments. maybe

1:47take some notes and uh I I think

1:49everybody at the very least can learn

1:51something here if they're not so focused

1:52on just um side versus side.

1:57>> Yeah, I think in general I mean it

2:00really comes with the culture. I mean

2:01last debate I did people were counting

2:03how many times I touched my nose. I'm

2:04going to do it a lot more in this.

2:07Okay. Um and like just like even trying

2:11to find anything to

2:13just I guess create a perception. So it

2:15comes with it comes with the type but I

2:17think the people who are genuinely

2:19interested and want to have a actual

2:21like want to observe an actual

2:23conversation between um two different

2:25sides I think this will be an excellent

2:27opportunity of course I've done this uh

2:29before I'm happy to do it again uh and I

2:31enjoy uh doing having this discussion

2:33I'm also working on different things as

2:35well so this is kind of just okay I'll

2:36just in a sense kind of refine some of

2:38the things that I've said but yeah I

2:39think this will be a excellent debate

2:41and one thing I also note uh I do plan

2:44to Um no if you if you want to like you

2:47know part of the plan was to have like

2:49at least answering super chat questions

2:51so people in the super chats if uh if

2:53you want to ask questions you can super

2:55chat and the proceedings will go equal

2:57to both of us how that's how we going to

2:59exactly arrange that I think we can find

3:00find it very easy but that's basically

3:02the plan right it goes to both of us so

3:03it's half and half um yeah do you have

3:06anything anything to add beside that

3:09>> um no I I think I'm good um yeah just

3:12just stay respectful in the chat Um, you

3:15know, I I watched your your debate with

3:16Wagner and Sam Shimoon, who was making

3:18me laugh the whole time, just like

3:20putting up like the different random

3:21comments of people like crashing out in

3:23the in the chat. Made me funny, but it

3:25made me made me laugh. But yeah, no, I

3:26think I'm all good, man.

3:28>> Yeah, I mean, I'll be debating. I don't

3:30So, I'm not going to be able to check

3:32the chat as often. So,

3:34>> yes,

3:34>> I just accept that it's going to be a

3:35mess. Okay. Um, but mo but to be honest,

3:38if you chat during debates, I don't

3:41think you you can really listen. I think

3:43it's kind of just like it's like it's

3:46like listening to to two people talk in

3:48a bar and people in the bar just like

3:50throwing food at each other like they're

3:52busy doing that to like or like you're

3:54watching a football match and like

3:56you're busy cheering and you're not even

3:58watching the match, right? It's kind of

3:59like that. But yeah.

4:00>> Um

4:01>> so you want to go first? Um as you know

4:04you

4:05were going to talk before. So yeah, go

4:07ahead. Uh do you want do you need me to

4:08like do the add to the stage thing with

4:11your proper side or can you like do it

4:12on your side?

4:13>> Um it looks like only you can do that.

4:16>> Uh is it possible for me to share

4:18because I I kind of I don't want to

4:22I am a bit boomer techch and I don't

4:23have much time. So let me see if I can

4:25do I mean worst comes to worse you can

4:27say next. I mean it's kind of not good

4:30not the best but let's see hold up.

4:35Ah, allow allow guests to control slides

4:37by default.

4:38>> Oh,

4:39>> I think this should I think this should

4:40work now.

4:41>> Try.

4:43>> Um,

4:45yeah, if you want to put it up on the

4:47stage for me, I can see if I can

4:48>> There we go. I think you can. There.

4:51There we go.

4:52>> All right. Excellent. Um, so, oh, just

4:54to like discuss the format to let

4:56everyone know. So, it's 15 minutes

4:58opening for both sides, 10 minutes

4:59rebuttal, 10 minutes cross examination

5:01for both sides. And I think how many

5:03minutes was it for open dialogue? Was it

5:0520?

5:07>> Uh, that sounds about right. Um, I I

5:09think we can be, you know, somewhat

5:10loose with all of that stuff, too. Like

5:12like I'm not going to be like, "Oh, you

5:14got off cut off by your time. You I I

5:16don't get to answer now." Or something

5:18like that. I think that'd be that'd be

5:19stupid. So, yeah, we can be we can be

5:20pretty loose with with the timing.

5:21>> Yeah, of course we can be loose with it.

5:23Yeah. All right. So, go ahead. begin

5:25when you're ready and let's start.

5:28>> All right. Um let's let's talk about the

5:30filioquay. Um so I I want to start off

5:32actually reminding everyone what we're

5:34actually discussing today. Um the debate

5:36prompt is is the filioquay as defined by

5:39the council. Oh wait, sorry. This this

5:41is um it'll be fine. It's whatever. The

5:44debate prompt is is the filioquay

5:45actually. Yeah, we have to take this

5:46down. I'm sorry. This it's the the old

5:48version of the slides. And so it has I

5:52have to like relog into the slideshow. I

5:54I I hate how

5:55>> I guess we can just restart then. Yeah,

5:57not a problem.

5:57>> Yeah, I apologize, man. It's cuz like

6:00Streamyard will show you the option to

6:02put up your slideshow

6:03>> and then like if you click on it, it's

6:05like the mo like the oldest version. So

6:07when I was prep like showing this to a

6:08friend that it had it up there. You'll

6:10see there. The reason I knew that right

6:11off the bat is because there was a typo

6:13um in discussing. It said discussion

6:15instead of discussing. So um it's

6:17processing.

6:17>> Yeah, go ahead. But but I mean if it's

6:19the old version, I mean I already put

6:20the prompt in description. Uh, so I

6:23don't think there should be any any

6:24issues with that. I mean, we have

6:25>> Oh, we have 600 viewers, so no pressure.

6:28Um,

6:28>> oh, boy.

6:29>> Actually, I shouldn't be telling you

6:30this. I mean, for you, you're trying to

6:31get my

6:31>> at least for you it's normal. Yeah.

6:34>> Uh, well, I I never get 600 views. So,

6:37actually, the pressure is on me when you

6:39think about it. But yeah, go ahead.

6:41>> If worse comes to worse, I mean, if it

6:43takes too long, you can just do with the

6:44old slides. I think if it's only just a

6:47prompt.

6:48>> Yeah, you you can put it up on the

6:49screen now. It's I think it loaded into

6:51the the stream. Go ahead.

6:52>> Sorry about that guys. Okay, before we

6:54begin, I'd like to remind everyone what

6:56we're actually discussing today. The

6:57debate prompt is is the filioquay as

7:00defined by the council of Florence the

7:01teaching of the church in the first

7:02millennium or heresy. Today I will be

7:05discussing that and nothing more. I will

7:07not be focused on proving the papacy

7:09specific councils or even the addition

7:11of the filioquay to the creed. The

7:13filioquay can be a true statement

7:15independent of all of those and

7:16therefore there is no burden for me to

7:18prove them. Now what what is the

7:20filioquay exactly? Filioquay means and

7:23the son in Latin. This is because

7:24Catholics believe that the holy spirit

7:26proceeds from the father and the son. On

7:29the other hand, Eastern Orthodox

7:31Christians believe that the holy spirit

7:32proceeds from the father alone. Now

7:36there's a quick bible verse that we can

7:37point to that kind of shows this. It

7:39says, "Whatever the father does, the son

7:41does likewise." And since the son does

7:43just as the father does, the father

7:44sends the spirit. So too does the son

7:47send the spirit. There are two ways in

7:48which one can explain this that would be

7:50in line with catholic teaching. The

7:52filioquay formulation and the perfillium

7:54formulation. The most common formulation

7:56of the sun causing the spirit is known

7:58as the filioquay formulation. This

8:01states that the holy spirit proceeds

8:02from the father and the son filioquay.

8:05However, it is also in line with

8:06catholic teaching to state that the holy

8:08spirit proceeds from the father through

8:10the son. Perfilium. Both descriptions

8:12are valid and can be found all

8:14throughout the church fathers. In the

8:16words of the council of Florence, we

8:18declare that when the holy doctors and

8:19fathers say that the holy spirit

8:20proceeds from the father through the son

8:23perfillium, this bears the sense that

8:25thereby also the son filioquay should be

8:28signified according to the Greeks indeed

8:30as cause. There's a helpful analogy that

8:33can help us understand this. You can use

8:35a spring, a stream, and a pond. The

8:38spring is the ultimate or primordial

8:40cause of the water deposited in the pond

8:43and sends the water through the stream.

8:45However, we can also say that the stream

8:47is a cause of the water in the pond.

8:50Meaning that the pond is caused by the

8:52spring and the stream. So that's

8:54filioquay and perfillium. In a similar

8:56way, the father is the ultimate cause or

8:59the primordial cause of the holy spirit

9:01and sends the spirit through the son.

9:04However, we can also say that the son is

9:06a cause of the holy spirit. Meaning that

9:08the holy spirit is caused by the father

9:10and the son. St. Hillary who is a saint

9:13east and west west actually uses both of

9:15these formulations.

9:17He says concerning the holy spirit I

9:19ought not to be silent. We are bound to

9:22confess him proceeding as he does from

9:25father and sonatrailio

9:28confendus. And then in the same work on

9:30the trinity he says let me adore you oh

9:34you oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh

9:35oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh my goodness

9:35let me in short adore you our father and

9:37your son together with you let me win

9:39the favor of your holy spirit who is

9:41from you through your only begotten so

9:44we feed we see the filioquay and the

9:46perfillium formulation now in order to

9:49prove this I'm going to use two

9:51theological arguments the first line of

9:53argumentation will be referred to as the

9:55distinction problem and the second will

9:57be referred to as the divinity problem.

10:00The first argument, the distinction

10:01problem is that we can only distinguish

10:04the persons in the trinity by relation

10:06of origin. For example, the father is

10:08not distinct from the son because he has

10:09a different essence than the son. That

10:11would be ridiculous. Rather, he is

10:13distinct from the son because he begets

10:15the son. We cannot try to distinguish

10:17the three persons by anything absolute.

10:19For example, we cannot say that the

10:21father has more power than the son. That

10:23would be arryanism because it means that

10:25the son is less god than the father. The

10:27only way that anyone can distinguish the

10:29persons is through their hypoatic

10:31relation to one another or relative

10:32opposition. Relative oppos opposition

10:35can be understood as follows. A is

10:37related to B in one direction while B is

10:39related to A in the opposite direction.

10:41For example, a master is related to a

10:43servant in one direction and the servant

10:45is related to the master in the opposite

10:47direction. A mother is related to her

10:49daughter in one direction and the

10:51daughter is related to her mother in the

10:53opposite direction. This is the only way

10:55that the divine persons can be

10:56distinguished from one another. The

10:57father has relative opposition to the

10:59son. The son has relative opposition to

11:01the father and the father has relative

11:03opposition to the spirit. The spirit has

11:05relative opposition to the father. St.

11:06Bassel actually explicates this for us.

11:08He says as light and light there is no

11:11opposition between them. But as begotten

11:13and unbegotten, one considers them under

11:16the aspect of their opposition.

11:18Antithesis. The properties are

11:21distinguished from one another by

11:22opposing themselves. That's against

11:24Unomius. Now, relations in the trinity

11:28are relations of origin. More

11:29specifically, the relation of

11:31oppositions are due to origin. This

11:33means that one comes from another. The

11:35father is distinct from the son because

11:37he beggets the son. The son is distinct

11:39from the father because he is begotten

11:40of the father. The father is distinct

11:42from the spirit because he sends the

11:43spirit and the spirit is distinct from

11:45the father because it proceeds from the

11:46father. St. Gregory of Nissa who is a

11:49saint east and west talks about relation

11:50of origin and not three gods. He says we

11:53do not deny the difference in respect of

11:55cause and that which is cause by which

11:57alone we apprehend that one person is

11:59distinguished from another by our belief

12:01that one is the cause and another is of

12:03the cause and again in that which is of

12:05the cause we recognize yet another

12:07distinction. For one is directly from

12:09the first cause and another by that

12:10which is directly from the first cause.

12:12Now there's a problem in eastern

12:14orthodoxy. If you deny the filioquay,

12:16you deny that there is any relation of

12:18origin between the sun and the spirit.

12:20But remember, the only way to

12:21distinguish the persons is through

12:23relation of origin. God from God, light

12:25from light, like we all profess in the

12:27Nyine creed. This means that in the

12:29orthodox framework of the trinity, there

12:31is no way to distinguish the holy spirit

12:33from the sun. The best way to show this

12:35is with a full model of the trinity on

12:37both sides. With the Catholic view, the

12:38filioquay, we can see that there is a

12:40perfect distinction between all three

12:42persons. Each person has relative

12:44opposition by way of origin and there's

12:46no mixing between each person. Remember

12:48the only way to distinguish these

12:50persons is through these relations of

12:52origin. However, if you reject the

12:54filioquay like the orthodox do, then

12:56there is no longer a distinction between

12:58sun and spirit. In the words of Cardinal

13:00Cadetin, they have made a quote

13:02sunspirit. Without the filioquay, the

13:05sun and spirit collapse into one person.

13:07And this is heresy. Now, there's a

13:09typical orthodox response. They say that

13:12we can distinguish the son and the

13:13spirit because they have distinct

13:15relations to the father. They falsely

13:17claim that since the son is begotten, he

13:20must be distinct from the spirit who

13:21proceeds. However, a very simple analogy

13:24can help us see why this does not solve

13:25the problem. We can imagine that there's

13:27a woman who has a person who is her

13:29daughter and a person who is her

13:31student. These two relations are

13:32different from one another, but there's

13:34no way to distinguish the daughter from

13:36the student without more information.

13:38the woman's daughter could also be her

13:41student. This actually occurs all the

13:42time in public schools, right? Like

13:44we've had classmates whose parent is

13:46actually their teacher at the same time.

13:48So there's still a problem. Just because

13:50the sun is begotten and the spirit

13:52proceeds, we cannot say that they are

13:54distinct unless we have some information

13:56that tells us otherwise. Since they

13:57would not be distinguished by anything

13:59according to nature, there must be some

14:01relation of origin between them. The

14:03filioquay. Without the filioquay, the

14:05sun and the spirit are collapsed into

14:06one persons. Now the council of Ephesus

14:10actually affirms this when it accepts

14:11Sirill's letter who talks about the same

14:13exact thing. He says for even though the

14:15son exists of his own person or the

14:17spirit exists of his own person and is

14:18conceived of by himself in as much as he

14:20is the spirit and not the son yet he is

14:22not therefore alien from him for he is

14:25called the spirit of truth and Christ is

14:27the truth and he proceedth from him just

14:30as from God the father. Now there's a

14:33second argument the divinity problem.

14:35There is another issue that arises if

14:37you reject the filioquet. If you deny

14:39that the son also spirates the spirit,

14:41you deny that the son receives the

14:43fullness of divinity from the father.

14:45This results in semi-aranism which is

14:47obviously heresy. In order to explain

14:49this, we must first define a few terms.

14:51There's the principium quo or the

14:53principle by which and that is the

14:55faculty or power that communicates

14:58nature in a natural operation. Now

15:00there's also the principium quote or the

15:02principle by which the the principle uh

15:04is by which is that which performs the

15:07operation in itself. You could call it

15:08more approximate. This distinction can

15:11be seen through an example. Right? If

15:12you touch burning hot steel, there are

15:14two principles at play. When the steel

15:16burns you, heat is the principle by

15:19which you are burned. We know this

15:20because the heat is what is communicated

15:22to you. You don't receive like

15:24steeliness rather you you receive heat,

15:26right? because it's being communicated

15:28by the principle by which um however

15:31when you are burnt by steel the steel

15:32itself is the principle which burns you

15:35because it the steel is actually

15:36performing the action of burning you.

15:38This distinction between principal witch

15:39and principle by which can help us

15:41understand the trinity. When the son is

15:43begotten of the father the father is the

15:45principal which the divine essence is

15:47the principle by which we know this

15:49because the divine nature is what is

15:50communicated to the son hence him having

15:53divinity. It's the same thing with the

15:54Holy Spirit when the f the father is the

15:56principal which and the divine essence

15:58is the principle by which we know this

16:00because the divine nature is

16:01communicated to the spirit. Now the

16:03reason I preface with all of this is

16:06because of the ordering of the trinity.

16:07Remember that the son is the second

16:09person of the trinity because he

16:10precedes the holy spirit by order of

16:12nature. When the son receives divinity

16:14from the father the spirit has not yet

16:16been sent by according to nature. Right?

16:19Like we we obviously don't believe that

16:20there's some temporal ordering. Um now

16:22the principle by which the spiration

16:25occurs is the divine essence. Spiration

16:27and beetting only terminate in the

16:29spirit and the son respectively. So when

16:31the son receives the divine essence,

16:32spiration has not yet terminated in the

16:34spirit. This means that the son receives

16:37the active power to spirate and

16:38therefore the father and the son send

16:41the spirit. This is the doctrine of the

16:43filioquay. Now since the principle by

16:45which uh the spirit is sent is the

16:47divine essence the son must also send

16:50the spirit or else he does not have the

16:51fullness of the divine essence. By divi

16:54by denying the filioquay you deny that

16:55the son is truly divine. St. Augustine

16:58talks about this very clearly. He says

16:59the father is a beginning in relation to

17:02the son because he beggets him. It must

17:05be admitted that the father and the son

17:07are a beginning of the holy spirit not

17:09two beginnings. But as the father and

17:11the son are one God and one creator and

17:13one lord resp uh relatively to the

17:16creature, so they are one beginning

17:19relatively to the holy spirit. Now

17:21despite what you might hear from popular

17:23orthodox apologists, the filioquay is

17:24actually taught thoroughly throughout

17:26the early church. And in this opening

17:27statement, I'm going to present just a

17:29few. David, your face is making me

17:31laugh, man. Um according to the uh

17:33accordingly, this is from St. Hillary

17:35for see all of these saints are

17:37venerated both both east and west by the

17:38way. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit

17:40receives from the Son who is sent by him

17:42and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask

17:45whether to receive from the Holy Spirit

17:46is the same thing as to proceed from the

17:48Father. But if one believes that there

17:50is a difference between receiving from

17:52the Son and proceeding from the Father,

17:54surely to receive from the Son and to

17:56receive from the Father will be regarded

17:57as one in the same thing. So he's asking

17:59if the procession of the Spirit from the

18:01Son is the same thing as the procession

18:03from the Father. And he says yes, it is

18:05the one in the same thing. St. St. Leo

18:07the Great actually says something on

18:09this as well. He says, "And so under the

18:11first headed is shown unholy views that

18:13they hold about the divine trinity. They

18:15affirm that one person of the father and

18:17the son." They affirmed the person of

18:18the father and the son and the holy

18:19spirit is one in the same. As if the

18:22same God were now named father and now

18:24son and now holy spirit. As if he who

18:26begott were not one. He who was begotten

18:29another. And he who proceeds from both

18:32yet another. But an undivided unity must

18:34be understood. Spoken of under three

18:36names. indeed but not consisting of

18:38three persons. St. Ambrose says

18:40something on this as well. He says the

18:42Holy Spirit received from the son. He

18:44received them however through the unity

18:45of the substance as the son received

18:48from the father. So again comparing the

18:50spirit's procession from the son to the

18:52son's procession from the father. We see

18:54this in St. Vassel. So in the case of

18:56the of the divine and uncompounded

18:58nature of the union consists in the

19:00communion of the godhead. One moreover

19:02is the Holy Spirit and we speak of him

19:03singly conjoined as he is to one father

19:07through the son and through himself

19:09completing the adorable blessed trinity.

19:11St. Bassel then say says again the

19:13natural goodness and inherent holiness

19:15and the royal dignity extended from the

19:16father through the only begotten son to

19:18the spirit. Thus there is both

19:20acknowledgement of the hyposas and the

19:22true dogma of the monarchy is not lost.

19:24And remember he says in in very I I

19:27believe it's actually the the very next

19:28chapter that the goodness which is being

19:30extended to the spirit from the son is

19:32the essence of the spirit. St. Epipanius

19:35then says therefore he always existed

19:37with the father and the spirit always

19:39breathed forth from the father. Spiritus

19:41apatra filioquirat.

19:43St. Isidor also says between the son who

19:46is born the holy spirit who proceeds in

19:48this distinction that the son is born

19:50from one. The Holy Spirit proceeds from

19:53both and he calls him the spirit of

19:55Christ. Okay. Now, now in conclusion, I

19:58could continue to quote saints and

20:00councils, but but honestly, that's not

20:01going to change many minds, and it would

20:03eventually have diminishing returns.

20:05Given the metaphysical and partist and

20:06petristic argumentations put forth in

20:08this presentation, I believe it's

20:10absolutely impossible to deny the

20:12filioquay as the truth of the church.

20:14Please proceed through the rest of the

20:15debate, however, with an open mind. Hear

20:17out David's arguments. Um, and thank you

20:18for listening.

20:21Thank you. I really appreciate your

20:22presentation. Uh if if it's fine with

20:25you, uh can you keep the slide like on

20:28the screen instead of like removing it

20:29because in my response I will be making

20:32use of some of them. So that's fine with

20:33you.

20:35>> I'll go through some what I'm saying is

20:37that in my response like obviously I'm

20:39not responding now but in the response

20:41section I'm going to be going through

20:43some of your slides one by one if if

20:44possible. You don't have any objections

20:46to that right? Oh, I mean yeah some of

20:48the quotes and things like that. Yeah,

20:51>> thank you very much. Um let me see uh

20:54let me just check my time in um

20:59starting well in your your presentation

21:02was very nice my starting with the

21:04pseudo council of Florence makes me look

21:06really mean but um all right let's see

21:11I'll just start when I'm ready.

21:16All right, here we go. As you both

21:18agreed, my opponent is defending the

21:20filiocre as defined by the council of

21:22Florence, which is that the holy spirit

21:23existentially, causally or

21:25hypothatically proceeds from the father

21:27and the son as a single principle. I on

21:30the other hand argue that being cause of

21:31divinity including the divine persons is

21:34a property of the father alone which is

21:36this doctrine is known as the monarchy

21:38of the father and as a result of this

21:41the holy spirit does not have his

21:42hypotheasis from the son but only from

21:44the father this argument is based on

21:46scripture petric teaching and ecumenical

21:48consensus as the source of my uh

21:52argumentation I'll put this uh before

21:54because so the epistemology of the

21:56church is based on the universal

21:58consensus manifested by the patriarchets

22:00representing the Christian Okimemen or

22:02Commonwealth. Um we see in many

22:05instances that the fil was explicitly

22:06rejected consiliarly. Um firstly the

22:09rejection of the filico is part of the

22:10netorian creed which while rejected by

22:12Ephesus its antifilioism was passed over

22:14in silence. The Neestor then with

22:17Theodor of Cirrus accused St. Kur

22:19teaching this doctrine to which St. in

22:21his formula for union responded that the

22:24uh holy that the holy spirit proceeds

22:26from the father and theodor in epistle

22:29171 acknowledges this. Um secondly pope

22:32leo III rejected the use of it in the

22:34creed with the two silver sheet shields

22:36right this is something that you see in

22:38history. Thirdly, we have the council of

22:40Constantinople in 879 which is presided

22:42over by the anti-iliocist saint fio

22:45rejecting any alterations. Right? So

22:46this is the basic historical historical

22:49uh scheme. Uh yes there we go. So both

22:53scripture and father speak only the

22:55father speak of only the father being

22:57the cause of divinity in the trinity and

22:59that is and that being his constitive

23:01hypoatic property meaning it cannot be

23:04communicated to anyone even including

23:05the son and the holy spirit. So St. John

23:07Damascus identifies paternity uh with

23:10being cause with the power of cause and

23:12saints the unus Gregory of Nissa John of

23:14Damascus Gregory the theologian and

23:16Maximus the confessor all join in unison

23:18that it is the father who is the one

23:20cause the latter meaning St. Maximus the

23:23confessor specifically directly

23:25contradicts the council of uh Florence

23:29now I want to circle back to what St.

23:30Theist Ariad says his expression that

23:33the father's hypothatic property is

23:35being the sole monarch that is only

23:37cause of divinity logically entails that

23:39he is also therefore the only cause of

23:41the spirit since the spirit is divine.

23:43My opponent may try to pay lip service

23:45to the monarchy of the father. I think

23:46he did this in his debates with uh the

23:48Orthodox Catholic human I believe is was

23:50his name. But it is definitionally

23:52contradictory because monarchy mono

23:54arcos in combination mono means only ar

23:58means principle or cause or source. So

24:01it basically means only source or only

24:03cause. So definitionally they just do

24:06not uh match together.

24:08Now Roman Catholics try to avoid this

24:11argument and Vagnner made this argument

24:13himself that by saying that the term

24:15cause in these instances actually means

24:17paternal cause right so it's a specific

24:19kind of causality and that is actually

24:21what is proper to the father and it is

24:23not denying that there is causality in

24:25the son this argument is based on the

24:27theory of Bisarian which as Shensk's

24:30essay on the council on St. Maximus's uh

24:33letter of Marinus in the council of

24:35Florence as the name of his I think his

24:37PhD thesis. It's it's a long uh text. Um

24:41Besarian's theory was rejected by both

24:43the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox in

24:45the council. Uh but more problematically

24:48um there is no instance in which the

24:50term Aitia generally used has that kind

24:53of specific meaning. It doesn't have

24:54that in EW lamps Greek Petristic

24:56dictionary. It doesn't have that

24:58specified meaning or definition any of

24:59the Greek Petristics. uh Aayitia in

25:02Greek means cause in general. Now you

25:04can specify this by saying you know

25:05material cause, formal cause, efficient

25:07cause etc etc. But generally speaking it

25:10means cause in the general sense. And

25:13this um unless proven otherwise is what

25:16the fathers in these texts are actually

25:18teaching regarding the causality of um

25:22of the father and the lack of causality

25:24uh of the son with regards to the holy

25:27spirit. Now I want to say a couple of

25:30words on the procession of the holy

25:31spirit uh with the terms from the father

25:33through the son right and uh this is not

25:36at all identical with the father and the

25:38son being one principle in relation to

25:40the spirit and the two models actually

25:42that he tries to incorporate are

25:44mutually exclusive and I think we can

25:45discuss this further uh s paul for

25:47example says all things such as glory is

25:49from the father through the son and to

25:51or in the holy spirit. uh as

25:53Metropolitan John Zulus notes here. The

25:54word true which is dia in Greek uh

25:57indicates a tunneling or channeling

25:58effect. Um in connection to this I would

26:01like to address the I will actually like

26:03to even use the analogy that my you know

26:04that Noah himself used um the spring

26:07stream and pond. I think it's a good

26:08analogy. I don't think it's exactly the

26:10analogy that he that only serves his

26:12purpose however uh because the spring is

26:15the source of the water the cause of the

26:16of the water itself. The spring is the

26:18source of the water. The stream is the

26:20movement of the water and the pond is

26:22its resting state. Right? Uh the father

26:25is the only source of the spirit's

26:26hypoasis. Whereas the son channels the

26:28spirit's movement energetically and

26:31eternally. Hence why for instance psalm

26:34uh 104:30

26:36says you send your spirit and they are

26:39created. That creation is made by this

26:40by the activity of sending the holy

26:42spirit. For example, all of god's

26:44activities are in the holy spirit

26:46channeled through the son. This is the

26:47orthodox doctrine. In connection to

26:50this, I would like to address the

26:51flippant attitude Roman Catholic

26:53apologists tend to have over energetic

26:54procession or eternal manifestation. For

26:57instance, Noah in his debate with Aeron

27:00Aaron uh stated that this doctrine is

27:03cope which I found to be profoundly

27:05ignorant because at because of many

27:08different reasons which I will state

27:09here. Bradshaw points out Dr. Dave

27:11Bradshaw points out that the temporal

27:12possession of the spirit reflects his

27:14eternal procession through the sun.

27:16Hence why verses like Isaiah 11 where

27:1911:2 where the spirit rests in the sun

27:21indicates the eternal relation between

27:22the two. Uh then we have St. Gregor

27:25Nissa using the image of Christ's

27:26humanity being Christen in his baptism.

27:28He likens their relation to a king

27:30engulfed by sanctifying all those who

27:32touch the king necessarily also come

27:34into contact with the oil. This not only

27:36serves as the distinction but also the

27:38mode in which we epistemically know of

27:40the of the persons in the tr of of the

27:43trinity and and the son and the holy

27:45spirit respectively. Uh I think this

27:48quote in fact is um not here but

27:52else I I guess I didn't add it. I

27:54thought I added but I didn't. Aside from

27:56scriptural support in which he the

27:59spirit moves through the sun in his

28:00eternal activities uh energetic

28:03procession is such is also a fundamental

28:05feature of petristic taught that it is

28:07even designated as a hypothatic property

28:10uh of the holy spirit. So St. Gregor of

28:12Nissa in letter 38 attribute to St. B

28:14the great says precisely this uh he

28:16states that the son's declaration of the

28:18spirit's possession after him and with

28:19him is a hypothetic property of the son.

28:22So what does this declaration entail?

28:24Well, if you look at the great

28:25catechism, he answers very clearly that

28:27it is the manifestation of the sun's

28:29energy. So, the spirit manifesting the

28:31eternal energy of the sun is a

28:33hypothatic property of the holy spirit

28:35that serves to distinguish and to serve

28:37as a relation between the son and the

28:39holy spirit. This is also taken up by

28:41St. John of Damascus most importantly

28:43and St. Maximus in discussing the

28:45procession of the spirit through the son

28:46indicates that this true um is the

28:49manifestation of the father's divine

28:51energies being bestowed in the spirit

28:53through the son as the lampstand of the

28:55church. I think this in question is

28:56adubia uh 63. So the spirit proceeds

28:59from the father as cause and moves

29:01through the sun as manifesting the

29:03energy that is proper to divinity.

29:05Bradshaw commentating on Gregory of

29:07Cypress's apology says the son's

29:09bestowal u of the gifts and energy of

29:12the spirit is the temporal consequence

29:14of the eternal procession of the spirit

29:16from the father through the son. This is

29:18why as shinski points out there is a

29:20difference between eurumon and pro in

29:22the greek petristic tradition

29:24respectively meaning procession and

29:26progression. So the term eurumon as

29:28differently from the bible because it is

29:30a broad term in the bible uh ends up

29:32becoming the main uh term indicating uh

29:35the relation between the father and the

29:37son alone. Whereas pony is used between

29:39the father uh between uh sorry between

29:41the father and the holy spirit. Whereas

29:43pione is used as a way to indicate

29:46relation between the father the holy

29:48spirit as well but also including the

29:50son into this picture u as well. And so

29:54in short, the Greek Petristic tradition

29:56teaches that the spirit's existence

29:57procession is from the father alone and

30:00through the son, the spirit naturally

30:01and substantially moves and acts both

30:04temporally and eternally. I will now

30:06like to focus on the bible which does

30:09not teach the filio and all of the

30:10supposed evidence is a classic case of

30:13toistic isogesis meaning that they

30:15assume filioquist presuppositions read

30:17them into the bible and then they derive

30:19filioquist conclusions. This is clearly

30:21circular. The first is from John 20:22.

30:24Christ breathing the holy spirit on the

30:26apostles. Now anyone with a little bit

30:28of knowledge on the orthodox view which

30:29I think no one knows this clearly uh

30:31that this is merely the sun breathing

30:33and communicating the spirit to his

30:34apostles not the existence or hypothetic

30:36procession of the holy spirit. Now

30:38typically the response is that economy

30:40that is the temporal activities of the

30:42trinity indicates theology the inter

30:44inner trinitarian life. Um first of all

30:46this has to be qualified because if you

30:48don't qualify this properly well the

30:49incarnation is the father and the holy

30:51spirit sending the son. So does the sun

30:52proceed from both? No. So this has to be

30:55qualified. Secondly, actually yes, that

30:57is true. But it indicates activity. It

31:00indicates energies. And so the temporal

31:02activities right in economy indicates

31:05the eternal energetic relation between

31:08the persons of the trinity and relation

31:09to this debate between the son and the

31:11holy spirit. Um so it does not indicate

31:14the existence procession or hypothetic

31:16procession of the holy spirit. um but

31:18merely the temporal sending which is

31:20modeled after the eternal you know

31:22eternal act uh relation between the son

31:24and the holy spirit. Secondly, one of

31:26the more common arguments is John 16:15.

31:28All things that the father have are

31:29mine. Well surely first of all the all

31:32must refer to everything. Um just like

31:34how St. Paul includes Christ and the

31:36virgin Mary in Romans 3:23 when he says

31:38you know all are short of sin and and

31:40you know there is no one that is without

31:42sin. You know, jokes aside, um, all in

31:46in this sense can also be clarified. And

31:48the clarification is all it is all in

31:50the sense of all of the essential

31:52activities, right? Since the father and

31:53the son and the holy spirit are

31:55consubstantial, they all have the same

31:57um divine activities. They all have the

31:59same divine properties. So the divine

32:01energies, the divine activities are what

32:02what is communicated uh between the the

32:05father, son, and the holy spirit. But

32:08paternity that this is the argument that

32:10we're making is that paternity is the

32:11power to cause um and this is proper to

32:14the father's hypothesis. This does not

32:16indicate the filio. Right? So this is

32:19not this by itself does not prove u the

32:21filio. I will even go as far as to say

32:23that even if I agreed with my opponent

32:26that uh begetting and proceeding are

32:29essential powers of the divine nature

32:31that the persons commonly share. I still

32:33don't need to derive the fio from that.

32:35We can discuss this uh if he wishes to

32:36do so but I still do not need to derive

32:38fuoka from this. And then we have the

32:41spirit of the sun verses. Uh, and a

32:43significant chunk of my opponent's

32:45argument depends on the relation between

32:46the son and the holy spirit which for

32:48the most part I've already responded to.

32:50But with regards to this these specific

32:52verses um the argument is very simple

32:54from the Roman Catholic side. We cannot

32:56distinguish the son and the spirit

32:57without a relation. The bible speaks of

32:58a relation. Therefore this relation must

33:00be fully appropriate. There cannot be

33:02any other way to explain a distinction

33:04between the son and the holy spirit. Um

33:06now as I said energy possession already

33:09answered this question but in terms of

33:10the biblical account well these are

33:13again indications of economic activity.

33:16For example the son sends the holy

33:18spirit to the apostles right u the the

33:21holy spirit manifests the divine grace

33:23that uh and and of christening uh that

33:26descends upon the son in his baptism to

33:29kind of manifest the deification of

33:31humanity in Christ which also deifies

33:32our humanity. Um, so this can be

33:36interpreted simply on on this regard.

33:38And fourthly, and I believe a darling

33:40for a lot of Roman Catholics is

33:42revelation 22:1. And he showed me a pure

33:45river of water of life, clear as crystal

33:47proceeding out of the throne of God and

33:48of the lamp. It even used the term

33:50corumon. So has to mean existence

33:52procession. But the problem is in the

33:54Bible as indicated by Psalm 68:7, which

33:57also uses a kuruman uh is it's general,

34:00right? in in the sense that it can

34:02indicate existence procession. It can

34:03indicate temporal sending. Um so it is a

34:05broader term. It becomes specified in

34:07the Greek petristic tradition. That is

34:09the important point. It becomes

34:11specified in the Greek petristic

34:12tradition to signify existence

34:14procession of the Holy Spirit. Uh so

34:16when we look at this verse, how do we

34:18know that this is a temporal procession

34:20of the Holy Spirit? Well, we look at the

34:21names and the titles that are used to

34:23represent the person of the trinity. The

34:25throne of God, that's a temporal title

34:27indicating God's rule over creation.

34:30lamp. I don't think I need to go over

34:32this. It's it's the incarnate economy.

34:34River of water of life, that's the

34:35divine grace and is particularly in

34:37baptism. And if you look at the

34:39Petristic account um such as saints uh

34:42Andrew of Kaiser Kaiser and other

34:45petristic accounts, they will also agree

34:47with the fact that this is indeed a

34:49temporal event. This is symbolizing

34:51something temporal. So this verse also

34:54does not prove the look. And I would

34:55like to conclude my presentation which I

34:58want to especially focus on the biblical

34:59account uh for why the the scripture

35:02teaches the orthodox doctrine uh the

35:04holy spirit as you know with with the

35:06words of the lord and savior himself.

35:09The holy spirit is sent from our lord

35:11and savior Jesus Christ and the father

35:14and the holy spirit proceeds from the

35:16father. Procession and sending or

35:18temporal procession are two different

35:20things and this distinction is utilized

35:22by the son himself. the simple common

35:24sensical biblical account and also the

35:26Petristic account and I also argue the

35:27logical account which I think we we will

35:29get into this further um represents the

35:32orthodox viewpoint and it provides a

35:34simple understanding of scripture

35:37without unnecessary isogetical

35:39metaphysical features into the Bible.

35:41Not that I'm against metaphysics, not

35:43that I'm against understanding the Bible

35:45in a detailed manner, but unnecessary

35:47metaphysics is just as the name suggests

35:50unnecessary and not needed. The

35:52scripture and the church itself teaches

35:55that the holy spirit proceeds from the

35:56father alone. And I would like to thank

35:58you all for listening to my presentation

36:00in this regard. With that I yield the

36:03rest of my time which are barely barely

36:06passed. Right.

36:09>> Well, thank you David.

36:10>> If you want Yeah. So if you want you can

36:11start with your with your responses. Uh

36:13if you want to take time to kind of go

36:15through your thoughts you can feel free

36:17to take some time if you need to.

36:19>> Yeah. And I do have slides. Uh, maybe

36:21I'll just like ask you to put them up

36:22when I need them. Um, but the the first

36:25thing I'd like to talk about um is your

36:26your usage.

36:27>> First of all, do I do I do I do I start

36:29the time? I'm sorry.

36:31>> Yeah.

36:32>> Yeah. Sorry. I thought I'm starting the

36:33time right now. 10 minutes.

36:35>> Okay. Yeah. The first thing I'd like to

36:36talk about is your usage of the

36:38scriptures. I I think when you watch a

36:39lot of the filio debates, um the

36:41scriptures aren't brought up as much. Um

36:43because I think we can both kind of

36:44concede that there isn't enough

36:46information found within the scriptures

36:47to have, you know, substantial claims

36:49made about this debate. Like obviously

36:50like I could quote Revelation 21 where

36:52it uh you know talks pretty clearly

36:54about uh you know the the spirit being

36:58sent um by the father and the son but

37:00then it's very easy to say well that's

37:01that's simply economic. Um and so I I

37:04think that you know that the Bible isn't

37:06a full theological treatise on um the

37:09the procession of the spirit. And so I

37:11think sometimes bringing up those

37:12arguments that's why I didn't bring up

37:14uh many biblical arguments. I did bring

37:15up the one from John 5, I believe. Uh,

37:18but sort of just to show like the the

37:19very very basis of it. Um, but I'm

37:21willing to even concede that passage.

37:23Um, but something I do want to talk

37:24about, if you could throw my slides up

37:26on the screen, that'd be very helpful.

37:28Um, is is the usage of your word of the

37:31word uh, it um, I think you you

37:33committed some pretty serious

37:34equivocation, right? You know, you use

37:36equivocation um, when you say that the

37:38word cause has to mean the same thing

37:40across all of the fathers, across all of

37:42church history. And I don't think that's

37:43what we see at all. Um and and I think

37:46we can actually show that uh pretty

37:47clearly, right? So there there's certain

37:48fathers like Gregory the theologian,

37:50Gregory of Nissa and John of Damascus,

37:52and they'll say things like the father

37:54alone is cause and the father gives all

37:55to the son except causality. Um and

37:58because of this, we do have to

37:59distinguish what these individual

38:01fathers mean by cause or uh idea um

38:04because it can simply mean cause, but it

38:05could also mean primordial cause. And

38:07you kind of denied that in your opening

38:08statement. Um but I don't think that

38:09that's what the actual petristics show

38:11us, right? Um, and I'll get into the

38:13petristics in a second here, but first I

38:15just want to, you know, uh, break down

38:16this explanation more, right? So, we we

38:19have the spring u, the spring, the the

38:21stream and the the pond analogy, right?

38:23Where both the the stream and the spring

38:26are are causes, right? But there's an

38:28ultimate cause or primordial cause as

38:30it's often referred to of the spring,

38:32right? That the spring is the ultimate

38:34primordial cause. It's where we actually

38:36find the origin. Um, because and that

38:38applies to the trinity as well, right?

38:40that the the son and the father both

38:43have, you know, a they they are of the

38:45same cause of the divine essence. Um and

38:47it's not like the son is a separate

38:49cause, but rather the the father is a

38:51primordial cause. He's the principal

38:52witch. Um and then the son is also

38:54cause, but he's not a primordial cause.

38:57So when a lot of the fathers use the

38:58word idea, um they are specifically

39:01referring to primordial causality. We

39:03can actually show this quite a bit. Um

39:05St. Maximus the confessor actually is a

39:06very good example of this. He says as

39:08the mind is the itios of the word so

39:10also of the spirit through the word is

39:12intermediary. Right? And so so obviously

39:14you you agree that this is this is

39:16talking about the sending of the spirit.

39:17He says that the father alone is the

39:20itios but then explicitly after that

39:22goes to the word as intermediary as it

39:24going through. So that would still refer

39:26to the son as uh causality in the way

39:28that we use it. But the Greek fathers

39:30use the word cause differently than we

39:32do. We can actually see this in Gregory

39:33the theologian as well when he talks

39:34about creation, right? In in the the

39:36economy of creation, the father is is

39:39what we would refer to as the primordial

39:40cause of creation, right? But we all

39:43agree that all three persons are cause

39:45and when St. Gregory the theologian when

39:47he talks about the causality, he refers

39:50to the father as it and he doesn't say

39:53this about the son or the spirit. But

39:55obviously we agree that the son and the

39:56spirit are still cause of of creation.

39:59We see a very similar thing in John of

40:00Damascus, right?

40:02He says, "We believe in one father, the

40:04beginning and idea of all, the beginning

40:06and cause of all, and the father himself

40:08is beginning idea of the existence of

40:10all things." And just because the father

40:12is being referred to as it alone does

40:14not mean that we are denying that the

40:17son and the spirit have causality,

40:20right? Because they are just causes in a

40:21different way. They're not the

40:22primordial cause. They're not the the

40:24solar array as you might refer to them

40:26to it as through the Greek fathers. But

40:28it doesn't mean that the sun and the

40:29spirit are not also causing. And so you

40:31can take the slides off the off the

40:32screen now. So in a similar way we we

40:35can say that the father is the

40:37primordial cause. If you want to refer

40:39to the Greek uh fathers in that way, we

40:41can say that the the father's primordial

40:42cause alone. Um but that doesn't mean

40:44that the the son is not also cause. Um

40:47now you you brought up uh St. Sirill as

40:50well. Um and I thought your your

40:52treatment of that was um it left some to

40:55be desired. Right. I I showed these uh

40:57very very convincing passages of serial

41:00teaching the filioquay, right? We have

41:02multiple situations where where he

41:04refers specifically to the sun

41:06proceeding substantially from the uh far

41:09sorry that the the sun the spirit

41:10proceeding substantially from the sun.

41:12He says that very very clearly and you

41:14tried to refer to uh Theodoret's

41:18response to um the Egyptian letter but I

41:21I don't think that that you actually

41:24took away the correct thing. I agree

41:26that um Sirill when when he writes the

41:28Egyptian letter, he doesn't explicitly

41:30say um what we're looking for, right?

41:32But uh Theodorit, he he doesn't he kind

41:35of reads into the text what he's already

41:37looking for. If you can show me a quote

41:39from Sirill explicitly denying that the

41:41spirit proceeds from the sun. I I would

41:43I would very much like to see that. Um

41:46but I don't think that Sirill actually

41:47does that. I think Theodora reads that

41:49into the passage. And we can see this

41:51because like obviously we're not going

41:52to say that out of nowhere serial just

41:54completely flip-flops his position. He

41:56says very clearly in his thesaurus he

41:58says the spirit proceeds proesi from the

42:01father and the son clearly he is of the

42:03divine substance proceeding

42:05substantially in it and from it. So

42:08we're not going to say that serial just

42:09like kind of like just randomly gives

42:11that up. He just completely contradicts

42:13himself. So if you can show me serial

42:15actually contradicting that and anything

42:16that cites I'd be very interested to see

42:19that. I think there there's uh one last

42:21thing that I kind of want to touch on

42:23that I'm I'm really interested to kind

42:24of see your response to is um one one of

42:28the main metaphysical arguments, you

42:29know, whether or not you want to call it

42:30unnecessary, I think you do still need

42:32to refute it in some way, shape or form.

42:34Um that this distinction between the sun

42:37and the spirit. I I think I demonstrated

42:39pretty clearly that you cannot have that

42:41without relation between them, a

42:42relation of origin. Because procession

42:44and beett while I agree they are

42:47distinct and and we may not know the

42:49intimate nature of those it it's not

42:52going to distinguish the son from the

42:53spirit simply because they have

42:54different relations of origin to the

42:56father. So I would just like everybody

42:57watching maybe to to keep your eyes on

42:59David and see if he substantially

43:01answers um through something that hasn't

43:03been refuted how we can actually have a

43:06distinction between the son and the

43:08spirit because that's not something I

43:09think we'll see throughout the whole

43:10debate. Um, but with that, I think I'll

43:12I'll I'll give up the rest of my time.

43:14I'm I'm good to go.

43:16>> All right. Thank you. Just give me a

43:17couple of seconds to

43:20go through some of my

43:23some of my All right. Yeah, this one.

43:27Um, can you tell me uh before I start,

43:30can you tell me the slide number for the

43:32St. Hillary quote?

43:34>> Uh, not off the top of my head. No,

43:37>> I'll I'll I'll find before I start. I'll

43:39I'll start with that and then we can

43:40kind of uh move move on. I guess I'll go

43:44>> uh slide nine. Slide nine.

43:46>> Oh, nine. Thank you very much. Yeah, I

43:47really appreciate it. Um

43:50okay,

43:52I'll start. So, in my response, I'll try

43:55to first go over the quotes as much as I

43:58can. I'm not going to dedicate my whole

43:59time, but some of the quotes I think

44:00they do not really represent the exact

44:02picture that he wants it to represent.

44:04So, for example, he cites this from St.

44:06Hillary uh the Latin uh the Latin

44:09statement octoibus is very important

44:11because that's what proceedings transit

44:13as and in the debate with Erin he stated

44:15that octtoibus means origin or source

44:18etc. Um, I have a very simple question

44:20to you. Uh, I hope you answer for me not

44:23like right now. Just a simple question.

44:24Is Octoibus in the singular or plural

44:26here?

44:30>> Hello.

44:32>> Oh, am I answering during your your

44:33rebuttal?

44:34>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is Octo We can get to

44:36that in the open. We can get to that in

44:37the open dialogue. I don't

44:38>> Well, okay. Then I'll then I'll answer

44:40then I'll ask for theologist. It's in

44:41the plural. So, the filiocus

44:43interpretation will mean that there are

44:44two sources, two or you know, two

44:46principles. So I don't think the

44:48folioist reading of this passage

44:50actually works. Um I think this more so

44:52refers to the essential movement um of

44:55the son and the um of the holy spirit

44:57from the father and the son which I

44:59don't have any I don't have any problems

45:00with that as I'll state um you cited

45:02this passage and you also uh talked

45:04about this passage in your response. The

45:06problem with this passage in my opinion

45:08is that first of all it doesn't use

45:10saints k never applies equinon to uh the

45:13father to between the son and the holy

45:15spirit. never um he applies pro which is

45:18distinct and it means progression which

45:21indicates a essential you know movement.

45:23It it refers to an activity. It does not

45:26refer to an existence movement. It

45:28refers to an activity a a substantial

45:30movement like for example my soul moves

45:33my body right uh give by giving life to

45:35it but my soul did not cause my

45:38existence my parents did right in that

45:40case. So I think there's a there's a

45:42problem on on that front. Um if I can go

45:45to the other passages of the of the top

45:49my head I mean you cited a part from St.

45:51Ambrose I can't find it from the slide

45:52here but um the the passage you site

45:55from St. Ambrose I think it just

45:56indicates consubstantiality

45:59um other than that uh I want to before I

46:03get to your other argument um yeah I

46:06want to get to your opening statement if

46:07I have the time I'd also like to address

46:08your response and maybe we can go back

46:10and forth uh if I provide that I have

46:12the time. So in terms of your opening

46:13statement, a lot of it hinges on there

46:17the only way to distinguish the the son

46:19and the holy spirit is that there has to

46:20be a relation. Now first of all I think

46:22the significant issue with your

46:24presentation is that you are implying

46:26that just because that they can only be

46:28distinguished for us by relation.

46:30Therefore this relation must be

46:32constituted between them. Therefore

46:33there must be a causal relation. Okay

46:34you don't need to go that far by

46:36admitting that there is a relation

46:38between the son and the holy spirit. I

46:39do not have to necessarily admit that

46:41this relation is causal but I can speak

46:43of various different relations as

46:44manifesting the distinction between uh

46:47between the persons uh of the trinity

46:49namely the son and the holy spirit. Now

46:51you say that I haven't responded to this

46:52but I actually have responded to this

46:53very strongly by citing saints gregor of

46:56nissa himself. St. Gregor of Nissa

46:58nowhere in this part when he's talking

46:59about the hypothetic property of the son

47:01and the holy spirit respectively.

47:03Nowhere here does St. figure of Nissa

47:05say that the holy spirit is distinct

47:07from the sun because he proceeds from

47:09the sun. doesn't nowhere does he say

47:10that what he says is that the holy

47:13spirit proceeds together with the son

47:15and after the son because he is after in

47:17order and that because the because he

47:20declares the son and what does the

47:21declaration mean in the great catechism

47:23he explains what the declaration means

47:25he says that he manifests the divine

47:26energy of the word and I'm talking about

47:28eternal divine energies right so the

47:32eternal activity so the classical

47:34analogy of the trinity as the holy

47:36spirit as the bond between the father

47:37and the son that's an analogy St.

47:39Griopolamus himself uses without any

47:41issues and he states that the holy

47:43spirit is the bond the common bond of

47:44love between the father and the son and

47:46he manifests that energy right in his

47:48person. This is why a lot of the even

47:51the economic activities of Christ in the

47:53incarnation um he makes use of the holy

47:56spirit in in the transfiguration for

47:59example is not separate from the holy

48:00spirit in fact it's the holy spirit

48:01manifesting the divinity the uncreated

48:04divinity of the son to the apostles true

48:06by means of his body uh you in fact

48:08interestingly and I think this is kind

48:10of like a different uh section but you

48:12also interestingly oh sorry I I removed

48:15you also interestingly uh talk about I

48:18believe uh principal quot right the

48:21principle which and the principle by

48:23which in order to explain the filio and

48:25kind of how the father and the son

48:27relates to it I think it's it's really

48:29good the analogy that you use is

48:31incredibly good for christologology

48:33because you can for example say that

48:36just like the sun uses the humanity as

48:38an instrument of his divine activities

48:41in order for example to say for example

48:42to heal the sick right to heal the man

48:44with pausy he uses his human body as an

48:47instrument as a principle by as as a as

48:50an instrument in order to enact that.

48:52But it's the divine nature. It's the

48:54divine energy in him that really does

48:56that activity of healing in cooperation

48:58with his you know human nature and human

49:01energy. Right. Um but the problem is the

49:04father son holy spirit are

49:05consubstantial. Now um another another

49:08thing that I I I will also like to state

49:10um with regards to your opening

49:12statement if I have something. Oh yeah,

49:14you talk about the uh so the the order

49:16of persons, the first, second, and third

49:18order of persons. Um

49:21so here's the here's the issue I have

49:23with that kind of formulation with what

49:25you present. Obviously, the first the

49:28first, second, third formulation is

49:30petristic, right? It's it's what the

49:31Bible teaches. The father is the first

49:33person, the son is the second person,

49:34the holy spirit is is third. The Bible

49:36never says, you know, um confess this in

49:38the name of the holy spirit, the father,

49:40and the son, right? It doesn't say that,

49:42right? is the father, son and holy

49:43spirit. But the reason why the father is

49:45first is because he's uncaused. Right?

49:48So there's no one prior to him. The

49:50reason why the son is second is because

49:51of the direct immediate without any you

49:54know mediation the direct immediate

49:56relation between the father and the son

49:57namely begetting and being unbegotten.

49:59Right? So the holy spirit cannot be

50:02prior to the father and is not

50:03intermediate between the father and the

50:04son. So by that by virtue of that the

50:07holy spirit is third is the third person

50:09in the trinity. That's why there is that

50:10order. Um another important point is

50:14that if you talk about logical ordering

50:16right now obviously the trinity is

50:18temporal is a temporal it's not temporal

50:20it's not within time and space um but

50:23due to causal relations there is still a

50:25logical ordering for example when we

50:27talk about logical ordering let's talk

50:28with fire right the heat of the fire is

50:31logically posterior to the fire because

50:33it arises from the fire itself but they

50:35are temporally simultaneous right they

50:37occur at the same time the heat is the

50:39is the heat of the fire, right? Um, so

50:42there is that logical ordering. Now, if

50:45you're talking about the procession of

50:47the Holy Spirit within that logical

50:48ordering, that procession begins from

50:51the first principle. Now, if it's the

50:53first, second, third ordering, the first

50:55principle being the father, the

50:56procession already starts from the

50:59father alone. And when it reaches the

51:00son, it becomes the father and the son

51:03being a single uh principle. So

51:05basically in this picture within the

51:06logical ordering, you don't need the

51:08full. it's completely and utterly

51:09unnecessary. Um,

51:12and in in regards to some of your

51:15responses and I'll end with end with

51:16that. I have two and a half minute two

51:18and a half minutes. So I would like to

51:19spend some time with addressing some of

51:21the responses um you have made. Um your

51:24statement about the B I I do not agree

51:26with it at all. I think the Bible

51:28teaches everything that we know about

51:30you know Christianity that we know about

51:32the church in its fullness. Um, you

51:35might say that we need further words in

51:36order to explicate the meaning of those

51:38statements. But all of the teachings of

51:41the church is within the Bible. This is

51:43not solar scriptor because I'm not

51:44saying that there's no normative

51:46authority. There is normative authority

51:47that binds you to believe what you know

51:49what you should believe and what you

51:50should not believe. But the Bible is at

51:53the same time the the source and f of uh

51:57the teaching of the church um as one of

51:59the sources, one of the principles going

52:01along with tradition. Of course, as I

52:02said, we're not solar scriptor here. Um,

52:05and this includes the filiocreate. So,

52:07if the filioca is not in the Bible, then

52:11the filiocre is not part of the church's

52:13teaching because it has to be in the

52:14Bible in order to be part of the

52:15church's teaching. So, it can't be just

52:16an interpretive war. It has to be

52:20definitively proved proven. That is part

52:23of my argument. Um in terms of the

52:27stream uh the the yes the stream analogy

52:32um you state that you know the stream is

52:34also is also caused in a sense I can

52:37even if I you know I can agree with that

52:39but within that analogy it represents it

52:42it represents the movement it doesn't

52:43represent the origin it represents a

52:45substantial movement but I've already

52:46stated that the holy spirit having only

52:49the father as it hyperatic source has

52:52substantial movement through the son So

52:54I state that already clearly in terms of

52:56it like you you made the use of a quote

52:58that used the term intermediary. Uh the

53:01Greek word again there that transit they

53:03translated the Greek word dia as

53:04intermediary if I remember correctly. Um

53:07I've already stated it's a tunneling

53:08effect right it's non it's non-additive

53:11it's not non-causal. And this is a point

53:12made by Metropolitan John Zulus. And

53:14obviously he knows ancient Greek. I

53:16myself have studied ancient Greek for a

53:17year twice per week. But I know I know

53:20something some some stuff at at the very

53:22least. um with relation to cause out and

53:25this is what I want to end with um the

53:27whole trinity is caused with relation to

53:28creation I am talking about within the

53:30trinitarian life and the holy fathers

53:32are also talking about with relation to

53:33the inter trinitarian life within the

53:35trinity the father is the only cause

53:37that's the argument that I'm making so

53:38of course the trinity is one cause but s

53:40bas the great in the holy spirit

53:41designates the three different modes of

53:43causality uh between the persons of the

53:45trinity in the as they act within

53:48creation right only as they act within

53:50creation um so yeah that's all I pass my

53:53time. Um I believe you can you can begin

53:57with uh your cross-examination of my

53:59points and then I can cross-examine you

54:00and then we can go to the open dialogue.

54:02>> Yeah. So um the first thing I I would

54:05just like to clarify with you my my

54:07position on on the scriptures. I agree

54:09that the filioquay is found in the

54:11Bible. I I agree that it should be found

54:13in the Bible. But the point that I was

54:14making is that there's not enough um

54:16explication of either side within the

54:18Bible to make definitive claims that

54:20would be convincing to an audience in a

54:21debate. So that that that's all I was

54:23saying for that. But I I would like to

54:25touch on the um if you would be willing

54:27to put up my slides one more time. The

54:29quote from St. Hillary. I I'm not sure

54:31if I'm fully understanding your

54:33argument. Um so so Octtoibus being

54:36plural that aligns with the council of

54:38Florence. We still believe that there

54:40are two principles which cause the

54:42spirit but not we believe there's just

54:44one principle by which would be the

54:46divine essence. And so we don't confess

54:47that there's two gods. So are you would

54:49you say that you're agreeing that that

54:51St. Hillary here is saying that the sun

54:53partakes in some authorship of the

54:55spirit?

54:56>> I think what St. Hillary means by

54:58authorship in this verse is referring to

55:00substantial movement which is not

55:02hypoatic or existential procession. Um

55:04my point about is that in this state in

55:07in the point you made it

55:09>> equivalent in a sense with principle and

55:12I will say if you do that then there

55:13will be two principles with this within

55:16this argument because

55:19two principles which because there's

55:21father and son but again we we confess

55:23one principle by which but so so you're

55:26saying that he's talking about

55:27substantial movement can you show that

55:29from the text here with St. Hillary like

55:31anywhere in this work where he's talking

55:32he clarifies that he means substantial

55:34movement.

55:35>> Well, I will ask do you disagree that it

55:37is a substantial movement?

55:39>> I believe it's causality.

55:41>> Well, it's authorship.

55:43>> Well, do you do you separate causality

55:45from substantial movement?

55:47>> I I'm just asking if you can

55:49>> I'm asking from your view. I'm asking

55:50from your view.

55:51>> Well, again, this is my cross-

55:52examination. I'm asking if you can show

55:53anywhere in the text, you know, this

55:54distinction here.

55:55>> Well, my point my point is from your

55:56paradigm. uh they are not they're not

55:59separate from my from my paradigm they

56:01are distinct and I'm and I'm agreeing

56:03that it's a substantial movement because

56:05for you

56:05>> I'm asking I'm asking hold on yeah I'm

56:08just asking if you can show that that

56:09distinction though in the text the

56:11distinction that you're trying to make

56:12here with Hillary that he's not talking

56:13about causality but he's talking about

56:15substantial movement which is causality

56:17in your view can you show that in the

56:19text

56:19>> because octopus can mean origin point it

56:23it can mean origin it can mean agent so

56:26it's within the the term Octobus or

56:28Octur.

56:29>> So are you saying that

56:32>> the sun is the substantial origin?

56:35>> The sun is a substantial within Latin

56:37terminology. If you mean subst within

56:39Latin terminology, if you mean

56:40substantial origin in the same same

56:42sense as the

56:43>> stream analogy that we made substantial

56:45origin in its movement, in its activity,

56:48in its energetic procession. Yeah.

56:51But I do not think is the same thing

56:53with existence procession. And you will

56:55have to prove that they are they are the

56:56same. But that distinction does not make

56:58sense.

56:59>> Yeah. Okay. So so but ju just to clarify

57:02one one last time St. Hillary here he is

57:04talking about you know substantial

57:06procession from the sun. You might say

57:07that it's a tunneling effect. I might

57:09say that it it's you know by partaking

57:11in the divine essence. Um but but you

57:13are agreeing that he's talking about

57:15substantial um procession here.

57:18>> Yeah. For example, when the holy spirit

57:20manifests the love of the father and the

57:21son that's a substantial movement from

57:22the father and the son. Yeah.

57:24Okay. Um, so, so I want to ask also

57:28about, you know, you can take the slides

57:29off for a second. Um, about, you know,

57:32this this distinction problem that I've

57:34raised. Um, ju just just briefly, could

57:36you explain for a second how it is that

57:38you distinguish the sun from the spirit?

57:41>> As St. Griffith of Nissa says, the Holy

57:43Spirit manifests the activity activity

57:45of the sun because the holy spirit

57:47proceeds through the sun as a channel

57:50and he proceeds after the sun.

57:53Okay.

57:54>> So there all of the relations that I can

57:55use as examples are actual activities

57:58both temporal both within the economy

58:00and within the inter you know eternal

58:02trinian life and that's what serves

58:03that's what manifests the the

58:05distinction. I'm not saying that is

58:07necessarily the constitutive distinction

58:09but that manifests that there is a

58:11distinction. So that is how we know that

58:12these two persons are distinct.

58:15>> Okay. It seems as though Gregory of

58:17Nissa though when when he when he refers

58:18to that stuff, he's talking about

58:20causality cuz in that that uh quote I

58:23gave you from not three gods, right? He

58:25talks about the distinction being made

58:26between procession and beginning. He

58:28says that begetting is that which is

58:30from the first cause. But then

58:31procession is that which is from the

58:33first cause and that by which that is

58:36from the first cause.

58:37>> He's using the Greek word dia. So that's

58:39true. That's the tunneling effect. So,

58:42so but referring to causality.

58:45>> Yeah, it's of course it's referring to

58:47causality. It's caused from the father

58:49as existence procession tunneling

58:51through the sun. That's the orthodox

58:52doctrine.

58:53>> But but he's referring to the sun

58:54causally as well.

58:56>> No, he doesn't. He doesn't say the sun

58:57is a cause.

58:58>> He says he says that the sun is is the

59:02true is the tunnel. It's the channel

59:05>> from that which is from the first cause

59:06and um from the first cause directly.

59:09>> Yeah. By Yeah. True. He's saying by the

59:13by the first cause and that is why he's

59:14attached to the sun is the is the point

59:17of

59:17>> so he's attached as he goes through the

59:19sun. So the perfillium approach and then

59:21he's talking substantially and causally

59:23in the entire passage

59:24>> and I'm stating that perfillium and

59:26filio are mutually exclusive.

59:30>> Okay. But but I'm just trying to help

59:32you help you understand my argument a

59:33little bit better is that he's talking

59:34specifically in this about beginning.

59:36He's talking about um causality and then

59:39when he he distinguishes the sun by

59:41saying that he is from the first cause

59:43and then when he's trying to determine

59:45how the spirit is distinct he says in

59:48the exact same manner that the

59:50distinction is that one is from the

59:52cause and one is that which is from the

59:53first cause. So you're saying that the

59:55tunneling effect is what distinguishes

59:58the spirit from the sun. So the the

1:00:00spirit's personhood is from the person

1:00:03of the son

1:00:04>> through the person of the son.

1:00:07>> But let's say we we don't have the

1:00:09spirit of the son would this holy spirit

1:00:10be distinct from from beginning.

1:00:14>> Can you like what do you mean by so if

1:00:16you don't have the son? If if you only

1:00:18have the holy spirit is that what you're

1:00:19asking?

1:00:20>> So so we're saying that there's there's

1:00:22very clear causal relations between the

1:00:25father and the son. Right? the the

1:00:27relation is that the father beggets the

1:00:28son and then when we talk about the

1:00:30spirit St. Gregory here refers to the

1:00:32spirit as from the son and the father

1:00:35and he the whole passage is talking

1:00:37about you know receiving divinity and

1:00:40going from cause to effect and so I'm

1:00:43asking you like where are you

1:00:44substantiating this claim that that the

1:00:46spirit is not receiving causality from

1:00:49the sun

1:00:51>> where am I substantiating well you're

1:00:52the one claiming that there is causality

1:00:55of the sun that the word and I'm stating

1:00:58that the word dia the literal meaning of

1:01:00the for dia is not causal.

1:01:04>> Okay, so we can go to my argument. Hold

1:01:07on. Hold on. I think I should l Okay.

1:01:09Yeah, go ahead.

1:01:10>> I think another Gregory passage might

1:01:11might help a little bit. I can put this

1:01:12up on screen. Um

1:01:15>> it's against against the Macedonians.

1:01:17Gregory of Nissa. Um he's talking about,

1:01:20you know, this distinction being from

1:01:21that of the first cause and and from

1:01:24directly from the first cause.

1:01:26>> He gives the analogy. Hold on. He he

1:01:28gives the analogy of three torches,

1:01:32right? I'm sure you've heard this where

1:01:33the father is the first torch. He gives

1:01:36it to the second torch and then the son

1:01:38is the second torch and gives it to the

1:01:40spirit which is the third torch. So he

1:01:42gives this analogy very clearly

1:01:44describing you know the essence not

1:01:46going through but actually is the second

1:01:48torch the sun like giving the divine

1:01:51essence to the to the spirit. So it

1:01:52would seem that we can interpret all of

1:01:54Gregory's writing through that light

1:01:56that it's not just, you know, a mere

1:01:57tunneling effect, but as though the

1:02:00essence is being transferred to the

1:02:01spirit from the sun.

1:02:02>> Here's yeah, here's the problem with

1:02:04your argument. Um, I think you're taking

1:02:06the analogy way too far than from its

1:02:08intended purpose. Uh, to kind of give

1:02:10you an illustration, St. Kill, for

1:02:11example, speaks about the humanity as if

1:02:14like it makes it makes use of analogies

1:02:16as if the humanity is kind of like an

1:02:18accident and a mere instrument. That

1:02:19doesn't mean that the humanity of Christ

1:02:21is an accident or a mere instrument. But

1:02:23he's pointing out that the humanity is

1:02:25the means in which the divinity acts

1:02:27within uh within creation. So with the

1:02:29analogy of St. Gregor of Nissa, what

1:02:31he's stating is that um the the torches

1:02:34are caused in different ways, but it is

1:02:37still the same fire. They have the same

1:02:39nature. That's the point of his analogy.

1:02:41You're trying to read the filio in the

1:02:43analogy, which I don't think

1:02:44>> Yeah. But talking about talking talking

1:02:47about the divine essence though, right?

1:02:49When why would why would he even mention

1:02:51then if he's talking about, you know,

1:02:53substantial procession in causality, why

1:02:57would he then even mention that the

1:02:58second torch gives the light to the

1:03:00third torch? It would seem much more

1:03:02efficient to

1:03:02>> the second torch, right? Because I don't

1:03:04have the quote in front of me, so I'm

1:03:05going

1:03:05>> I can I can put it up on the screen if

1:03:07if you would like.

1:03:08>> I can pause I can pause the time and um

1:03:11>> uh it's No, it's slide 62, I believe. If

1:03:13I can just put it up for you. I I've

1:03:15>> Yeah, go ahead. I want to see. I just

1:03:16want to make I just want to

1:03:17>> You put it up on the screen. Yeah, cuz

1:03:19it's it's the second torch that kindles

1:03:21the third torch.

1:03:30So, it's it's pretty clearly refuting

1:03:32the the previous statements that you

1:03:33made when you were saying that it isn't

1:03:35talking about the sun actually giving

1:03:37the essence like are we sure are we sure

1:03:40it's the second torch here?

1:03:43It doesn't change my argument even, but

1:03:45I'm Are we sure this is the second torch

1:03:47lighting the third torch?

1:03:48>> Yeah. So, it is as if a man separate

1:03:50flame burning burning on the three

1:03:52torches. And we suppose that the third

1:03:53flame, the spirit, is caused by that of

1:03:55the father being transmitted to the

1:03:56middle and then kindling the end torch.

1:03:59>> Yeah, it's the it's the first torch

1:04:00kindling the second torch and then

1:04:01kindling the third torch, though.

1:04:03>> But transmitted to the middle and then

1:04:04that middle torch kindling the end

1:04:06torch. I' I'd have to

1:04:09>> I'd have to verify, but for the sake of

1:04:10argument, I'll say that what you're

1:04:12saying

1:04:12>> because well, hold on because we also

1:04:13see this exact thing though, the same

1:04:15exact causal series, you could say the

1:04:18same exact ordering described in not

1:04:20three gods by St. Gregory, right? That's

1:04:21slide 17. I already presented this that

1:04:23he talks about, you know, this causality

1:04:25going from one cause to the other and

1:04:27then the cause, the the spirit or sorry,

1:04:30the cause which is the father and the

1:04:31son, then giving that to the spirit as

1:04:33father and son by one spirative

1:04:35principle. So I I'm asking like why why

1:04:37is he saying all of these things and

1:04:39then it it it still doesn't seem like

1:04:40you're you're admitting that the sun is

1:04:42a cause

1:04:44>> because based on Greek language the is

1:04:47not a causal term. It is not a causal

1:04:49preosition. So the statement that you

1:04:52quoted does not support that view. This

1:04:54analogy itself by itself if you're going

1:04:57to base the entire trinitarian theology

1:04:58of St. agree with Niss by what this

1:05:00analogy as its basis then I just don't

1:05:03think that's going to be convincing to

1:05:04anyone because there's a lot of

1:05:05analogies that a lot of people use a lot

1:05:07of fathers use that when taken too far

1:05:09just moves to a completely different

1:05:12different direction um and the rest of

1:05:14the things that you said I think it's

1:05:15just conjecture on conjecture on your

1:05:17part that he's he's indicating causality

1:05:20to the sun uh

1:05:21>> okay

1:05:22>> I don't

1:05:24think St. Isidor St. Isidor could help a

1:05:26little bit because he asked the exact

1:05:28question that I'm asking you how you

1:05:30distinguish the spirit from the sun and

1:05:32he says between the son and who who is

1:05:34born and the spirit who proceeds is this

1:05:36distinction that the son is born from

1:05:38one and the holy spirit proceeds from

1:05:40both spirit sanctus x atri

1:05:44proceed it so so very talking very

1:05:46clearly talking about procession

1:05:48>> so why is sizor making this distinction

1:05:50in this way talking about procession

1:05:52does sidor not understand

1:05:54I'll I'll I'll answer this and then

1:05:56>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry I don't I don't

1:05:58mean to go past my time at all.

1:06:00>> Yeah. Um in terms of saint in terms of

1:06:02Latin terminology, procheted is a

1:06:04general term indicating general activity

1:06:07and I've already stated that uh you can

1:06:09indicate activity procession of the holy

1:06:13spirit from the father and the son as a

1:06:14means of distinguishing the holy spirit

1:06:16from the son. Now, whether this is

1:06:18indicating an existence procession on

1:06:20St. Isidor's part, you are supposed to

1:06:22demonstrate that. I don't think this

1:06:23text actually does that.

1:06:26>> Well, I'd love to, but but I don't want

1:06:27to go over my cross- examination time.

1:06:28Maybe an open dialogue we can get into

1:06:30that a little bit more, but

1:06:31>> yes.

1:06:31>> Um,

1:06:33>> yes. Um,

1:06:36just give me a just give me a second to

1:06:40uh

1:06:43kind of gather some of my notes. Uh,

1:06:52>> yeah.

1:06:53While we have some time, I'd like to

1:06:54apologize to the aunts for my my

1:06:56horrible Greek and Latin pronunciation.

1:06:58I'm not not formally trained in either.

1:06:59So, uh, ju just a clarification, I'm not

1:07:01claiming to be fluent in either. I know

1:07:03that my pronunciation is uh pretty rough

1:07:05sometimes.

1:07:06>> Mhm.

1:07:10>> Uh,

1:07:12okay. So I'll just start with my

1:07:15question then we can move from that. Uh

1:07:17my my main question that I have for you

1:07:19since you presented a relative identity

1:07:22model of the trinity and you stated that

1:07:24the persons are distinguished by their

1:07:26relations of opposition. Um will you say

1:07:28that these relations are constitutive

1:07:30differences that they establish the

1:07:32persons that they are like the father is

1:07:34the father because he begets the son and

1:07:37because he's begotten right these are

1:07:38constitutive right these are

1:07:39constitutive hypoatic properties.

1:07:42>> Yeah. So it's it's Lrangee talks about

1:07:44this in reality. I believe it's it's

1:07:46chapter 17 and 18. He he clarifies that

1:07:48it's actually both that it's not, you

1:07:50know, like beetting that makes the

1:07:51father and it's not the father that that

1:07:52makes uh paternity. Sorry, it's not

1:07:54paternity that makes the father. It's

1:07:55not the father makes paternity, but it's

1:07:57actually um they're they're simultaneous

1:07:59and there's one on either end. He he

1:08:00uses a couple of analogies. Um he uses

1:08:03I'll give you two that I think are most

1:08:04helpful. um he talks about the soul and

1:08:07the matter, how some things can proceed

1:08:09and follow in in in different respects

1:08:11when we're talking about different forms

1:08:12of um causality. So he talks about um

1:08:15like when the soul actualizes the matter

1:08:17of the body, the matter would be like

1:08:19like the material cause of the human

1:08:21being, but the soul would be like the

1:08:22formal cause. And then he also talks

1:08:23about marriage. how when a woman says

1:08:26yes I do to to marriage um her her I do

1:08:30or I guess it's actually the the man

1:08:32when the when the man says yes I do his

1:08:35um I do is is only validated when the

1:08:39woman says I do so it it it precedes and

1:08:41follows in different respects and so uh

1:08:44the similar thing can be talked about in

1:08:45the the father that um it's simultaneous

1:08:48paternity and um you know the procession

1:08:51the relation itself

1:08:53>> so in short What constitutes the

1:08:55father's hypostasis is that he begets

1:08:57the son. Is would you say that's

1:08:59correct?

1:09:00>> So what are you like notionally?

1:09:03>> I'm well I think that will have but I'm

1:09:06just basically saying yeah you can say

1:09:08notionally you can say ontologically but

1:09:12etc. What constitutes the hypess of the

1:09:14father is that he begs the son.

1:09:17>> Yeah. So there there's there's multiple

1:09:19different ways to answer that. So

1:09:20obviously we believe that there are

1:09:21there are two processions in the father

1:09:23but there's five notions. So and you

1:09:25could take that question in many

1:09:26different senses. So I'll just answer it

1:09:27in both ways. Hopefully it um kind of

1:09:29you know gives you some material to work

1:09:31with. Um the the the five notions

1:09:34specifically the ones referencing the

1:09:35father though would be um active

1:09:37spiration, paternity and inessibility.

1:09:39Right? Those three are are not all

1:09:42relatively opposed to each other. So

1:09:43that the father has inessibility, he has

1:09:46um paternity and he has um um active

1:09:50spiration. But the one that is going to

1:09:52be relatively opposed to um you know

1:09:54like philiation or passive spiration is

1:09:56going to be specifically paternity. And

1:09:58I guess passive spiration is a different

1:10:00case. We can just say affiliation. But

1:10:02then there's also two there's two

1:10:03processions that we can talk about. So

1:10:05there's going to be um you know like

1:10:07like affiliation

1:10:09um and spiration that the the phrase

1:10:12father paternity is specifically in

1:10:14reference to the relation between the

1:10:15son.

1:10:17>> Uh so my my question is more so okay so

1:10:20for example hypothetically let's think

1:10:22that let's say that there's only the

1:10:23father the person of the father not the

1:10:24son the holy spirit. So would you say

1:10:26that the other qualities is what would

1:10:29designate the father's hyperostasis or

1:10:32>> are they all relational and dependent on

1:10:34there being other persons?

1:10:36>> Yeah. So so like I said what kind of to

1:10:38the answer to to your first question is

1:10:39that that the father is father because

1:10:42he has relation to the son. I I I agree

1:10:44with that. Um but but there's also that

1:10:47relation because he is father. And so

1:10:49the question is is somewhat and I I

1:10:51don't I don't mean

1:10:52>> well actually that actually gets to what

1:10:53I want to ultimately ask. Yeah. But but

1:10:55I just want to clarify that there's two

1:10:57there's two things that are in play.

1:11:00>> Okay, go ahead. But

1:11:01>> well, no, no. I I was that was just a

1:11:03reference to what I said earlier is that

1:11:04that neither one precedes the other.

1:11:08>> Yeah. That here's the thing that saying

1:11:10that neither one precedes the other.

1:11:12Right. So basically it's kind of like a

1:11:13chicken and egg question. Is the father

1:11:15the father because he has a son or does

1:11:17he have a son because he is the father?

1:11:19If it's kind of like oh it's both

1:11:20simultaneously. I bet that's a logical

1:11:22contradiction though because it has one.

1:11:24>> No, because I gave I gave you two

1:11:26examples. I gave you two examples from

1:11:27the natural world where it's not. I can

1:11:29give you another one. So, for example,

1:11:30like is a triangle a triangle because it

1:11:32has uh three sides or is a three-sided

1:11:35shape three sided because it's a

1:11:36triangle?

1:11:37>> Well, a triangle is not is not a

1:11:38relational object. It's within the

1:11:40essential definition of the triangle.

1:11:42You you can you can use the

1:11:44>> you can use the angles and the three

1:11:45sides then if if you want cuz that would

1:11:48>> yeah but it's still within it's the it's

1:11:50the constituted definition of the

1:11:51triangle though that's

1:11:52>> yeah so there can be simultaneous things

1:11:54that constitute each other I gave you I

1:11:55gave you three examples now I think that

1:11:56that show that pretty clearly in the

1:11:58natural world

1:12:00>> yeah but even within the natural world

1:12:01with the examples that you give there's

1:12:03actually a logical order within them so

1:12:05for example one can argue I'm not saying

1:12:07I endorse this but one can argue for

1:12:08example a triangle is a triangle because

1:12:09it participates in the form of

1:12:11triangularity So the form of

1:12:12triangularity is what logically precedes

1:12:15the concrete triangle for example.

1:12:18There's that at the end of the day

1:12:19there's still going to be a logical

1:12:21order. One of them is going to be prior

1:12:22the other one's going to be posterior.

1:12:24My point is that one of it's the same

1:12:26with between the father and the son. If

1:12:28the father is the father because he

1:12:30begets the son then prior to that what

1:12:33is kind of the constitutive hypoatic

1:12:35mark of the father is ultimately the

1:12:36question.

1:12:37>> Yeah. So so again there's it's anterior

1:12:39and posterior. that that that's the

1:12:41answer that I'm giving is because

1:12:43there's like if you try to say one then

1:12:45it takes away from the other. It's

1:12:46anterior and posterior in the same

1:12:48sense. So just like with the triangle

1:12:50analogy, just like with you know the

1:12:51husband and the wife analogy and just

1:12:53like with um you know the the soul and

1:12:55the the matter um they're they're

1:12:58posterior and interior. And now

1:13:00obviously analogies are never going to

1:13:01be perfect for God. We both agree on

1:13:03that because you know the divine essence

1:13:04is indescribable.

1:13:06Um ultimately I think those analogies

1:13:08should suffice very clearly so that

1:13:10something can be anterior and posterior

1:13:12to the same thing if it's simultaneous.

1:13:16>> So if it's anterior and posterior this

1:13:18is not only the case with the father

1:13:19this applies also to the son the holy

1:13:21spirit. Correct.

1:13:23>> Wait say it again.

1:13:25>> Can it it is both antior and posterior.

1:13:27So this al the same also applies to the

1:13:29son the holy spirit. Correct.

1:13:31>> The son and the holy spirit in in what

1:13:33regard? Like are you talking about are

1:13:35what they areett

1:13:37and posterior to their relations?

1:13:39>> No. But are you talking about beetting

1:13:41and spirating or are you talking about

1:13:43the sun spirating the spirit

1:13:44specifically

1:13:45>> in terms of in terms of any relation

1:13:47like in general the son and the holy

1:13:49spirit let's say

1:13:50>> well the rel the relations the relations

1:13:53interact.

1:13:55>> Yeah they they the same will have to

1:13:56apply to the son the holy spirit is the

1:13:58point that I'm trying to make. They both

1:14:00have to be interior posterior

1:14:01>> but the whole the sun the sun isn't

1:14:03constituted by active spiration though.

1:14:05So that that's that's like a little bit

1:14:06of a misunderstanding there. So active

1:14:08spiration doesn't

1:14:09>> I'm not saying it is I'm not saying it

1:14:10is. I'm talking about in general within

1:14:12any relation that you can you can say

1:14:13right

1:14:13>> well no that's what I'm trying to say.

1:14:14It's not it's not any relation because

1:14:16active spiration doesn't constitute the

1:14:18father. It doesn't constitute the son.

1:14:19Only passive spiration constitutes a

1:14:21person because it's relatively opposed.

1:14:24>> Okay. I'm saying whatever relation that

1:14:27that you

1:14:27>> I'm tell I'm telling you no it's not

1:14:29every relation because they interact

1:14:31with each other in different ways that

1:14:32there's no opposition between uh

1:14:34>> so the relation between the sun the

1:14:36relation between the son and the holy

1:14:37spirit they are both anterior and

1:14:38posterior logically as well

1:14:41>> the relation between spirit

1:14:44>> yes

1:14:44>> no because the sun I already told you

1:14:46this the sun isn't constituted by active

1:14:47spiration

1:14:50>> but the holy spirit is constituted by

1:14:52having the relation

1:14:53>> passive by by passive of inspiration.

1:14:56>> Yes. But pri logically prior to that

1:14:59there's no anterior there's nothing that

1:15:01establishes what the Holy Spirit is.

1:15:05>> What do you mean?

1:15:06>> I'm just I'm I'm literally just asking

1:15:07that question. I'm not like even making

1:15:08a statement. I'm kind of

1:15:09>> Yeah. Yeah. No. So So when it comes

1:15:11>> Yeah. So So when it comes to the person

1:15:13of the spirit, the the relation that

1:15:16constitutes the spirit is going to be

1:15:17passive spiration, but active spiration

1:15:20does not constitute the son because

1:15:21active spiration is found in the father

1:15:22and the son. They're not they're not

1:15:24like relatively opposed to each other.

1:15:26>> Okay. So, we'll just say that the power

1:15:27to beget and to spirit is it's the power

1:15:30of the essence, right? Power of the

1:15:32essence of the divine essence that the

1:15:34father that the father

1:15:35>> I mean it depends on what you mean by

1:15:36that. I I would say more clearly that

1:15:39that the principle by which begetting

1:15:41and spirating occurs um would be the

1:15:44divine essence. And I I'm assuming

1:15:46you're top probably referencing question

1:15:4841 St. Thomas and and uh prima. Is that

1:15:51what you're you're referencing? No, I'm

1:15:52basically saying you know when for

1:15:54example the father begets the son that

1:15:56is a that is the activity of the divine

1:15:58essence. It's the father of course doing

1:15:59the activity. It's the relation activity

1:16:01but it's it's an activity of the essence

1:16:03right.

1:16:04>> Yeah. So you can read this in in

1:16:05Aristotle's category 7. I believe he

1:16:07talks about this or no that that would

1:16:08be uh relative constitutive traits. He

1:16:10talks about it in deanima. Um, and I

1:16:13believe it's it's uh section 8

1:16:15>> is the is the activity to beget and the

1:16:18activity to spirate distinct activities

1:16:21of the essence or are they one and the

1:16:23same?

1:16:25>> The activity to beget and to spirate. So

1:16:28spiration

1:16:29um is not actually going to be really

1:16:33distinct. It would be virtually distinct

1:16:34from um well again it depends on what

1:16:37you mean. So are you talking about like

1:16:40affiliation and active spiration when

1:16:42you're saying this?

1:16:44>> Mhm.

1:16:44>> Yeah. So affiliation and active

1:16:46spiration are not really distinct.

1:16:48>> They're only virtually distinct.

1:16:50>> Okay. So are they So basically they're

1:16:51the same activity virtually distinct or

1:16:55>> Yeah, there was formulated in a

1:16:57different way.

1:16:58>> I mean I'm passing my time but if you

1:17:00want we can continue this in the open

1:17:01dialogue.

1:17:02>> Yeah. Um yeah, we can move into open

1:17:04dialogue. How long did we say our open

1:17:05dialogue was? 20 minutes. I think we

1:17:07said 20 minutes. Yeah.

1:17:09>> Yeah.

1:17:10>> We can go longer than that if need be.

1:17:12Yeah.

1:17:13>> Yeah. Uh yeah, we can we can talk about

1:17:15this a little bit more in the open

1:17:17dialogue. I do want to ask you some more

1:17:18about serial and just just see what you

1:17:20>> Yeah. But I I Yeah, but I want to

1:17:22continue this this

1:17:23>> Yeah, I agree to that. I said I said we

1:17:25can do that.

1:17:26>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um my point Okay.

1:17:31So, my question is

1:17:34they're only virtually distinct, right?

1:17:36And the power to beget results in the

1:17:38sun. The power to spirate results in the

1:17:41Holy Spirit. Doesn't this mean that the

1:17:43reason the effects of that being the

1:17:46son, the Holy Spirit, the reason why

1:17:48they're distinct is not because of the

1:17:49relations, but because of the power that

1:17:50individualism in the first place?

1:17:52>> Yeah. So that that's a good question. Um

1:17:54the so spiration and beetting um the

1:17:59when we're saying active spiration and

1:18:01paternity is what you would be referring

1:18:03to there. um those powers are not really

1:18:06distinct. They're conceptually distinct

1:18:07or virtually distinct. And so a a good

1:18:09way to kind of explain that for the

1:18:11audience, I think, would be like when

1:18:12you talk about like three angledness and

1:18:16three-sidedness, like that's actually

1:18:18describing the same thing, but it's just

1:18:20a major virtual distinction. Um and so

1:18:22the the paternity and um active

1:18:25spiration would actually be a minor

1:18:27virtual distinction, I believe. Um but

1:18:29when we're talking about whether or not

1:18:30they're distinct, they're not really

1:18:32distinct. And the reason that they have

1:18:34different termini is because the sun is

1:18:38the first ordering and then active

1:18:40spiration is shared between father and

1:18:43son because they are both of the divine

1:18:44essence.

1:18:46>> Does does that kind of help? So the

1:18:48distinction is that the sun is the

1:18:49intermediary. That's what we've been

1:18:50talking about. What what confuses me

1:18:52then though is you're saying that they

1:18:54are virtually distinct and then at the

1:18:57same time it is they are one of them is

1:19:00communicated to the sun in actuality

1:19:02while the other is not well one is

1:19:04communicated to the sun in order to be

1:19:06actualized

1:19:08whereas the other is communicated but is

1:19:10not actualized that's

1:19:11>> yeah so I'm talking about I'm talking

1:19:13about active spiration and fraternity

1:19:16and paternity I agree that that

1:19:18spiration and beagetting I believe that

1:19:20those are distinct because they have

1:19:21different terminus because

1:19:23>> Okay. Mhm.

1:19:24>> Yeah.

1:19:25>> Yeah. Go on, go on. I'm just saying I

1:19:26understand. Yeah.

1:19:28>> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I I I think

1:19:29that would that would somewhat answer

1:19:30your question maybe a little bit more

1:19:32precise than it been.

1:19:33>> But but here's here's the point of my

1:19:35question though. Um you make you make a

1:19:38fuss. I I don't I don't mean this in

1:19:40like you make a fuss. You make a point

1:19:41about I don't say like I'm not saying

1:19:44like you're trying to be a baby or

1:19:46>> Yeah. But like you you you're making you

1:19:48make a fuss about it in this debate and

1:19:50in the previous debate you did with

1:19:52Aaron which I you know which I somewhat

1:19:54watched and you make this you know

1:19:55massive point about you need to have

1:19:56relations in order to distinguish the

1:19:58persons of the trinity but from the

1:20:01standpoint I mean if they are both

1:20:03activities of the divine essence and

1:20:04they are they result in distinct effects

1:20:07then you don't need relations to

1:20:08distinguish the divine persons. That's

1:20:10kind of my point here. You just need the

1:20:12two different powers however you

1:20:14distinguish them. You just needed two

1:20:15different powers in order to result in

1:20:17the effect of the son and the holy

1:20:18spirit respectively. Yeah.

1:20:19>> So when we're when we're talking about

1:20:22the the termini of those two relations.

1:20:25So for example the the spirit right

1:20:27passive spiration would be the the um

1:20:30the power I or not power but the

1:20:33capacity right the opportunity is how

1:20:35it's often described. Um receiving

1:20:37spiration that is relatively opposed to

1:20:40receiving or or receiving sunship or

1:20:42affiliation right that is relatively

1:20:44opposed. So those two are really

1:20:46distinct from one another. So they have

1:20:47real uh distinct termini. There's a real

1:20:49distinction there. Um and so I I I hope

1:20:52that that that kind of helps with that

1:20:54understanding a little bit. I the the

1:20:56point that I was making is that active

1:20:58spiration is not really distinct from

1:21:00paternity because the sun

1:21:02>> also actively spirates, right?

1:21:06>> Mhm.

1:21:07>> Yeah. In your view

1:21:08>> and and if you if you were to say that

1:21:10that every uh relation is is really

1:21:13distinct, right? Like if active

1:21:14spiration and passive spiration were

1:21:16really distinct, that would mean that

1:21:17there's opposition between them and then

1:21:18you'd have two fathers, right? Because

1:21:20then you have two relatively opposed

1:21:22relations. And I I think obviously you

1:21:24would you would disagree with the the

1:21:27>> what you're what you Yeah. what you're

1:21:29trying to say like they're not really

1:21:31distinct is that what you're trying to

1:21:32say is that they're not really distinct

1:21:34so as to be attached to a different

1:21:35essence kind of but they are virtually

1:21:37distinct in the sense that I correct me

1:21:41if I'm wrong like in the sense that

1:21:42their definitions are distinct from each

1:21:45other and kind of what they result but

1:21:46they are not attached to a different

1:21:48essence right

1:21:49>> yeah so when it comes

1:21:50>> of course when we say attached to

1:21:52essence it's important that it's not as

1:21:53if the diviness is composed right so

1:21:56this is so analogically attached

1:21:58distance, right?

1:21:59>> Yeah. So, so when I think I think this

1:22:02would be helpful to to everybody

1:22:03listening and hopefully to you as well.

1:22:05Um, when we're talking about virtual

1:22:06distinctions, there there's two types of

1:22:08virtual distinction. There there's minor

1:22:09distinction and then there's major

1:22:10distinction when when talking about uh

1:22:12virtual distinctions. So, like a major

1:22:14distinction is that which describes two

1:22:16um real formal realities which are

1:22:18distinct from one another, right? Uh but

1:22:20but or sorry, not real formal reality.

1:22:21Well, they are real formal. Uh it's it's

1:22:23two virtually distinct concepts. It's

1:22:25minor but they're still they're still uh

1:22:27formally conceptual right so like

1:22:30three-sidedness and three uh angledness

1:22:33those are those are two like formal

1:22:35conceptions and they're really distinct

1:22:37um but then when it comes like minor

1:22:38distinctions it's one that necessarily

1:22:40entails the other so a common analogy

1:22:41it's used of like being and goodness if

1:22:43you have goodness you have being um but

1:22:45there's still like virtual distinction

1:22:47just not real distinction between those

1:22:48two

1:22:48>> yeah we'll just say that this

1:22:50distinction is kind of how humans

1:22:52perceive it to be or is this based on

1:22:54objective reality

1:22:55To be honest, I don't think this really

1:22:57is relevant to that point.

1:22:58>> I I agree. If if you want to move on

1:23:00from that, I think that's that's like

1:23:01really

1:23:01>> absolutely

1:23:02>> but my argument but I mean I mean I what

1:23:04I want to hear response from you is your

1:23:06point is that you need to have a

1:23:08relation between the son and the holy

1:23:09spirit and what I'm what I'm stating is

1:23:11that actually you you actually don't

1:23:12really need because you only need the

1:23:14distinction between the the two powers

1:23:16and their effects whether that is

1:23:18virtual or not. That is the point that

1:23:20I'm making. So, so this is something

1:23:22that um we see the fathers talk about

1:23:24and we we can pull up, you know, uh

1:23:27certain quotes if you'd like, but I

1:23:28don't I don't think we'll actually need

1:23:29to. Um but but the the the understanding

1:23:33is relative constitutive traits and

1:23:35absolute constitutive traits. Do you do

1:23:37you know the difference between those

1:23:38two?

1:23:40>> Absolute constit right you made the

1:23:42point that there cannot be absolute

1:23:43constitutive traits between the persons

1:23:45in the trinity otherwise one will be

1:23:46more God than the other. So will they be

1:23:48like essential properties?

1:23:50>> Yeah. No, but like no like just just

1:23:52like in general like when we're talking

1:23:54about like natural philosophy like the

1:23:56understanding of the world like absolute

1:23:57constitutive traits are different than

1:23:59relative constitutive traits. Do you

1:24:00know what the difference is? And like if

1:24:02not it's fine. I can explain it but like

1:24:04>> go ahead go ahead explain the explain

1:24:05the difference.

1:24:06>> Yeah. So an absolute constitutive trait

1:24:09distinguishes one thing from many

1:24:11others. So like for example, if I have

1:24:13red hair, it will distinguish me from,

1:24:16you know, everybody who has brown hair,

1:24:18blonde hair, green hair, all that

1:24:19relative will only distinguish you from

1:24:20one thing, right?

1:24:22>> Yeah. It'll distinguish you from one to

1:24:24another. So So there this is something

1:24:26that Cardinal Citin he talks about,

1:24:28right? Like I if if you know our trait

1:24:30equals

1:24:32um the relation of X towards Y and uh

1:24:35the relation of Y towards X then you

1:24:38can't have that same trait distinguish X

1:24:41from Z or Y from Z because then um you

1:24:44fall into this this absurdity that um

1:24:46you know this trait would be um

1:24:49distinguishing X from Z just because it

1:24:51has a different relation to Y than X

1:24:53does and this trait cannot distinguish X

1:24:56more than it constitutes Does that make

1:24:58sense? Like that that would that would

1:24:59just be an absurdity to say that that

1:25:01can occur.

1:25:02>> My my objection to that will be how

1:25:04would you square with the fact that the

1:25:06sun does have absolute hypothetic

1:25:08properties resulting from the

1:25:09incarnation

1:25:11because those are human you know those

1:25:12are properties hypothetic properties

1:25:14resulting from his humanity and they are

1:25:17absolute you get one of them red

1:25:18hairness

1:25:20um you know eye color etc. So how would

1:25:23you how would you kind of square with

1:25:25that? So, so when when we're talking

1:25:27about like relations in the trinity like

1:25:30between the persons, it's different from

1:25:33like you know Christ assuming a human

1:25:35nature.

1:25:37>> Of course, I'm stating that after the

1:25:38assumption of humanity, Christ has

1:25:41hypoat Christ now has more hypothatic

1:25:43properties after the

1:25:44>> Yeah, but these these these relative

1:25:48>> Yeah. But not not to cut you off. Sorry,

1:25:50I know I did that a second ago. This is

1:25:51open dialogue. I wasn't trying to be

1:25:52rude. Um but but

1:25:53>> no problem. No problems. Yeah. Yeah. The

1:25:55relative principles that I'm referring

1:25:57to are specifically talking about origin

1:25:59like where one thing comes from another.

1:26:01And so so I I use kind of like um you

1:26:03know the red-hairedness is like a very

1:26:05like easy way to break this down. But I

1:26:06think I think a better thing you could

1:26:07say is like in relation of origin like

1:26:09cuz we're talking about the trinity,

1:26:11right? Like one comes from another that

1:26:13you can't have one of those relative

1:26:15constitutive traits do more in

1:26:16distinguishing it than it does in

1:26:17constituting it and constituting X.

1:26:21So can you for example can you give an

1:26:23example of how that would result in a

1:26:27problem with the person of the trinity?

1:26:30>> Yeah. So for example like like when

1:26:32we're talking about beetting right the

1:26:33father begets the son. Um when the

1:26:35father begets the son it's a relation of

1:26:36x towards y father towards son and a

1:26:39relation of y towards x the son towards

1:26:41the father. Um, and and if you're trying

1:26:43to say that that relation can

1:26:45distinguish the sun from the spirit,

1:26:47you're saying that this relative trait

1:26:50can do more in distinguishing the sun

1:26:52than it can in constituting the sun,

1:26:54which is an absurdity. That's the whole

1:26:55point that Cardinal Kajitton makes in

1:26:56his uh commentary on the suma.

1:27:00But

1:27:03the thing is the beginning relation

1:27:06right is kind of is like the son being

1:27:10begotten of the father right that is

1:27:12what constitutes his hypoasis right um

1:27:15but the fact that he is begotten of the

1:27:17father u can also serve to differentiate

1:27:20him not only from the holy spirit but

1:27:21from anyone else so and I think the the

1:27:25issue is

1:27:25>> it's an absolute trait then

1:27:28>> uh I I think as being an effect of being

1:27:31begotten, right? If you signify being

1:27:33begotten in that sense, as the effect of

1:27:35being begotten from the power of

1:27:36begetting, it has to be absolute in a

1:27:39sense. Yeah.

1:27:39>> Wait. So So you wait, I'm sorry. So So

1:27:41would that mean that the the son is

1:27:43absolutely distinct from the father and

1:27:45the spirit?

1:27:47>> What do you mean absolutely?

1:27:48>> That's heresy. That would be that would

1:27:50be tritheism in the way that I'm I've

1:27:51been describing the whole because that

1:27:52would be that would be heresy. Like that

1:27:54would be that would mean that there's

1:27:55three gods. exactly will be here and see

1:27:58>> because it would mean that there's

1:27:59absolute distinctions between them like

1:28:00absolute like that would be separation

1:28:03>> but if absolute distinction is hypoatic

1:28:05it will only serve to distinguish the

1:28:06hypothesis which is distinct from

1:28:08essence maybe you might you might not

1:28:10agree with this viewpoint but within the

1:28:13orthodox framework essence and

1:28:15hypothesis are distinct

1:28:16>> wait so I want to be I want to be I want

1:28:19to be as charitable as possible is is

1:28:21your position that there are absolute

1:28:23differences between father and on

1:28:27>> in terms of hypotheasis. I think all

1:28:28hypotheases are absolutely different

1:28:30from each other and they can be

1:28:32differentiated by relations, but there

1:28:35all hypoasis are absolutely different

1:28:37from one another. Yeah.

1:28:38>> Yeah. I I I I I think that that's that's

1:28:41uh

1:28:41>> but I but I think we are we might be

1:28:43working with two different senses of

1:28:44absolute here because what I'm saying is

1:28:47like they're different they are uh

1:28:49wholly distinct modes of existence

1:28:52of the essence that they are.

1:28:56>> Yeah. So

1:28:57>> so so maybe it will be helpful if you

1:28:59explained what absolute like more more

1:29:02so is and how kind of it results in in

1:29:05tritism in your view.