Hy

Isn't any water points or running water available in the Catholic countries ?

Lack of rigorousness doesn't seem to be an ethical problem for our Catholic brother. Using non-existent ecumenical council's canon neither.

But the way he argue for the filioque is beyond embarassing. According to Aquinas, the Son and the HS are produced in different ways, but that's not enough to distinct them. He claimed procession and generation are different but equal.

The procession belongs to the Father and the Son, otherwise nothing distincts the Son and the HS.

But the problem is shifting to another level now: where is the distinction between Son and Father?

Another "detail" (to a Catholic): where does he find this teaching in the Early Church? It's a total innovation. The trinity has always been defined through his distinctions. The rest is remaining a mystery. Going further is considering the essence and breaks the trinity mystery (and his balance).

And maybe another tiny objection...it's absolutely nowhere in the Scripture. In John, the procession belongs to the Father.

Besides that, the filioque has no backing in the Scriptures. Actually, it's the opposite. John 15:26 is pretty clear. "When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father—he will testify about me."
John 14:26 "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything I told you."

That's why Basil said FROM the Father THROUGH the Son and not FROM the Father and FROM the Son.
εκπορευεται (proceed) in the Gospel is used exclusively to define the Father-Holy Spirit relationship, never for the Son.

Using false councils is just a tiny detail

You're so ethical

You know the ecumenical councils are the second authoritative source in Christianisty right?

Yes, amending the creed isn't a serious problem.

Your Church promised to not remove a single word at the 7th council.

No the filioque is a total heresy. Nowhere in the scriptures. Nowhere in the Early Fathers.

At the 7th ecumenical councils, the creed was achieved. Your church promised To NOT amend it.

Which one?

Which authoritative source?

Circular way of thinking....

In the Early Church, where is the authoritative source?

So the filioque doesn't come from the scriptures. It doesn't come from the Fathers. So, from where?

Only the Roman Church?

So what is authoritative according to the Roman Church ?

Not the scriptures, not the Fathers

So what?

So we agree the filioque isn't rooted in the Early Church. It comes exclusively from the Roman Church?

The papal primacy is off topic

Great debate thanks

High level, it's impressive 😂

"That's the truth because it's the truth"

I'm amazed

According to the Roman Church only

Yes the papal primacy is the final resort to everything, even for the primal papacy itself.

There's no way to debate Roman Church, they have another god: the Pope. No master what the Scripture and the tradition claimed...total waste of time.

No, it's not. But the debate was on filioque.

Thanks bro

You place the pope as God

You re not Christian

Period

You just claimed it

Your God is the pope

Yes, I got it

You place the pope as God

So you will be right on each topic because of the papal primacy (which is wrong)....

But you admit it

The pope is your God

No, it's not.

Your

What are you talking about. You just admit the Pope is your God.

You know what "your" is meaning?

It's not a game. You avoid the Aquinas rebutal by claiming the papal primacy. This is the only way out the Roman Church has in all debates. The problem is : your debater doesn't recognize this authority. So you're autistic.

But let me remind you something: the papal primacy is supposed to be rooted in the Early Church too. According To Pie IX.

No, Pie IX named the Holy doctors and Holy Fathers too. Go read Vatican 1.

I'm saying the papal primacy and infallibility have to be rooted in the Early Fathers, because Pie IX himself claimed it. Otherwise Pie IX is mistaken inside the infallible definition of the infallibility and the house of cards collapses.

You obviously don't know your own magisterium.

Vatican 1 is clear. The papal primacy and infallibility ARE claimed by the Church Fathers.

So, if that's actually not claimed, Pie IX is wrong.

No. It's off topic.

You don't get my point.

I'm looking for the Pastor Aeternus quote, pls hold on

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by ALL THE VENERABLE FATHERS and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

We agree on what ALL THE VENERABLE FATHERS means ?

To you, who Pie IX is pointing with ALL THE VENERABLE FATHERS?

Actually your church is sharing numerous Church Fathers with the Orthodox Chruch, right ?

It's ok, he's stucked. No problem. Just answer the my question: does your church recognize Church Fathers which orthodox Church recognizes too ?

He loses his temper. It's ok.

Yes I did. But you avoid the question here. Please answer about Pie IX.

What does ALL THE VENERABLE FATHERS mean?

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by ALL THE VENERABLE FATHERS and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

This is YOUR magisterium

Don't try to find a way out. Your ignorance is exposed. You won't be saved by ad hominem attack. Just answer to the previous question. We have an occasion to debate on a common basis.

You're exposing your own weakness brother. You called me muslim first, then protestant.

But you never rebuted a single argument

Hy

@Byzas merci beaucoup

@Quarantine_Zone can you quote Saint Hilaire about filioque?

@Quarantine_Zone thanks a lot

@󠀂 󠀂 yes, he's a good guy but little bit childish

@󠀂 󠀂 no the Roman guy

@󠀂 󠀂 yes, but it's ok @Quarantine_Zone will provide source, I'll talk to him

@󠀂 󠀂 you asked for it. I pointed the fact he was unable to explain the logic deadlock about the filioque in the Summa. Then he attacked ad hominem. But personally I don't care.

I guess it's fair to ban someone and keep insulting him😂

@Quarantine_Zone it's on the new advent ?

Ok let me find the source, thanks a lot to provide this.

@Quarantine_Zone

Here's the part where is mentionned the filioque in Schaff. Schaff translation is correct, even is procedit isn't similar to auctoribus, let's admit it. (Procedit is meaning proceed and auctoribus is meaning the author of)

Now, let's check the footnote

In this footnote, it's saying the mention of the Son is non existent in the 3 original manuscripts.

And the add on has been made by the scrib, "si nostra nos non failli opinio"

By following our opinion,

Now let's go back in the text