Author Topic: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"  (Read 1098 times)

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2020, 08:04:33 AM »
The Energies-Essence distinction is incoherent because it implies a literal distinction within the divine essence per se, which contradicts the Council of Nicaea.

When confronted with both these incoherencies, both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike appeal to "God transcending logic," "God is incomprehensible," "It's a mystery, shut up"

The problem, as usual, is that everyone confuses the Western idea of "essence" with the Cappadocian "ousia". It's similar to how the West, and Jay Dyer himself, use the modern idea of "person" to conceptualise "hypostasis", which ir erroneous, as Karl Barth showed, and leads to a de facto tritheism. The distinction of ousia and energeia  does not imply a distinction in the ousia; if ousia and energia can really be distinguished in the first place, the very claim is absurd.

Question: how many "I's" are there in God? If you answered "Three!", you're a tritheist.

But yes, its one thing to claim God cannot be grasped by logic and to leave him as a mystery; it is quite another to claim he transcends logic and that therefore logical contradictions are permissible in ones conceptualisation and theological dogmas of him! That's absurd! Dyerites have some strange ideas about logical inferences being dependent upon unprovable presuppositions for their truth, though this is no more erroneous than classical foundationalist ideas fo logic which dominate Scholasticism and end in the worst kind of rationalism. My rejection of ADS and Scholasticism doesn't mean I'm a Dyerite or Eastern Orrthodox.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2020, 08:19:53 AM by The Theosist »
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2020, 08:07:04 AM »
The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit has been dogmatically defined and solemnly proclaimed by three ecumenical councils of the Church.

The apostolicity of the doctrine is unquestionable. You and Dyer are grasping at straws and vomiting slurs doesn't change that.

I'm well-aware that the ultimate defense of your claim is Roma locuta est, making it unfalsifiable, regardless of any actual facts or sound arguments that demonstrate its contrary.

The idea of absolute divine simplicity has its origin in Neoplatonism and  doesn't appear in "the Church" before , surprise, a Neoplatonist convert becomes one of its "Fathers". Your appeals to authority don't change that.

Two centuries before the birth of the Doctor of Grace, St. Irenaeus already spoke of divine simplicity. It is part of the deposit of faith:

But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. (Isaiah 55:8 ) For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God. (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 13, 3)


This is typical Roman Catholic apologetics when it comes to Patristics: switch the goal posts, and then switch them back. The issue is not simplicity of the divine ousia, which no Eastern Orthodox denies; the issue is the doctrine of absolute divine simplicty, essence = existence = energies = attributes = God = anything at all that can be predicated of God. Nowhere is this taught or implied by Ireneaus. You're a fraud.
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2020, 08:27:04 AM »
.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2020, 08:32:45 AM by The Theosist »
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3067
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2020, 09:43:20 AM »
Ok, I watched the video and it was better than I had hoped for. I still need to look into the history a little more, but I'm fairly convinced. I really liked where St. Thomas argues that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then the Holy Spirit and the Son are the same person. Not sure how anyone can argue against that, without rejecting the simplicity of the divine ousia.
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3067
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2020, 09:51:04 AM »
or because they have a "foul mouth,"

I'd say it has very much to do with it, as a "foul mouth" is indicative of a character defect, ill will, satanic inspiration, or sophistry.
 
The following users thanked this post: Graham, Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Thanked: 3947 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2020, 12:23:01 PM »
Quote
An Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church cannot solemnly teach heresy, much less about the very nature of God. This is self-evident.

This is not "self-evident" to anyone; it's an article of your faith.

It is an article of the Eastern Orthodox faith as well:

We do not believe that everything that anyone happened to say at an Ecumenical Council is infallible, but we most certainly do believe that the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are infallible, and this is because we believe that the Church as a whole, is infallible. Individual members, and even local Churches may err, but it is not possible for the entire Church to teach that which is erroneous—and Ecumenical Councils are certainly an example of what the Church as a whole teaches. Fr. George Florovsky observed: "The teaching authority of the Ecumenical Councils is grounded in the infallibility of the Church. The ultimate ‘authority’ is vested in the Church, which is forever the Pillar and the Foundation of Truth."

By their own criteria, Florence was an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church and its solemn proclamations on the Filioque, Papacy, etc., were, thus, infallible.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2020, 01:01:56 PM »
Ok, I watched the video and it was better than I had hoped for. I still need to look into the history a little more, but I'm fairly convinced. I really liked where St. Thomas argues that if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then the Holy Spirit and the Son are the same person. Not sure how anyone can argue against that, without rejecting the simplicity of the divine ousia.

I hope you realise, firstly, that this argument presupposes the Thomistic doctrine of the Trinity that reduces the "persons" and their distinctions to "relations of opposition" of the divine "substance". Without that presupposition, it in no way follows that the negation of the Filioque annihilates any distinction between Son and Holy Spirit and reduces them to the same "person".

Further to that, if this does annihilate the distinction between Son and Holy spirit, then it's clear that to Aquinas "generation" and "spiration" have no meaning other than as relations in his logical game, for if they did have more meaning that that, we would in being able to distinguish them also distinguish Son and Holy Spirit regardless of the Filioque. If nothing else, this is laughable from the point of view of scripture and the Christian experience, in which the Son incarnates as a human being and the Holy Spirit serves as the literal inspiration of Christians, and we would distinguish them from this fact, which depends in no logical way upon the Filioque and would distinguish these in reality regardless of it.

But let's try an unpack this. Bear with me, as I'm attempting this on the fly.

Say we have a, b, c (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and d (the divine essence), and we have an idea of what d is.  Further, we have a binary relation "=" that is not transitive, for which hold at least a=d, b=d, c=d (each person "is" the essence) and a!=b!=c!=a!=c!=b!=a (none of the persons "is" any other). We should see right away that this relation is not the ordinary one of identity, which is reflexive (a=a), symmetric (a=b implies b=a) and transitive (a=b and b=c imply a=c) . But this is what Aquinas posits here. He uses "identity" equivocally. That in itself is a problem for any further discussion of his trinitarian theology, because it's really not clear what "identity" is supposed to mean given these relationships. Are the persons identical to the essence in the same sense the persons are not identical with each other? He uses "identity" equivocally, so I'm just going to go with that. But in any case, we want to know how and why these statements all hold and can hold. In fact, Aquinas wants to derive them from "relations of opposition".

Say we introduce three binary relations, let us call them ~1, ~2 and ~3, which are, expressed as sets,

~1 = {(a,b)} (generation)

~2 = {(a,c),(b,c)} (spiration in the filioquist position) (or if you prefer {((a,b),c)}, but for simplicity let's ignore such finer details)

and

~3 = {(a,c)} (spiration in the anti-filioquist position)

We can't have reflexivity or symmetry here, because, e.g., the Father does not generate himself and the Son does not generate the Father.

I emphasise from the start that even if we know what "=" means independently of a, b and c , we don't know what a, b and c are or why "=" doesn't hold between them. These binary relations are supposed to clarify that, but they are themselves defined in terms of a, b and c. Aquinas's position is equivalent to ~1 plus ~2 allow us to define "=" so that the aforegoing relationships hold, but ~1 plus ~3 not only do not allow this but lead to b=c. Let's try that, shall we?

Let S = {a,b,c,d} and define "=" by

x = y if ¬(x ~1 y or x ~2 y) for all x,y ∈ S,

We have a ~1 b, so a!=b; a ~2 c, so a!=c; b ~2 c, so b!=c; but it doesn't work for, e.g., b!=a because ~1 is not symmetric. Well, we can't just tack on some special rules here, because the relations of opposition are supposed to be sufficient to define "=". So let's just drop the directional information in "generation" and "spiration" and have the binary relations denote that there exists a relation of opposition, so

~1 = {(a,b),(b,a)} etc.

This eliminates the previous problem and still leaves us with a=d etc. So far, so good. So what if we replace ~2 with ~3 = {(a,c),(c,a)}? Yes, that indeed leaves us with b=c, unless I've made an error somewhere.

Yes, the manipulation of symbols works, but what does any of this mean? Why should we take "=" to be defined by x = y if ¬(x ~1 y or x ~2 y) for all x,y ∈ S or anything else that might work? That's surely not what we mean by identity in general or a "real distinction", and not why we're supposed to have a=d, b=d and c=d! Certainly there's no evidence this is what the Nicene-era church meant by three distinct hypostases. Indeed, the usual anti-filioquist doesn't even accept a=d, b=d, c=d  and has no reason to define non-identity of hypostases in terms of relations of opposition. And we cannot escape what I said earlier, that "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit", "generation" and "spiration" are reduced by circularity to mere relations of symbols in his logical game; but if any of these terms have meaning outside of that, then the argument that reduces the Son and the Holy Spirit to each other without the Filoque fails.

This kind of game is a fundamental problem of Scholasticism and its extreme form of rationalism. And what could be a more extreme form of rationalism than thinking that thsi kind of analytic a priori reasoning, which fails miserably in producing truths about the world, can dissect and analyse God!


 

Offline The Theosist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 411
  • Thanked: 217 times
  • Religion: Christian
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2020, 01:24:48 PM »
Quote
An Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church cannot solemnly teach heresy, much less about the very nature of God. This is self-evident.

This is not "self-evident" to anyone; it's an article of your faith.

It is an article of the Eastern Orthodox faith as well:

And still not self-evident.

Quote
By their own criteria, Florence was an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church and its solemn proclamations on the Filioque, Papacy, etc., were, thus, infallible.

No. Florence was not an Ecumenical Council at all by the criteria of the Orthodox church. Which is why the Orthodox do not accept it as such, do not commemorate it in their liturgies, and do not accept the Flioque. Roman Catholics presuming to dictate to the Eastern Orthodox what their own ecclesiology and theology is, now that goes beyond audacity into stupidity. To quote the Eastern Orthodox at the "Council" of FLorence itself, "we could on no account be asked to number among the ecumenical councils a synod which not only was never approved, but was even condemned, for the synod mentioned by Your Holiness drew up Acts against Photius". Florence was never approved and was condemned.




 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Thanked: 3947 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2020, 01:45:09 PM »
The Double Procession of the Holy Spirit has been dogmatically defined and solemnly proclaimed by three ecumenical councils of the Church.

The apostolicity of the doctrine is unquestionable. You and Dyer are grasping at straws and vomiting slurs doesn't change that.

I'm well-aware that the ultimate defense of your claim is Roma locuta est, making it unfalsifiable, regardless of any actual facts or sound arguments that demonstrate its contrary.

The idea of absolute divine simplicity has its origin in Neoplatonism and  doesn't appear in "the Church" before , surprise, a Neoplatonist convert becomes one of its "Fathers". Your appeals to authority don't change that.

Two centuries before the birth of the Doctor of Grace, St. Irenaeus already spoke of divine simplicity. It is part of the deposit of faith:

But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. (Isaiah 55:8 ) For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God. (Against Heresies, Book II, Chap. 13, 3)

This is typical Roman Catholic apologetics when it comes to Patristics: switch the goal posts, and then switch them back. The issue is not simplicity of the divine ousia, which no Eastern Orthodox denies; the issue is the doctrine of absolute divine simplicty, essence = existence = energies = attributes = God = anything at all that can be predicated of God. Nowhere is this taught or implied by Ireneaus. You're a fraud.

Irenaeus taught divine simplicity which, of course, is de fide. The maturing and the logical refinement of the dogma over time shouldn't trouble you since it is the same process that led to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance. Ott aptly summarizes the question:

The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.)

The reason lies in the absolute silnplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a Synod at Rheims in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real distinction between God and Godhead (Deus-Divinitas), between the Divine Persons and Their properties (Pater-paternitas), and, according to the accounts of his opponents, also, between the Divine Essence and the Divine Attributes. This accusation can hardly be demonstrated from Gilbert's writings. Against this doctrine, the Synod asserted the factual identity of God with the Godhead, that is with the Divine Nature and the Persons, as well as of God and His Attributes: Credimus et confitemur simplicem naturam divinitatis esse Deum nec aliquo sensu catholico posse negari, quin divinitas sit Deus et Deus divinitas . . .credimus, nonnisi ea sapientia, quae est ipse Deus, sapientem esse, nonnisi ea magnitudine, quae est ipse Deus, magnum esse est (We believe and confess that the divine nature in itself is (identical with) God nor, in any way consonant with Catholic doctrine, can we deny that the divinity is God and God is the divinity. . . . We believe that God is wise by that wisdom which is God Himself, that God is great by that greatness (which is God Himself). D 389. The Union Council of Florence explained in the Decretum pro Jacobitis (1441): "(in God) all is one, where an opposition of relation does not exist." D 703.

In the Greek Church, the 14th century mystic-quietistic Sect of the Hesychasts or Palamites (so-called after the monk Gregory Palamas (+1359) taught a real distinction between the Divine Essence (οὐσία) and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes (ἐνέργεια). While the former was claimed to be unknowable, the latter was claimed to be vouchsafed to humanity in a condition of contemplative prayer (ἡσυχία) through an uncreated Divine light ("Taborlight"). With this they distinguished a higher and a lower, an invisible and a visible side of the Godhead.

Holy Scripture indicates the identity of the Essence and the attributes of God, when it says: "God is charity" (John 4, 8 ). St. Augustine teaches: "What God has, that He is" (Quod habet, hoc est: De civ. Dei XI 10, I). Gilbert's opponents summed up the ecclesiastical doctrine advanced against his error in the words attributed to St. Augustine: Quidquid in Deo est Deus est. Again, the distinction is not a mere mental distinction, as the Eunomians in the 4th and 5th centuries, and the Nominalists in later medieval times taught. According to the Eunomians, all names and attributes of God are synonyms, which express nothing other than agennesie (ingeneratedness) in which we apparently adequately comprehend the Essence of God. According to the Nominalists the distinguishing of several qualities has no basis in the Divine Essence itself, but only in the various operations of God (distinctio cum connotatione effectuum -a distinction connoting effects).

Against the acceptance of a mere logical distinction there is the fact that Holy Scripture refers to many attributes of God. To explain these away as mere synonyms is incompatible with the dignity of Holy Writ. Again the perfections appearing in the "works of God presuppose that God as their Originator Himself possesses them. God is not good because He does good, but He does good
because He Himself is good.

c) According to the Scotists, the difference between God and His attributes is formal (distinctio formalis). A formal difference lies between a real and a purely mental difference. But the acceptance of the notion of various formalities of being which are (actualiter) present in God, previous to and independent of our thinking, is contrary to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Substance.

d) According to the general teaching, the difference is to be conceived as a virtual difference (distinctio virtualis or rationis ratiocinatae sive cum fundamento in re - a virtual distinction, a distinction of ratiotinative reason with a foundation in reality). The distinguishing of many attributes in God has a factual basis in the infinite fullness of the Divine Being. Even if God's Nature is in itself absolutely simple, yet we can only know it in a multiplicity of concepts. Cf. S. tho I 13, 4 : nomina Deo attributa licet significent unam rem, tamen quia significant eam sub rationibus multis et diversis, non sunt synonyma (although the names attributed to God signify the same reality, yet because they signify it under many and diverse aspects, they are not synonymous). The assumed virtual difference is to be more exactly determined as distinctio virtualis minor, since one Divine perfection implicitly includes the other.

(...)

God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)

The 4th Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach that God is an absolutely simple substance or nature (substantia seu natura simplex omnino). D 428, 1782. The expression simplex omnino asserts that with regard to God any kind of composition, whether physical or metaphysical, is out of the question. From this it follows that:

1. God is a pure spirit, that is, God is neither a body nor a composition of body and spirit. The Old Testament, it is true, represents God in a visible human form by the employment of many anthropomorphisms and anthropopachisms. Indirectly, however, it expresses God's spirituality by representing Him as supreme over matter and as the ruler of matter. Men, in distinction to God, are often called" flesh" (cf. Is. 31, 3). The New Testament designates God explicitly a Spirit. John 4, 24: "God is a spirit." 2 Cor. 3, 17: "The Lord is a spirit."

The viewpoint of the Audians or Anthropomorphists, who, in a false interpretation of Gn. I, 26 held God to be a psycho-physical Being, as men are, was rejected by the Fathers as a foolish heresy (stultissima haeresis; St. Jerome). Tertullian, under Stoic influence, and starting from the assumption that everything actual is corporeal, ascribes to the spiritual essences, to God and to the
soul a certain corporeality. Adv. Praxeam 7: Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Speculatively, the immateriality of God is implied by His pure actuality. Since there exists in God no potency, and since for matter potentiality is essential, there can therefore be no matter in God. Cf. s. tho I ,1. I and 2.

2. God is an absolutely simple spirit, that is, in God there is no composition of any kind, of substance or accidents, of essence and existence, of nature and person, of power and activity, of passivity and activity, of genus and specific difference. Holy Writ indicates the absolute simplicity of God when it equates the Essence of God with His Attributes. Cf. I John 4, 8: "God is charity." John 14, 6: "I am the way, the truth and the life." St. Augustine says of the Divine Nature: "It is called simple because it is that which it has, except that which is said of one Person in relation to the Other" (De civ. Dei XI 10, I).

Speculatively the absolute simplicity of God may be derived from His pure actuality. Pure Act is incompatible with any kind of composition, for the composed thing comes later than the composing parts and is dependent on these. Further, a composed thing presupposes an origin, which brings the parts together and thus the parts are in potency to the whole. Cf. S. tho I 3, 7. The existence of virtual differences between the essence and the attributes of God and between the attributes themselves does not controvert the absolute simplicity of God, because the individual attributes do not designate parts of the Divine Essence, but the whole Divine Essence, although from different points of view.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys, truly-a-philosofan

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Thanked: 3947 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2020, 06:01:36 PM »
And still not self-evident.

It is self-evident for Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox that the Church of God cannot solemnly teach heresy.

Quote
No. Florence was not an Ecumenical Council at all by the criteria of the Orthodox church. Which is why the Orthodox do not accept it as such, do not commemorate it in their liturgies, and do not accept the Flioque. Roman Catholics presuming to dictate to the Eastern Orthodox what their own ecclesiology and theology is, now that goes beyond audacity into stupidity. To quote the Eastern Orthodox at the "Council" of FLorence itself, "we could on no account be asked to number among the ecumenical councils a synod which not only was never approved, but was even condemned, for the synod mentioned by Your Holiness drew up Acts against Photius". Florence was never approved and was condemned.

The a posteriori refusal to accept a valid Ecumenical Council is not an argument against it. The Arians refused Nicea, the Nestorians refused Ephesus, etc.

The council was lawfully convened, it was attended by all five patriarchal sees and the reigning Eastern Roman emperor, it issued solemn canons that were ratified by the Church and the Eastern sees were effectively brought into communion. This is a historical fact. Laetentur Coeli happened and the schism was formally healed. The failure of Mark of Ephesus to sign the documents and accept the canons, as well as his subsequent crusade against an Ecumenical Council of the Church, is irrelevant. The refusal to implement Florence in the East and then to condemn it after Byzantium fell to the Turks is also irrelevant, as I already explained.

The Eastern Orthodox condemning Florence has the same meaning as the Old Catholics condemning Vatican I. The teaching authority of the Church, entrusted by Christ to teach and rule all nations, is not dependent upon group A or B accepting its solemn judgments. It is what it is.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2020, 06:41:31 PM »
The MHFM is nutty and this debate is too complicated for me. But has anyone noticed that MHFM is the only trad Catholic group to attempt to convert Prots and "Orthodox" to the traditional Catholic faith?
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3067
  • Thanked: 812 times
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2020, 07:31:34 PM »
The MHFM is nutty and this debate is too complicated for me.

Same here.

Quote
But has anyone noticed that MHFM is the only trad Catholic group to attempt to convert Prots and "Orthodox" to the traditional Catholic faith?

I think I could sort of sense it, but I didn't really notice until now that you've pointed it out. Beats me.
 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2020, 07:43:56 PM »
I think I could sort of sense it, but I didn't really notice until now that you've pointed it out. Beats me.

I will chalk it up to the fact that other organizations have high overhead. For example, the SSPX: they have to operate schools, chapels, seminaries, etc. The Diamonds, as a detractor pointed out, are two brothers in a mobile home (on tax-free donated land). Despite the fact that they have condemned me as schismatic, I am glad they are there and there is a place for them. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't have converted to the traditional Catholic faith.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7043
  • Thanked: 3238 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2020, 08:16:35 PM »
I think I could sort of sense it, but I didn't really notice until now that you've pointed it out. Beats me.

I will chalk it up to the fact that other organizations have high overhead. For example, the SSPX: they have to operate schools, chapels, seminaries, etc. The Diamonds, as a detractor pointed out, are two brothers in a mobile home (on tax-free donated land). Despite the fact that they have condemned me as schismatic, I am glad they are there and there is a place for them. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't have converted to the traditional Catholic faith.

MHFM has the look and proportions of a small farm. Fillmore, New York is itself a pleasant looking spot. They certainly have the physical means for a dignified and useful monastic life, but reportedly it has not happened. The name is spelled Dimond. I know an troublesome person of that surname, no connection whatsoever to the video bros.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • Thanked: 24 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The Trinity & The Filioque: Catholicism Refutes Eastern "Orthodoxy"
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2020, 08:30:18 PM »
They certainly have the physical means for a dignified and useful monastic life, but reportedly it has not happened.

What do you mean?