Aquinas vs. Palamas

Thanks I'll have a search for those.

this entire video is pointless

Meme monastery is some on Steven Anderson level autism
They are the Catholic equivalent of FWBC

Grace isn't a substance

Please, do not insult us.

Dyer just now on twitter challenged Most Meme Monastery to a debate, lol.

putting philosophy of pagans above holy scripture,さすがcatholicsだね

B-but Maimonides wasn't Pagan, he was Jewish!

Where in scripture is the essence-energies distinction deliberately, clearly and explicitly taught?

is novus ordo watch the meme monastery?

My mistake, that's not meme monastery.

That's rich coming from the tradition that starts with profane philosophy and then tries to tack on revelation as an afterthought.

Is that your final answer?

First: not above the Scripture, but to give us deeper understanding of the Scripture.

Second: Scholasticism is an explicitly Christian philosophy. What's more, objective facts about the world (whence the Divine simplicity is deduced from) aren't pagan. Is the law of non-contradiction pagan? Are laws of logic pagan? If not - consider why this is the case. If yes - how can you even study anything in theology if logic is pagan?

As St. Gregory of Nazianzus said:

Attached: IMG8581-1024x1024.jpg (1024x1024, 160.95K)

t. arian

my sides

Attached: PoliticalGrug.jpg (1200x1194, 254.17K)

Where is the scriptural evidence for essence energy distinction? Where is the evidence there is none? Orthodox and Catholics please respond

Where is the filioque clearly taught?

...

What I mean by clearly taught is something like "Who proceeds from the father", not imagery present in a book filled with symbolism.

As shown in John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:". The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father alone and is sent from The Father to us though the Son. Likewise Jesus Christ came to be incarnate by the Holy Ghost, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 1:18).
The River of the water of life starts from the throne of God (The Father) and through the Lamb (Jesus). The Holy Ghost proceeds from The Father, sent to us through the Son.

Yes it's very symbolic, but what does that symbolism mean? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Clear, explicit.

Where does the bible clearly teach that?
There can be only one procession of the Holy Spirit. If He proceeds from the Son at any point He proceeds from eternity past.
Entire Godhead is involved in every act of God, taking different roles based upon the relations. Even though He made Jesus in Mary's womb, the Holy Spirit acted subordinately to the Son in the Incarnation, and in all things.
This is expressed in the word filioque
If the Holy Spirit comes to us from the Son, and cannot be had apart from the Son, He must come from the Son eternally, since there is one Spirit and one Son.

Well its just how orthodox say the filioque is arian subordination of the spirit or semi-sabellianism, its tit for tat.

Why can't you show scriptural evidence for essence energy distinction?

What does this even mean?

New Dyer kino.

John 15:26. If Jesus wanted to say the spirit proceeds from him and the father he could have said "Then the spirit of truth who proceeds me and my father", instead we get the clear relationship, the Ghost proceeds from the father and is sent to us through the son.
That's not a double procession anymore than the president sending a letter to the prime minister of Canada through his secretary who typed it.
If the Son is made incarnate of the Holy Ghost does that mean he is made incarnate eternally by him?
Any scriptural references to this? By saying the Ghost is subordinate in all things you violate the trinity being coequal. By saying the Ghost is eternally subordinate to the Son you are effectively saying that the son is greater and superior to the Ghost.
It isn't. Filioque means "and the son" and the words before are "who proceeds from the father". Hence filioque means eternal procession of the Ghost from the son and the father, instead of the Ghost being sent temporal through the son in the manner the son was sent temporal to us through the Ghost.
The ghost is held apart from the son. He is eternally proceeding from the father and is sent to us through the son temporarily. By your own logic since the son came to us from the ghost (made incarnate of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost) and cannot be had apart from the son, he must be incarnate and come from the ghost eternally, divine there is one spirit and one son.

The whole doctrine of filioque attacks the trinity and creates a duality, instead of one God in three persons we have one God in two persons, where the spirit is simply the energy between the father and son instead of an actual person. The cultural artwork of the east and west shows it, with the orthodox art we get three persons, in the Catholic we get two people and a dove.

Attached: the-holy-trinity-orthodox-christian-gold-silver-foiled-icon-9.jpg (725x800 560.22 KB, 154.68K)

You are on the same level as protestants who talk about how catholics worship Mary, and your great argument to defend your fanfic, with its absurd implications of the Filioque, is pretty much "artistic representations".

I dont know what is the point of the creed for you if any heretical group can just feel free to reject it.

So your argument is simply attacking me instead of answering me.
And the artwork is not definitive proof of anything, it's just an interesting facet that shows how the artwork of the east shows three persons whilst the west relegates the spirit to a dove.

2:00 >You can't have proper doctrines of grace without proper christology
Catholics and Orthodox have the same christology, as per the first 7 ecumenical councils which they accept.

3:11
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36841

5:00
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

7:35
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P29.HTM
catholic.com/qa/what-does-the-church-say-about-freemasonry

9:54
That is Monophysitism

theopedia.com/chalcedonian-creed
see also doctrine of communicatio idiomatum:
oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095627845

12:45
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

15:00
In short, it is what the old Scholastics and especially St. Thomas Aquinas called (using a word borrowed from Aristotle which has often been completely misunderstood) an “accidental form” or an “accident”. Call it an accident, or call it a habitus, or “created grace”: these are all different ways of saying (even if one thinks they need various correctives or precisions) that man becomes in truth a sharer in the divine nature (divinae consortes naturae; θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως; 2 Pet 1:4). We do not need to conceive of it as a sort of entity separated from its Source, something like cooled lava—which man would appropriate to himself. On the contrary, we wish to affirm by these words that the influx of God’s Spirit does not remain external to man; that without any commingling of natures it really leaves its mark on our nature and becomes in us a principle of life. This scholastic notion of created grace, so often belittled today, does express the incontrovertible fact that “it is we ourselves, and our creaturely being, which the active presence in us of the Spirit makes divine, without for that reason absorbing us and annihilating us in God” [Louis Bouyer]. (A Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace, pp. 41-42)
afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/oecumenical-grace-catholicism-and-the-divine-life/

Pic related

Attached: trinitypalaiosthemeron.jpg (2249x3141, 1.49M)

I thought Orthodox didn't depict the Father