BEST Theological Argument for the Filioque

[Music] is here. [Music] foreign. [Music] [Music] [Applause] Hoping you're having a fantastic day. It is a Thursday afternoon, and I'm doing another stream on the filioque. I will be doing, uh, a lot, just a lot, on the filioque consistently, consistently, because, you know, I think it is truly the most important thing that people should be talking about in the Orthodox Catholic debate. Because really, only one of us can be right. Either scripture and the fathers and theological reasoning teach that the Spirit eternally and hypostatically proceeds from the Son, or doesn't. And really, we can, we can cast aside the canonical question, really, we can. Because, uh, if you think about it, if the Orthodox are right that the Pope overstepped his bounds when it came to putting the filioque in the Creed, that really doesn't mean anything. That just means that both Orthodox and Catholicism are wrong. So really, when we look at scripture, when we look at tradition, when we look at theology, when we look at all of these loci, sources of theology, they teach the filioque. So most of the time, I've been giving scriptural and, uh, and historical reasoning behind the filioque. But what I want to do with this video is give what I think is the best theological argument for the filioque. The absolute best one. And what we're going to see is that when we look at these solidly based theological propositions from scripture, from the fathers, when it comes to Trinitarian theology, we're going to see that they naturally result in the inescapable position of the filioque. And I just want to, uh, with all of these videos, just to show how obviously true the filioque is. And I actually, I have been, I changed my, what's it called, my playlist on the filioque to a general playlist from the filioque. So I have that, I think it's high, it's one of my highlighted playlists on my YouTube channel. I'm just going to be dumping all of my videos on the filioque into that. So if you want to look at everything I've done on the filioque, then you can look into, um, that playlist right there.

So, uh, before we get into it, as a reminder, if you appreciate what I do and would like to see me do more of this, because I know a lot of you have asked me to do more videos like this, um, something that's more intelligently polemically based rather than just sort of the general education stuff that I usually do, uh, then become a patron. That's the best way that you can support work like this and let me know that this is the type of thing that you like to see me do. Um, it helps out a lot. Um, because, you know, a lot of these videos, you put in a lot of time in them. So it would be, uh, nice out of your charity, uh, for you to support me, um, with that. So that's Patreon. Um, there's a million other ways you can support me, but Patreon's just the best, uh, best one because, you know, it's something solid and monthly that I know I'm gonna get to be able to, you know, pay the bills. So let's get right into it.

So first, uh, as, as I said last time in the last video that I did yesterday on the filioque, I kind of want to take this from the ground up. I don't want to assume that you really know much about Trinitarian theology, because honestly, a lot of you probably don't know as much as you think. So we do need to start with definitely defining every term that we are going to come across, and then from that foundation to move upward. And you might actually need to watch this video a second or a third time in order to get all of the details, because, you know, after you kind of skim through something the first time, going through it the second, you're going to catch a lot of things that you missed. So first, uh, what is a principle? Because we're going to need to know, um, what a principle is, even to discuss the filioque. These, the filioque is, according to the Council of Florence, the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as by one principle. So what would it mean for the Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son as by one principle? We went over this in the last video, so if you want to, uh, if you want to look at that, you can. But basically, because I explained this a little bit more, but basically, by a principle, we just mean a source. So when we think about the Trinity, if you remember from your Nicene Creed, which you guys should know, remember the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the Father. So since the Son has begotten from the Father, this is something which is said to be imminent, that is within the Divinity, not outside of the Divinity, like we would get with creation. So, um, if you can look at it in a bit analogous to, uh, the fact that we speak of, um, I don't know if I made this pen, I would create this pen, but my son, I begot my son, my son is begotten of me. Why is my son begotten of me? Well, because we are said to be specifically identical, we share the same species, we're of the same kind. But this pen and I were not of the same kind. So in order to contemplate the mystery of the Trinity, we take this a step further. Not only is the Father and the Son specifically the same, they're not, they're not the same species, rather they're numerically the same. They share the same Divinity. So the self-same Divinity is communicated from the Father to the Son, and that's what we call a procession. And, um, the person, uh, from which the Son comes, the Father, the Father is said to be the source or principle, principle of the Son. And then when we think about the Spirit, the debate is over whether the Father alone is the principle of the Spirit, or whether the Father and the Son make up a single principle of the Spirit when it comes to the spiration of the Spirit, the breathing forth, if you may, of the Spirit. So that's what the whole debate is about. And from analyzing this notion of principle and a few other, uh, propositions of Trinitarian theology that scripture and the fathers hold to, we must conclude with the filioque. I'll tell you exactly how this is going to seem to be roundabout, but once we get to the end, you're going to see how this all is going to fit together. So sorry if you get lost a bit, uh, throughout this. I'm going to try to keep it as simple as I can.

So it gets a little bit more complicated with this when we look at how principle is used. We can distinguish, and I'm going to explain this, we can distinguish between what's called the principium quo, or the principle by which, and the principium quod, the principle which. So let's, uh, let's take a, a non-generative example. Let's look at, if I, if I had this like burning bar of steel, and I touched it, uh, yeah, I'm holding it with one hand, touching with the other. So I touch the steel, the principle which burns me is the steel. I was burned by steel, that's the principle which burns. Steel. Now, did the steel burn by its nature as steel? Is that the principle by which the steel burned? No, of course not. Because if that was the case, then it would be something which is natural to this steel, therefore all steel would burn, which we know that's not the case. Rather, the steel burned by its heat. The steel was heated up and acquired what's called the form of fire, and therefore the steel, the principle which communicated the fire or heat, the principle by which, to my hand, which burned me. So that's, interestingly, principle which and the principle by which. That seems to be easy because you think like, you know, if I stick my hand in boiling water, the water is the principle which, the heat which the water has, the principle by which I am burned. I'm sure we could think of a just a trillion other examples of this distinction between principle which, the principle by which. But, uh, you know, it can get a little bit more difficult here. Because let's look back and think back at the principle, um, at an example of generation. When parents beget a, a child, what is the principle which? What is the principle by which? This can be a little bit confusing because the principle which is obvious, it's the parents that we get, that's the principle which. But do they beget the child by virtue of their nature? Do they beget the child by insofar as they are human, or insofar as they are that individual? So do I, because I have a son, his name's Augustine, so don't get confused by this, but did I beget Augustine by virtue of me being Christian B. Wagner, or by virtue of my humanity? So to answer this question, we're going to have to, um, look at that which is communicated. Because if we look back to our steel and fire example, the steel doesn't communicate its steeliness, rather it communicates heat. And from the fact that it burns us, from the fact that it communicates heat, we know the principle by which this steel burns us is by virtue of the form of heat which it has. So now, when we give this sort of, uh, analogous example to our parents and child, to me and my son, did I communicate Christian B. Wagner to my son? No, my son's a different individual than I am, different person than I am. So obviously, by virtue of my individuality, I did not beget my son. Rather, it was by virtue of my humanity, because I communicate the form of humanity to my son, just like the hot steel communicates hotness in burning by virtue of its heat, not by virtue of, uh, its steeliness. So we look at begetting, um, we have to ask ourselves, what communicates and what is communicated? So what communicates and what is communicated? What communicates is going to be the principle which, and what is communicated is going to be the principle by which. So the Father, the Father communicates, and what is communicated is going to be humanity. So the Father begets by virtue of his humanity. So, um, that, that's the distinction right there between the principle which, the principle by which. And from this distinction, we're going to be able to draw forth the necessity of the filioque.

So we can look at other examples, uh, first, uh, before we go exactly into how this helps with the filioque, other examples of how this helps in theology and Trinitarian theology, which I think this will help clarify the concept, because if the concept's new, it's obviously going to be a little bit confusing for you. So let's take the example of creation. So with creation, everything is created by the Holy Trinity, correct? Correct. Okay, good. So does this mean that there are three principles of creation, since there are three persons who create? Well, this isn't the case, because the, the fathers are all going to affirm one principle of creation. Saint Gregory says, for example, quote, the Trinity exhibits an invariable oneness within itself, an absolute, complete sameness of activity, just one activity, there's one, uh, principle. My activity is really principled by which, but this results in a singularity of the principle which. And to illustrate this, there, there isn't, when we ask, uh-huh, we ask, uh, um, by whom I was created, we don't say, okay, one third of you is created by the Father, one third of you is created by the Son, and one third of you is created by the Spirit. No, they form a single principle of creation. I was created by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in entire, in an entire and whole manner. So the three persons form a single, singular, uh, principle. Now, should this be impossible? How is this even possible that three persons are going to form a singular principle? Well, the reason is the distinction between the principle which and the principle by which. Because when you have multiple individuals possessing a singular, singular principle by which, they're going to form a singular principle which. So we can look back to our parents and child example. The parents form a singular principle by which their humanity, specifically united, is going to form a singular principle by which of by which they beget their child. And therefore, the Father and the Mother are going to form a singular principle which. Half of me was not created by my Father, and half of me was not created by my Mother. Rather, they came together to singularly form me. So when we look at the three persons of the Trinity, they have a singular, um, if you want to call it energy or operation, that's fine, a singular energy or operation that they have. So this singular energy or operation is going to form a singular principle which when it comes to their creation of, of the universe. So I hope that helps the highlighting of this issue. And this really helps us when it comes to, uh, the really childish objections of photos against the filioque. So he's going to say, well, if the Father and the Son, uh, formed the principle of the Spirit, then the Spirit has to be composite. That's, that's one of his arguments. It's ridiculous, because since the Father and the Son share the same principle by which, they're going to form a singular principle which, which can result not in a composite, but in a person who proceeds whole and entire from both as by one principle, as Council Florence teaches. So the objection doesn't make any sense. It's childish, that's what it is. Just like the creation wasn't created one-third by the Father, one-third by the Son, one-third by the Spirit. So the Spirit is going to proceed one half from the Father, one half from the Son. That's ridiculous.

So now, now to kind of get to, um, the, the bread and butter of the, the main point of the presentation, after I'm 15 minutes in. Okay. Oh, wow. Got some, uh, oh, Astros in the comments. Good. Okay. I'm gonna continue now. Sorry, I get distracted sometimes during these things. So now that we're a good 15 minutes in and you kind of get that distinction between the principle which and the principle by which, how does this necessarily result in filioque? So from all of these above considerations that we have, we can, um, we can very solidly conclude that the filioque must follow if one is a Trinitarian. Because when we look at, uh, each one of the processions, it's clear that the principle by which of the processions must be something which is essential. Only the principle which is something which is hypostatic. So the Father doesn't have some sort of super-added power above and beyond the other persons. It's not how the processions work. Rather, his paternity is going to be the Divinity possessed, acting in some way. So the, the Father is going to be the Divinity possessed as begetting, this uninspiring the Spirit through the Son. Now, what, why must this be the case? Why must the Father be the principle which and the Divinity be the principle by which? Why can't his fatherhood or his paternity be the principle by which, as some online Orthodox say, which, as you'll see, is actually a very blasphemous statement, and it's, uh, completely destroys the mystery of the Trinity. So we can see this from our above considerations. So the, the principle by which, as we said above, is conformed to that which is communicated. So if we remember from our, um, parents example, just as the parents communicate their humanity, not their first parenthood, to the child, um, and the hot iron example doesn't communicate the form of iron to the hand touching it, but the form of heat. So we see that the, the distinction from the principle which, the principle by which. So also, when we look at the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Father doesn't communicate his paternity. The Father communicates the Divinity to the Son. So the paternity can't be the principle by which, because if it was the principle by which, the paternity would be communicated to the Son. You would have two fathers. No, it's not the case. Rather, the Father is the principle which, and the Divinity is the principle by which, because the Divinity is that which is communicated to the Son. So we've seen the processions, these two principles, the principle which, the Father, and then we'll say the Father and the Son, which we'll prove later on, the principle by which, which has to be the Divinity. That, and we can't just have, uh, it just really should be obvious because we can't just have all of these like super-added powers, uh, within the Trinity, that would just completely destroy the mystery, because then there wouldn't be, um, a singular, uh, really, there wouldn't be a singular Divinity. You'd have multiple divinities, uh, going on, which would be, um, horrendous and horrific. For why? So this is actually, um, contrary to what a lot of Orthodox will tell you. This is actually just the clear teaching of the fathers. So, uh, Saint Ambrose, in On Synods, 59, he says, "Before all time, the Father, out of the essence of his nature, with a desire that was subject to no passion, gave to the Son a birth that conveyed the essence of his nature." Did you notice? "Out of the essence of his nature gave a birth that conveyed the essence of his nature." Then Epiphanius, in his work Against Heresies, 70, he writes, "The Father did not beget the Son either by willing it or not willing it, but in his nature, which transcends will." Notice the begetting is in his nature. Further, when we look at Saint Cyril, in his work Thesaurus, 12, he describes the generation of the Son as proceeding "from the essence of the Father." And in his work On the True Faith, he characterized the Son's generation as "according to nature." In another instance, he states that "the Father's act of begetting is natural," describing the Son as the "fruit of the same nature." So all of these, obviously, very obviously, especially the Father's act of begetting is natural. These, these are very clearly saying the principle by which the Father begets, it's out of his nature, it's by his nature, it's natural. And then Basil, um, he says that the Son's generation was born from the, that the Son was born from the nature. This is in Homily 24. So we see, this is the teaching of the fathers. So we've established this. The processions, the principle which is the person or persons. When it comes to, uh, the Spirit, the principle by which is Divinity. So why does this matter? Why does this matter at all? So since the Father spirates the Spirit by virtue of his Divinity, which we've already established in terms of the Son is communication of the Divinity to the Son and begetting of the, in the begetting of the Son, will communicate the principle by which he spirates the Spirit to the Son. This should be obvious. Because the Father aspirates the Spirit by virtue of his Divinity, the Father communicates the Divinity to the Son. Therefore, the Son is, becomes a possessor of the principle by which the Father aspirates the Spirit. This should be obvious. So thus, the Son, since he shares numerically one Divinity with the Father, will himself possess the principle by which the Son is spirated with the Spirit, spirated. Now, he who possesses the principle by which participates in the principle which. So, um, the Son becomes a possessor of the principle by which. Now, if somebody possesses the principle by which, he's the principle which. It's obvious. If the, the iron possesses the fire which burns, by which, uh, yeah, the fire which burns, or the heat by which the hand is burnt, the, the iron is the, is the principle which burns. It's obvious. If you possess the principle by which, you are the principle which. Now, this, the Son possesses the Divinity which is the principle by which the Father is the Spirit. Therefore, the Son is going to be a participator in the principle which, the, the principle which spirates the Spirit. This is, this should be obvious. So if you want to deny this, what you're going to have to say is, you're either going to have to just mutilate the Trinity by having these super-added powers within the Trinity. You're either going to, or you're going to have to just deny clear reason, or you're going to have to deny, uh, the fact that the entirety of the Divinity, which is the principle by which, is communicated to the Son, which makes you a blasphemer. So really, to deny this mode of argumentation is going to have to, um, take a lot of coping. A lot.

So the main objection, I'll handle the, I'll handle all the objections, then show how, um, this is going to be, how very helpful, um, with some explanations for us. And I'm going to check the, um, check the, uh, okay, comment section. There's nothing going on. It's the main objection to this is basically going to be some sort of, um, vain pointing to infinite regress. So we're going to say, well, um, you're going to have some sort of infinite regress or self-profession if this is true. So they're, they're going to say, if the Father begets the Son by his Divinity, and the Father communicates the Divinity to the Son, should not the Son either a beget himself, or beget himself another Son? Well, this assumption is wrong. And in order to see why this assumption is wrong, we need to make another distinction, uh, within the principle by which. So we can make a distinction, and sorry, uh, sorry that I'm giving you all of this new terminology, but it's, this is very necessary with explaining, um, why the Orthodox position is very, very, very wrong. So we make the distinction between, on the one hand, the proximate principle by which, and proximate just means nearby or close or most immediate. So the proximate principle by which, and the remote principle by which. So to highlight this distinction, um, let's, let's, uh, for modesty's sake, let's think about a different example than generation. And if you get it, you get it. If you don't, you don't. So to highlight the distinction between the approximate principle by which and the remote principle by which, if we think about me speaking right now. So we already know the principle which speaks is me. I, Christian B. Wagner, is the principle which speaks. The remote principle by which I speak is by nature. So remotely speaking, I work by my nature. In the proximate principle by which, so the most immediate or closest principle by which is my vocal cords. So I both speak by my nature, and that I'm a human, and most immediately or proximately speak by my vocal cords. So that's the distinction between the remote, which is the sort of further away or the base or the grounding, if you want to put it like that, and the proximate, which is the closest or most immediate, um, principle by which. So, uh, the proximate principle by which is always a faculty, and the remote principle by which is always the nature. So I speak by my nature remotely, and proximately I speak by certain faculty, that is my vocal cords. So in God, how would we, what would be the remote principle by which? We've already said it, the Divinity. That should be easy. It's Divinity. It's divine nature is remotely speaking the principle by which. But we said with the proximate principle by which, we need to be some, some sort of faculty, like my vocal cords. So what, what is that faculty when it comes to the begetting of the Son, of the procession of the Spirit? Well, in God, in intellectual natures, there's only two, uh, two faculties, two imminent faculties. It's going to be the intellect and the will. The intellect and the will. So the persons must proximately proceed by either of these two faculties, who either the intellect or the will. And before you get the, the, um, the objection that this is somehow Arian, is somehow saying that the Spirit is created, we don't mean will in the sense of an act of will. So the fact that the, the Father somehow chose, chose to be got to inspire the Spirit, that's not what we mean. We don't mean that the Spirit is somehow created in that way. Rather, we can speak of a, um, the best way it might be put, of a outflux or emanation, an outflux or emanation of the faculty. And if you want, if you want more explanation by this, um, my last Saturday stream, near the end, Astro spent a few minutes explaining this. So when it, uh, when it comes to the Son, what is, which faculty is it? The intellect or the will, um, that is the proximate principle by which the Son proceeds? We're going to get, we're going to get to the answering the objection, but we need to lay some groundwork before we answer it. So the Father is going to beget the Son by virtue of his Divinity. So that's the remote principle, by way of intellection. So by virtue of his Divinity, by way of intellectation. This is, this is evident from scripture when we get certain words, uh, like Word. The Word is that which proceeds by way of intellection. This is why the Son is called the Word of the Father. But, um, the, the Church fathers are going to vary, uh, clearly teach this in terms of the, of the Son. So, uh, uh, Saint Theophilus of Antioch writes, "The Word that always exists, residing within the heart of the Father, for before anything came into being, he had him as a counselor, being his own mind and thought." Notice, "his own mind and thought." But when God wished to make all that he had determined, he begot this Word, uttered the firstborn of all creation, not himself being emptied of the Word, but having begotten reason and always conversing with his reason. So the Son is beyond by virtue of intellection. And this is something that Lactantius, in his Divine Institutes, also teaches when he writes, "With good reason, therefore, is he called the speech and the Word of God, because God, by certain incomprehensible energy and power of His Majesty, enclosed the vocal Spirit proceeding from His mouth, which he had not conceived in his womb, but in his mind." The Spirit is con, I mean, the Son is conceived in the mind, in the mind of God. So what this is saying is the faculty, the faculty, um, approximately by which the, uh, the coming forth of the Son happens, is the intellect. It's the intellect. This is something again, which is natural. It's not something which is volitional, somehow some sort of creation. It's blasphemous. Now, the only two faculties is the intellect and the will. So the Son, intellect. What's the will? Should be easy, Spirit. And there's a bunch that we could go over, a bunch of stuff when it comes to the, the fact how the term Spirit, or how Holiness, or how love, and how all of these terms which are given, uh, to the Spirit relates to the will. And there's a bunch that we could theologically reflect on this. But for now, I will, um, I will hold myself to to the, uh, to what, to the, um, purpose of the video. So now, each one of these processions, the intellectual and the volitional, that is a volitional, in terms of will, they must be infinite, imperfect, since they result in Divine persons and communicate the entire Divinity. So the entire fecundity or fruitfulness of each one of these faculties is exalts, is exhausted in the infinite production of the term. So really, what we're saying is that the intellect, when the Word proceeds by way of intellection, there's nothing left for the intellect to give. Music communicated, everything that is to communicate, the entire Divinity. What else is there to give? What else is the intellect there to give in the production of its term, the production of its word? Communicated everything. When, when there's that effort, the, um, effulgence, I think it's a fallgence, how you pronounce it, when there's the emanation, I'll say emanation, well, there's the emanation from the will, what else is there to give? What else is there to give? The entire Divinity is communicated. What else is there to give? There's nothing else to give. So when the will is communicated to the Son by natural order, notice I'm, this is all speaking by natural order, not somehow by temporal order, when the will is communicated to the Son, use the will, um, is contained in, if you want to put it like that, is, uh, is contained in, you know, speaking very loosely here, the Divinity. So the will is communicated to the Son by way of, uh, the begetting of the Son, by natural order. The Spirit has not been spirated yet, since the Son is the second person of the Trinity. That, and intellectual naturally proceeds of volition. So when the will is communicated to the Son in the Divinity, the Spirit has not been spirated yet. So the will still produces its infinite term when it is possessed by the Son. That is, the, the will still produces the Spirit when it is possessed by the Son. So from this, we can see that if the will is producing its infinite term as possessed by the Son, then the Son is the possessor of the will in producing its infinite term. And if the Son is a possessor of the will in producing its infinite term, then the Son is the possessor of the, uh, of the proximate principle by which the Spirit is, uh, spirated. Therefore, very clearly from this reasoning, the Spirit, uh, spirates in the Son, spires the Spirit. It's very clear. Um, and then the, the same goes for why the, why the Son doesn't, uh, somehow beget another Son, because when the Son comes in possession of the Divine intellect, the intellect has already exhausted, um, itself, if you want to put it like that. The fecundity of the intellect is already exhausted in the production of the term of the Son. Everything has already been given. So there's nothing left to give. So when the Son has the intellect, there's nothing left to give. So it's not going to produce another Son as possessed by the Son. So from all of this, uh, we can just see, uh, from this consideration, the contradiction. You see how silly, really, the denial of the procession of the Spirit from the Son is. We would have to say that the Son both possessed the nature by which the Spirit proceeded, in that he received it from the Father, and we would have to say that he didn't possess it, and that he did not inspire the Spirit. So the Son becomes both a possessor of the Divinity and not a possessor of Divinity. And therefore, we, we have a very blatant contradiction which is going on here.

So from all of these considerations, we can have a little bit of a, uh, of a sapiential consideration before, um, I close it off here. So from this consideration, we can also see why through the Son was a sensible formula to use, and also why it made sense for later Greek fathers to deny that the Son was a cause of the Spirit. And the basis for this is because the participation in the spiration is different. If you think about it, the principle by which is something which is natural, something which is of nature. So the Father possesses, um, the principle by which of the Spirit, uh, principally. So if we think about, uh, for, we think about our example that I always give, you have the, the pond up here, you have the stream going down into the lake down here. So the pond up here principally is going to have the water, and the stream, the stream still has the water, but this stream has the water from, from the, from the pond up here, in order to communicate to the lake. So the participation in the power to spirate is different. The Father has it as a principle, uh, without a principle. This one has as a principle with a principle, because he receives it from the Father. So this is why through the Son makes sense, because the Father spirates the Spirit in, uh, in the communication of the will to the Son, to communication of the will to the Son, and then through this, the Spirit comes. This makes sense. So this is, this is what, uh, Saint Gregory means when he says, quote, "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches. We will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch." So the example he gives is he got these three torches here, the, um, the first torch, you know, you have your, you have your flame up here, you got your torch, you have a, you have the first torch gives the flame to the second torch. So, um, the first torch is the Father, the flame is the Divinity. The Divinity is being communicated to the middle. And how does the first communicate the Divinity to the third? Through means of the middle one, because the second one is just going to tip over and touch that last torch and give the Divinity there. That's, that is the filioque of Saint Gregory, from the Father through the Son to the Spirit. So the first torch is going to principally and immediately communicate the flame, and then the second one is going to principally immediately, uh, communicating it. So it makes perfect sense that the Eastern fathers speak of through the Son. That the later Greek fathers denied the Son was a cause, since the Son was not the, uh, principal possessor or main font or source of the Spirit.

Okay, so, um, be good Astros explaining everything for me. Okay, so that's all I have. Um, if you appreciated this, all 24 of you, dang, you guys really should get a job or something. This is the middle of the day. I mean, I also should get a job as well, just kidding, I already have one. But, um, yeah, if you appreciated this, uh, I know after insulting you saying that you had no jobs because you're watching me, I know a lot of you watch me, watch me at work. I, I know. I'm just, I'm just messing with you guys. I'm just messing with you guys. Don't, don't get too offended. So if you appreciated this, um, definitely consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/ist. Make sure you share that playlist or this video to your Eastern Orthodox friends, uh, get a good discussion going. And make sure, especially above all, that you read, pick up and read a book, please. I'm begging you. Pick up and read a book. Great, very easy, at least I think very easy volume on the Trinity is, uh, something like Joseph Pohle's, The Divine Trinity. I think it's The Divine Trinity is what it's called. See Joseph Pohle, it's part of his Dogmatic, um, I remember what they title it. The Divine Trinity, yeah, The Divine Trinity, a Dogmatic Treatise by Joseph Pohle, something like that. It's good, very simple, easy manual. Or if you want to support me, and so this is the, this is the better option, I reprinted this fantastic volume, um, from written by a bunch of Dominicans in the 1950s. It's called The Theology Library. Um, it's basically a, um, a theological manual that's meant for, uh, smart laymen. So the, uh, it's lulu.com/spotlight/militantthomas. If you look up The Theology Library, volume two, that's going to be on the Trinity. So, um, it's by Father Antoine Marcel Henry, O.P. If you just look up my name there. Oh, I have a super chat that I can answer. Yeah, definitely check out this volume. That's really, really good introduction to the doctrine of God and doctrine of Trinity. Very, very good. You'll enjoy it a lot, um, very much. Okay, so the question, I guess I can answer. Uh, yeah, Thursday is my off day. So, so based, why does the Holy Spirit produce another person? So if we remember back, uh, to the discussion of the proximate principle by which, the proximate principle by which has to be some sort of faculty. So, uh, I talk by my, uh, vocal cords. I, um, I don't know, I punch by my fist. I don't know. I think of a bunch of different examples of your various faculties acting in, uh, in some way. Um, but when it comes to God, as intellectual, it's two faculties, the will and the intellect. The will and the intellect. One order towards truth, one order towards goodness, towards form, one orders towards end. So, uh, with these two faculties, these are proximate principles by which. So with the begetting of the Son, the begetting of the Son is by way of intellection. So the begetting of the Son, uh, is something which is perfect and entire. It's communication of the entire Divinity that happens through this procession. So since it's this production of another person, which is, uh, which possesses the entire Divinity, it's completely exhausted. There's nothing left to give, so to speak. There's nothing left to give. So that, uh, principle, uh, by which, proximate principle by which, is exhausted in that procession. So no more persons to produce.

Now, let's look at, uh, so no more persons to produce. When it comes to the, uh, the Spirit, what's the, what's the only other faculty which is left? Remember I said there's two faculties, the intellect and the will. There's only one faculty left, that's the will. Now, it's not, we don't say willing in the sense of some sort of voluntary choice, because that would make the Spirit a creature. Rather, we speak of some sort of emanation from the faculty. That's the more proper way of speaking. And we don't really have, um, in, in human language, a term for this. With, uh, with the intellect, we speak of the Word. The Word is a sort of that sort of emanation from the faculty. So, uh, the term Spirit's fine, uh, for a sort of emanation, uh, from the faculty. So, uh, that's the second, uh, faculty right there. There's the emanation from the will. So now, if you've exhausted, because there's the production of an infinite term, that is the communication of the entire Divinity. If you've exhausted both faculties, no more faculties, zero faculties left to, uh, to have, um, these communications, uh, current. These imminent communications are current. No other faculties left. Nothing left to give. Imminently speaking, transiently, you can still have production of creation or whatever, but imminently speaking, there's nothing left to give. So, um, the Holy Spirit isn't going to produce a faculty with fruitfulness to give, um, to communicate the entire Divinity. So that's why the Spirit is not going to produce another person. Where the Son, since the Son is second in order, since intellection naturally proceeds, uh, volition, intellectuals and scientific relation, the Son is going to possess the will, uh, the will with, okay, the Spirit possessed the will as well, but the will with fecundity, with fruitfulness, uh, to the production of an infinite term. It hasn't been exhausted yet, as it is exhausted when, uh, possessed by the Spirit. But great question, um, very good question. Um, I think Astro has been cleaning up, uh, for me in the, um, comment section. Okay, let me see. I don't see anything else. I don't see any super chats or anything like that. Looks like I got everything. Okay, thank you, everybody. Remember Patreon, and also, uh, that book right, right there. Uh, that's the insane, um, the insane URL. But here is the, uh, the easier URL. I'll put it up right now. There you go. Lulu.com/spotlight/militantthomas. You should be able to get that great volume on the Trinity, or Pohle, if you want to. Okay, thank you. And as always, God bless.