Militant Thomist MELTDOWN: Boots Me From Stream Over Basic Mistake!

After asking him to come debate epistemology for months, he let me on the last few minutes of his stream and got butt hurt over a basic mistake. First, he says the Cappadocians are scholastics because they cite Aristotle, which is funny, but then when pressed on the fact that relations of opposition is no the same thing as relations of origins, he sensed he might be wrong and booted me lol. The full analysis is here    • OPEN DEBATE: Roman Catholic MELTDOWNS, Tho...   "“The relations only serve to express the hypostatic diversity of the Three; they are not the basis of it." -Vladimir Lossky's critique of relations of opposition: Aquinas uses 'relation of opposition' for Filioque: "Since a "relation of opposition"{7} can only be established between two terms, the Holy Spirit should proceed from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as they represent a unity. This is the meaning of the formula according to which the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son as from one principle of spiration.{8}" This triadological principle, formulated by Thomas Aquinas, becomes unavoidable the moment that the doctrine of the procession of the Holy [77] Spirit ab utroque is admitted. It presupposes the following conditions: (1) That relations are the basis of the hypostases,{9} which define themselves by their mutual opposition, the first to the second, and these two together to the third. (2) That two persons represent a non-personal unity, in that they give rise to a further relation of opposition. (3) That in general the origin of the persons of the Trinity therefore is impersonal, having its real basis in the one essence, which is differentiated by its internal relations. The general character of this triadology may be described as a pre-eminence of natural unity over personal trinity, as an ontological primacy of the essence over the hypostases." Here the logical impossibility of any opposition between three terms intervenes, and the clarity of this triadological system shows itself to be extremely superficial. Indeed, on these lines, we cannot reach a mode of distinguishing the three hypostases from each another without confounding them in one way or another with the essence. In fact, the absolute diversity of the Three cannot be based on their relations of opposition without admitting, implicitly or explicitly, the primacy of the essence over the hypostases, by assuming a relative (and therefore secondary) basis for personal diversity, [78] in contrast to natural identity.{10} But that is exactly what Orthodox theology cannot admit." https://jbburnett.com/resources/lossk...