Reflecting deeply upon the necessary meme for the present age.

I know this is supposed to be like a “omg Trump got owned” sorta thing, but I have met exactly two women in my entire life who owned alienware computers. As it so happens, those same women were the most terrifyingly competent human beings I had ever seen.

Nobody can ever convince me this isnt 100% historically accurate.

Absolute Ratzinger W. "The formula 'co-redemptrix' departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers... Everything comes from Christ...The word 'co-redemptrix' would obscure this unique mediatorship... It is not part of the Desposit of Faith."

I was Catholic. A Thomist. I studied history. I became Protestant in full.

Perhaps I can come to love Augustine yet.

Theology has very wide reaching implications.

Absolutely beautiful icon.

Never thought I’d see the day Rome converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but here we are. christianunity.va/content/da…

Christianity needs to return to its Gnostic, esoteric roots in full before Irenaeus threw a hissy fit and screwed up the meaning of that word for all of history.

Hard to imagine a better illustration of the way Catholics are more Protestant than most Protestants.

lul. credit to @sofia_ascent

"Anathema to those who knowingly communicate with" iconoclasts is unreal. Kind of amazing, to be honest. I'm effectively an iconoclast, which means just speaking with me on Twitter causes both Catholics AND EO to anathematize themselves. Which is kinda cool, tbh.

Cant wait to dive into this one!!

If I had a Plato fetish and also had a secret affair I wanted to keep under wraps, “platonically” is a hell of a word to kill two birds with one stone.

Actually, it looks like we got the W here. Better luck next time.

No one ever believes me when I say that STATUES are like 700 billion times higher risk if idolatry than simple icons

Ok ok, you guys got me: its technically not alienware. But like I made a goofy joke off a life experience with two women gamers. Please dont pile on all this misogyny for a girl doing her 9-5.

Melchizedek singlehandedly refutes all of Rome.

This is just badass. Truly. Im down with that 100%. Just bracket Chalcedon a second and appreciate this for what it is, guys.

"All Fathers of the Church say clearly that she is Co-Redemptrix with Christ." Why do they do this. People can read Patristics for themselves. Some of us even study them daily, and theres literally nothing whatsoever every patristic agrees on. NOTHING 🤣 Everyday Catholics push me one step closer to just abandoning my reverence for Mary altogether.

Roman Catholic apologist leaves Twitter in hours after realizing his Church was the foundation of modern views on abortion.

Ratzinger's denial of a graduate student's request to rewrite the beginning of their dissertation after recognizing they had learned so much since arriving at the end: "You need the courage to live with the imperfect." [And yes, this is the only correct picture of Ratzinger by which he ought to be remembered.]

Normally my page is like Christian stuff, but I’m also taking a Moo Deng holiday. Highly recommended.

Literally like all my Catholic followers just straight up double down on Mary to the extent it is actually mindblowing to me that *moderate, sane reverence for the Mother of God* is just not possible for 99.9% of the human race. Either you're one of those Protestants insisting that she wasnt even a *little bit* more "blessed" than anyone else, in spite of that stonks Magnificat. Or you're a Kolbe-tier Catholic insisting she was transubstantiated into the Trinity. And such will the chasm on Mary always remain.

I'm no iconoclast, and I got plenty of respect for the Theotokos, but like....can't we just be reasonable about this once in a while? Maybe like Protestants are at least occasionally correct that at least some behavior *does* idolize? That whatever the depicted might be, there is STILL a way of idolizing it? I don't know, but I suspect that might be true, and this is definitely that type of idol worship in my mind. And Im about as far from Protestant as it gets, guys. "Less Protestant than the pope," I've been told. But yeah, I think this is idolatry.

"For men, it is impossible. But for God, all things are possible."

Precisely this. Plenty of christians hold to ancient terminology. They just dont become whiny and petulant when people dont call them what they want. The repeated idea from Cathoics that any of this is malicious on RZ's part is just ridiculous. I stand with many of RZ's recent choices and arguments.

I didnt even realize it was yours, but its superb. You've had some excellent memes, by the way

I have to admit I was really excited to witness a Thomist discuss Scripture and Patristics. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting to witness it.

Today we'll begin a new series I'll be running named "Scandalous Patristic Secrets" wherein we'll cover what Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy don't want you to know about the Patristics they have wholly misrepresented to you. For our very first Patristic of choice, we'll look briefly at a late Patristic that is the living image of Martin Luther himself: Maximus the Confessor. Maximus the Confessor enters the historical scene in highly suspect ways. Despite being an admirable defender of the pristine Nicene Creed, Maximus nevertheless falls deeply into the blasphemy of defending Rome herself. And it doesn't end there! Maximus even went so far as to accuse an interlocutor of interpolation merely for citing the life-giving words of Cyril of Alexandria's christology: "singular kindred operation"! Could such a man, having once fallen into the pits of Nestorianism, ever rise again to light and truth? Indeed, the God who makes all things new can sanctify even such a lost cause as Maximus. In this way, God brought Maximus from darkness into glory and illumination. As much is most fittingly illustrated by an episode during Maximus's trials before heretics. During said trial, Maximus was informed by his interlocutors that Rome would be entering union with a heretical Patriarch and that all other patriarchs would follow suit shortly thereafter. Now, both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy will tell you at this point that Maximus responded in the following way: "Certainly, then, I must be mistaken. What I think is heresy simply can't be so, in view of the fact that it is impossible God would permit all those seats to fall at once." But of course, that is a load of horseshit that Maximus didn't say! What did Maximus actually say? "Even if the whole universe should enter communion with that man, I shall NOT! For I know from the words of the holy apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit would anathematize even an angel who dared to preach another Gospel!" Why would Maximus do such a thing? Because such a Church would not, in fact, be the "Catholic Church" in his eyes. On the contrary, the Catholic Church is ultimately constituted by Peter's confession itself, even capable of subsisting in only a single man making said confession- "The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church represented the correct and saving confession of the faith in Him wherein He called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him." Thus was Maximus led away to suffer in exile as a confessor for the true Christian faith as indeed a certain Martin Luther would be many centuries later. Saint Maximus the Confessor, patron saint of Martin Luther, pray always that Christ's true Church will remain a steadfast witness to the Gospel in the face of blasphemous heresies and institutional corruptions. Keep us always free from the manipulations and lies of both Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy. Amen.

If thats the Kevin Gallagher I think it is, he is probably the cruelest man I’ve ever met in my life to the point that some of my friends actually suffer psychological trauma long after time spent in his presence. I dont know what occurred in this case and dont care terribly what did, but think twice about defending someone like him. Things are utterly never as they seem with someone like him.

Eastern Orthodox actually know their scriptural texts, their Dead Sea Scrolls, their canonical development, their Patristic contributions thereof, Jerome's failures... So on and so forth- you might want to be careful about that scriptural fidelity bit because it will come back to bite you enormously. The Masoretic text line is not at all easy to defend these days.

Quite probably the most beautiful paragraph DBH has written and a legitimately flawless understanding of everything De Lubac ever represented.

Obligatory Reminder: "You know how to ball, I know Aristotle." is probably the single worst song lyrics ever written. Getting engaged does not redeem those horrendous lyrics, nor does it make up for the fact Taylor Swift is the absolute filthiest of all Aristotelians. Do NOT fall for her wiles, and do NOT drop your guard around known Swifties.

Very, very silly. The Cappadocians are brilliant. The Nicene Creed was almost entirely composed by the work of Gregory of Nyssa. Virtually half the canon of the New Testament was singlehandedly confirmed by Origen. Chrysostom's own exegesis is comprehensive and extraordinary at almost every point. In truth, the west will never appreciate eastern theology in full precisely to the extent it continues to have an allergy to dionysius. Because- when you understand dionysius- you see in absolute clarity why so many eastern Patristics point directly to that Essence-Energy distinction the West absolutely despises. Frankly, I spent a decade and a half as a Thomist because I encountered eastern Patristics, and it quite literally saved my faith. Take that for what its worth.

Reminder that inherited guilt is a 2nd second century Gnostic heresy that is uniquely heinous to King David and his necessarily-uncircumcized son.

You forget the classic attribution, though “- Martin Luther” “Try this one simple trick! PAPISTS HATE IT!!”

"Catholic ecumenists, I should point out, often misconstrue the nature of the Orthodox distrust of their good will. It is not simply the case that the Orthodox are so fissiparous and jealous of their autonomy that the Petrine office appears to them a dangerous principle of homogeneity, to which their fractious Eastern wills cannot submit. Rather, it more often than not appears to be a dangerous principle of plurality. After all, under the capacious canopy of the papal office, so many disparate things find common shelter. An obvious example: three men are called Patriarch of Antioch in the Roman communion (Melkite, Maronite, and East Syrian)—which suggests that the very title of patriarch, even as regards an apostolic see, is merely honorific, because the only unique patriarchal office is the pope’s. [...] Now, of course, this plurality of patriarchs is an accident of history; but it is also an insufferable situation. We surely must acknowledge that the apostolic dignity of a patriarchate should not be reduced to an honorary title attached to a metropolitan responsible for one rite among others within his jurisdiction. And the very notion that the pope could possibly possess the authority to ‘appoint’ a patriarch in another see is an historical and theological nonsense for which the Orthodox should rightly have no patience whatsoever." -DBH

I dont often wish to agree with Taylor Marshall, but I’ve followed this story for some time, and he’s absolutely correct on this one. There is no reasonable explanation Rupnik’s artwork still adorns the Vatican after so many credible allegations have been made, the man was cast out of the Jesuits for further cause, and Church organizations widely decided to cover or remove his art. So far as I can tell, the Vatican alone will not do even that much.

1. Like perma-celibacy? If so, then yes: prostate risk goes up. Only a bit, but people arent as forthcoming about that as they should be imo. Especially when everything is framed in terms of “natural”. 2. I doubt it’d be hard to embrace the desire again in theory. In practice, it will mostly be about whether you foresee yourself having to return to celibacy shortly thereafter. In which case, it might be a pain to have to develop habits and virtues specific to celibacy from scratch all over again.

A temporary pin paying tribute to the most important part of Origenism. Credit to @pwhhjr

This is exactly correct. The underlying presupposition in the midst of arguments making pretense to the contrary is nothing other than that of the classic Arian presupposition when they constituted some 55%-60% of christendom before they were snuffed out: "Surely you cant imagine that God permitted the Church to fall into such a pathetic state of affairs as this! Undoubtedly, hades prevailed against your Church, whether you like it or not. Just accept that we are the successors of the apostles and your councils are robber councils." The difference between Arians and Catholics is simply the application of this assumption on a larger scale. We've been waiting 2000 years for that eschaton and we may well be waiting another 20,000. We've been waiting for Christianity to be accepted by all men, and not merely geographically, and there may well come a time it is. Or not. But what seems obviously true to me is that a given moment in history is always epistemically limited and that the present "winner" will always appeal to their own position of strength, disguising it as a theological argument therein. When- in truth- it was never anything other than a simple contingency of history, willed or not willed by God for reasons that will largely remain inaccessible to us this side of paradise. That is indeed the virtually-universal subtext to every popular argument Catholics continue to make daily.

I'm tripling down on Origen, guys. Hes the only true counterbalance in all of Christianity to these hideous Augustinian heresies and apostasies. It is what it is. Pray for us, Saint Origen, that we might be free of all these horrible Augustinianisms. As you once condemned so perceptively all who held to Inherited Guilt as the most literal and blasphemous heretics, so today we ask you to intercede before the most high to save Christianity from those same ancient heresies that has ever haunted it since Augustine himself. And Gregory of Nyssa, who also similarly and explicitly condemned any who held to inherited guilt as the "most heretical fraud of belief", intercede for us as well. Amen.

The Filioque from the Perspectives of Gregory of Nyssa and the Council of Blachernae (1285) summarized in the absolute, clearest form in which I can possibly express it.

The fact that Origen was damned and Augustine is a saint is the single most definitive falsification of infallibility on absolutely all sides that could ever have been fathomed.

David Bentley Hart speaking my language: "I was drawn eastward by the Greek and Syrian fathers, and by the total absence of any element of the late Augustine’s theology in the Orthodox tradition"

Ever wondered what caused Roman Catholicism to betray the sanctity of life to the point that the Ecumenical Council of Vienne dogmatically hereticized theologians who believed life began at conception? Or why- when abortifacient usage was so horrendously widespread- God sent them a prophet in the man of Pope Sixtus V? And why he issued an infallible decree affirming all human life from the moment of conception that was nevertheless revoked in only 3 years? Me too. Which is why I've been studying this topic extensively. If you are Catholic and pro-life, I strongly urge you to contact your local bishop and request the Ecumenical Council of Vienne be annulled as soon as possible. Until then, you dogmatically affirm delayed hominization every time you receive the Eucharist. For the present, these are some summary materials you can use to familiarize yourself with this issue. Do understand that this had absolutely nothing to do with biological ignorance, as is commonly. This position- widely embraced and justified for about 700 years- is wholly logically entailed from basic Thomistic metaphysics if you so much as acknowledge that a single sensory function requires a developed biological organ to function. That's all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or deluding themselves. The selection of Thomistic metaphysics I've provided in the follow up comment should speak for itself. This thread will be locked, updated, and unrolled from time to time.

TFW the icons betray you 😂

There is nothing that so infuriates Rome and Eastern Orthodox more than reminding them that you can read Origen yourself, coming to love and adore your Lord Jesus Christ ever incarnate for you in the Scriptures under the flesh of the letter... And there is NOTHING they can do to stop you. And you can further remind them that they've been lying about their New Testament canon forever. That set of 27 books is the work and decision of Origen himself, NOT them. In fact, it turns out that condemning the man who decided the New Testament canon doesn't make that man a "heretic". It makes THEM the heretics. True story, that one.

A convo with an eastern Catholic "...but dont you believe in the Filioque?" "Hell no." "What about the Council of Florence?" "Local council." "........." "Theres a pious opinion it was ecumenical but the Church in Her wisdom does not have a canonical list of councils."

Meanwhile: The Catholic Church formally canonizes Isaac of Nineveh, arguably top 3 most hilariously explicit universalists in all of history itself. Who was never even in visible union with Rome! 🤣🤣🤣

Hint hint: Not even his own Church believes what he believes. Or they could never have justified lifting the excommunication from the start. Or letting Eastern Rite Catholics off the hook on the Creed. Or bishops (and Francis, I've read) widely withdrawing the condemnation of Second Lyons (attached). Well, I mean, TECHNICALLY their excommunication was invalid the whole damn time because Cardinal Humbert rather flubbed it by waiting until the Patriarch's seat was empty before executing it. I always thought that was pretty humiliating you know? If you're gonna have a nice 1000-year schism, it seems like you'd at least dot your i's and cross your t's on that excommunication. Otherwise it'd look a heck of a lot like we were in union with Rome the whole damn time, and condemning us meant condemning yourself. But surely I've misunderstood?

Pertinent: An old favorite of mine from the Onion.

That Charlie experienced something of real doubt about what otherwise appeared to be an unqualified support of Israel is one of the things that made me consider something of real sincerity in him. And I suspect he had something of genuine fear about what might happen to his family if he ever publically and reversed an otherwise clear stance on the issue. That doesnt mean I am blaming Israel for what happened. It does mean that I hope people give something of weight to the complexity of his character and choices.

Maximus the Confessor utterly shredding the "Jesus is a human person" position in Ambiguum 5.

This fact of chalcedon is so darn funny. Not everyone wanted to depose dioscurus. So when they took the vote at Chalcedon, they actually inflated the side voting to depose Dioscurus tallying votes from the members of the Trinity and St. Peter himself. True story.

You do realize that Mark of Ephesus’s Basil Letter was proven authentic by extensive philology right? And not some silly exegetical roundabout. Similarly, Montenero’s was interpolated rather decisively. In short, Mark of Ephesus bore witness to the actual faith of the Patristics. God sold the Thomists out to yet another of many historical forgeries.

They are offering their interpretation of WHICH magisterial interpretations are themselves binding or even *count as magisterial* in the first place. The important thing to see- Neither Magisterium nor Tradition resolves the fact of competing interpretations. It exacerbates it

Of all the woman to complain about on twitter, you picked this one.

JDW solved the perennial question of the "unforgivable" sin!

Please pray for a family member of mine. Thank you.

Its just a fact that Peter founded the Church of Antioch and appointed his first successor well before Rome was founded. As Alexandria was also founded before Rome. It's just objectively false to say Christianity didn't exist without Rome.

Absolutely chad. WAAAAY ahead of his time. I always wondered whether like even one saint thought to ask, "Isnt it weird to only punish the women in cases of adultery?"

Why are Thomists even allowed to discuss sexual ethics? this one still haunts me some nights.

For anyone even remotely interested in the Filioque, I sincerely hope you'll consider reading this summary. It is- in my view- that simplest and clearest summary possible of the eastern position that is also substantiated by what I regard to be some of the most explicit references. In the future, I aim to distill the views of Cyril, Basil, Augustine, Thomas, and the Council of Florence itself in the same level of clarity.

I liked @Young_Anglican because he made me laugh. And I historically get along well with Anglicans. But as it turns out, the man is an actual, bonafide prophet sent by the Most High Himself.

Its funny because- looking around at even the maga crowd of late- theres so so many people who had exactly this type of experience with him and are readily sharing all the ridiculous things he's done and said. But most of even them are clueless. This man's been at it for at least 15 years and is apparently still going strong. Just unreal. And he'll play the victim card ruthlessly all day long. He was the first man I ever encountered that believed pure, unadulterated humiliation was a necessary means to charity. And in the name of Christianity, too. No joke. I might even still have that conversation because I had found it so repulsive and unbelievable. Everyone who has ever defended him has come to regret it many times over. Don't end up like us. We were dumb. You dont have to be.

It's legitimately not a liturgy. Nevertheless, if it were a liturgy, it would be wholly the fault of the Latins and their damn Filioque.

An absolute classic. Catholicism: The Gospel of *Comfort* and *Hope*

I really wish these sorts of people would simply have been left to God’s own judgments, mercy, and understanding in the end without solemn canonization. What they are and arent culpable for isnt for me to know. But regarding them as models of faith proper is just so disturbing. And has been a legitimately significantly element of my own reflection upon Christianity’s cult of saints for a long time.

WOAH NOW. "The pillar of the faith" is an honorific that was given to Cyril of Alexandria!! And this is particularly ironic, considering that Chalcedon was actually checking Leo's own Tome for heresy...against *Cyril*. Suggesting Leo was NOT seen as a "pillar" at the time! 🤣

This is from St. Maximus's letter to Marinus of Cyprus, and it is- so far as I am aware- the absolute earliest evidence of dispute about the Filioque. What does it tell us? -The terminological issue of ekpouresis v proenai was identified immediately. -The West- and certainly Pope Martin I- believed that the Father alone was the cause of the Spirit -They believed the Latin Patristics themselves recognized this -They intended to use "procedere" at the time to convey proenai instead of the Creed's original ekpouresis -Maximus was- in fact- amenable to this as long as they made further linguistic specification to avoid the obvious confusion that would result. So what happened? They didnt make further specification, and extensive confusion resulted, as Maximus foresaw. And then they refused to even acknowledge the Father alone as cause of the Spirit after a certain point. Remarkable.

Pray for Charlie Kirk and pray for our country. It is easy for any white conservative to be outraged right now, and I wouldnt even blame you if you are. Nevertheless, temper the reaction and direct it to constructive ends, political or otherwise. Don’t be merely reactionary. Be *effective*.

Awkward, since he was indeed the first to determine all 27 books of the New Testament. Is named a Patristic by Athanasius. Refuted Arius before Arius was even born. Suffered as a literal confessor tortured extensively without apostasy. Then died as an effective martyr from those same wounds thereafter. Before being viciously maligned thereafter for many things he demonstrably didnt believe, including the Pre Existence he personally had condemned as heretical. And the one thing that people do remember of him- Universalism- was always and everywhere qualified by statements of this sort: “I propose this as what scripture herein teaches in this passage, but only insofar as it is pleasing to the Church, the spotless bride of Christ.” If you consider such a man a heretic, then I’d like to invite you to read the Gospels.

This is indeed what Christ meant by "Call no man Father." It was never truly about usage of the term "Father" itself. It was always about the proper object of worship in prayer, that ultimately admits of no intermediate other than the One Mediator between Man and God.

You do realize Christianity existed before the Vulgate, right? And Peter founded the seat of Antioch before he even founded the Church of Rome? What are you even thinking, Candace?

Porphyry recounting a moment between Plotinus and Origen. and a BRUTAL burn of Longinus.

Alright, I'm not a Filioque specialist. It just so happened Erick picked the exact wrong passage of Augustine, so I did my thing. And now everyone's messaging me asking me to talk about the Filioque. When mostly I just enjoy exegeting Patristics. Nevertheless, sometimes people do bring up very very good passages, and maybe I'll share them now and them. This is from Gregory of Nyssa's "Not Three Gods". With some brief commentary on the important and relevant Filioque points.

The demographic you're thinking of is ironically the greatest supporters of Sarah because he is the most far right of the right...by far. Things get awfully confusing in theological politics. But if you're a medievalist, you know that well enough.

On the bright side, you can’t commit the Filioque heresy if you dont recite the Creed.

Yes. I didnt make the meme, but its undoubtedlt 100% intentional, lul

RZ, I want to hear your explanation for this. Honestly curious on this. And I wont judge you regardless of what you say. You're just something of a benchmark, if thats cool. I'll play Nestorius a minute- Christ only suffered according to his human nature. Certainly, he couldnt have suffered according to his divine nature. Similarly, Mary is only His mother according to His human nature. CERTAINLY not according to His divine nature. Thus, we should obviously speak of her as the Christotokos instead of the the Theotokos. Because the Christotokos means she was mother of Him as a person, but according to human nature. But Theotokos is wholly inappropriate just as saying he suffers in his divine nature would be inappropriate.

Weird that she is comfortable using terminology like “Metabolic rift” “Disruption of energy circuits” “Historicist ideological critiques of the Romantic imagination” … But she struggled to express the sentence, “we want food”

The proper understanding of original sin.

Unbelievably fascinating. Anyone with basic history under their belt has some passing familiarity with the character of Mark of Ephesus. But the story of his presence at the Council of Florence is just extraordinary. First, he appeals to Dun Scotus's interpretation of Gregory of Nyssa's work [attributed to St. Basil at the time] to walk a Thomist straight into Arianism. Afterwards, he simply condemns them in *silence*. Credit to @Daniel4unme for bringing this to my attention.

Finally!! Rome admits it does not possess the exclusive Deposit of Faith to which it previously made claim.

I've been informed that incels now have a patron saint

There was also this. In this case, I think Buffalo was totally fine. There was some innocent saint slander on both sides, but the RC definitely pulled out the pedophile card too fast. Buffalo drove it home as needed

It should not have taken Mel Gibson for people to realize this.

Confirmed: Gavin Ortlund has too small a mind to comprehend Origen. "I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be ‘all in all,’ means that He is all in each individual person. Now He will be all in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be all, for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near: nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the possession of good, and to whom God is all." So then, when the end has been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him all, and that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number, but He Himself is all in all. And when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be all in all."

When you're cross checking filioque sources on Gregory of Nazianzus, and you discover that he quite LITERALLY says: "Cease your babbling, for all that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, *except Causality*."

Last scandalous share for now

The fact Augustine is most commonly cited as a proof for the Filioque blows my mind. He is literally THIS explicit in Book 15, Chapter 17 of his De Trinitate: "And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father *ALONE* is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word 'principally,' because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also." Common Sense Summary: "I herein affirm that the Son and the Holy Spirit are caused by the Father alone. However, the word 'procession' admits of multiple meanings. Thus I use the qualifier 'principally' whenever I speak of the Spirit's causal procession from the Father alone, as distinct from the way the Spirit may otherwise be considered to proceed from both." In such a simple convention, Augustine navigated the linguistic issues of the Filioque in a manner perfectly consistent with the Cappadocians, and he completely avoids the constant confusion caused by the fact Jerome used "procedere" to translate both the "ekporeuesthai" of John 15:26 (the foundation of the Creed's statement) and the generic, unspecified "proienai" elsewhere. All the west had to do was acknowledge Jerome had collapsed the meaning of multiple different words in his translation to the Vulgate and adopt a simple convention to distinguish between those different meanings. Yet, when even Augustine was willing to acknowledge the unique manner in which the Spirit issues forth from the Father alone, the Council of Florence simply would not do so. Absolutely astounding.

One could quibble translation, but “crucify” is absolutely plausible. Its real. As is the RIDICULOUS amount Paul took from Plato as a hellenized Jew. Which I’m down with, personally. The Spirit just forgot to tell us Plato was canonized between Wisdom Literature and Major Prophets.

Another Latinizer utterly eviscerated by the spherically resurrected face of Origen himself. Will the carnage ever cease?!

Unbelievable. Despite months of Catholics and Orthodox telling me Augustine DIDNT have ecumenical councils in mind by his expression “plenary councils of the universal Church”… See the attached. Augustine never believed in the infallibility of ecumenical councils.

Challenge: identify any theological topic on which DBH does not have extremely strong and outspoken opinions. Difficulty: *Impossible*

Chesterton is precisely what Plato had in mind when he talked about Sophists: the ability and competence to persuade through absolutely anything but substance. I once was quite taken with Chesterton in my youth. Eventually I realized he was simply my first experience with a particular form of rhetoric for which I was a total sucker. Just the suckiest of suckers. Thats the sort of experience one learns quite a bit from.