/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>545323

non-Protestants do not read history

> t. ex-Protestant

>>545323

>being very similar to Cathodoxy

They're not? The Oriental Orthodox are Monophysites, the Church of the East is Nestorian, and the Eastern Orthodox are Semi-Arian. And that's just the biggest difference between them.

>>545323

>How do Protestants explain non-catholic apostolic Christianity

>non-catholic

So independent Baptists.

>being very similar to Cathodoxy

We aren't, if anything the Protestants who baptize infants are more similar to Cathodoxy than non-catholics (lowercase).

>Why was there never a "protestant" church in any country that persisted, continually through history from ancieny/early Christianity?

Because they were a later schism.

>>545347

>the Eastern Orthodox are Semi-Arian.

Explanation of this?

I'm sure this thread will foster productive discussion and not reinforce the belief that the board has a strong bias against Protestants.

>>545358

I've been talking to nothing but Protestants all day.

>>545355

>Explanation of this?

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/john-behr-on-the-trinity/

This entire thing is problematic, but one sentence from it summarizes the whole thing

<The Father alone is the one true God

>>545366

So do you think they're semi-Arian because this wasn't anathematized?

You'll have to forgive, I'm not familiar with how this stuff works. I get that this would be related to "theosis," but it isn't full blown adoptionism right?

>>545376

>So do you think they're semi-Arian because this wasn't anathematized?

I believe they're Semi-Arian because I believe this represents historic Eastern Orthodoxy.

>You'll have to forgive, I'm not familiar with how this stuff works

What the priest is saying is basically that Jesus is only God insofar as He relates to the Father. That He is not God by nature, but only by relation to the only true God. In 4th century terminology, this would mean that they believe the Father and the Son are not of the same substance, but that they are of similar substance.

>I get that this would be related to "theosis," but it isn't full blown adoptionism right?

It's hard to tell what the Greeks actually mean by theosis. They might mean that deification is merely analogous, that we become God or gods in the sense that we emulate God in His communicable attributes (such as holiness), which would be truly Christian and biblical. Or they might mean a real theosis, that in the process of salvation we are made truly divine, which would be blasphemous and heretical. What they say when they speak of theosis itself seems to suggest the former, while what they say when they speak of the incarnation seems to suggest the latter.

Don't expect protestants to be smart enough to explain anything. They aren't the brightest of people.

>>545347

>biggest diff is monophysitism

> Christ's dual natures are in perfect singular union, everything else is similar to real Christianity

Ya so their very similar to cathodoxy. On the "truth" spectrum they are far from protestantism

>>545398

>Father and the Son are not of the same substance, but that they are of similar substance.

>Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made

>>545366

The Father alone is the True God, and yet the Son is True God, and the Holy Spirit is True God.

The Son inherits from the Father, but what He inherits is being, ontologically, God by nature. That is why He is consubstantial to Him. Thus there is one True God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, True God from True God, of one essence with the Father, but not of one person.

Thus there is one God because there is one Father, and the essence flows from the Father, to the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

You call us "semi-Arians" (which is frankly the first time I see this, even among hardcore Catholic apologists) but you do not seem to know that the Greek Fathers all used this same language. The Arian controversy was specifically about what exactly is the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father is ho Theos, the Son is Theos, but what does this mean? Arianism says that the Father is God by nature but the Son is God by grace, inheriting from the Father in time. Orthodoxy says that the Father is God by nature and the Son is God by nature, inheriting from the Father in eternity.

By the way, the term "semi-Arian" is usually used for the heresy of Pneumatomachoi (which ironically enough is used by Orthodox apologists against Catholicism), so you might want to find another term for your accusation.

>>545398

>What the priest is saying is basically that Jesus is only God insofar as He relates to the Father. That He is not God by nature, but only by relation to the only true God.

This relation to the only true God -is- one of nature. Which is what it means to be consubstantial.

>It's hard to tell what the Greeks actually mean by theosis. They might mean that deification is merely analogous, that we become God or gods in the sense that we emulate God in His communicable attributes (such as holiness), which would be truly Christian and biblical. Or they might mean a real theosis, that in the process of salvation we are made truly divine, which would be blasphemous and heretical. What they say when they speak of theosis itself seems to suggest the former, while what they say when they speak of the incarnation seems to suggest the latter.

Be honest. How much have you researched on Orthodox & Byzantine Catholic theology?

>>545416

>which is frankly the first time I see this, even among hardcore Catholic apologists

And if you do, please remind him that he is stupid turd for not listening to our own liturgy, which use the same language you presented, even more than Eastern rites

>>545419

I don't know about this - I do admit that the term "only true God" is confusing and suspicious even from an Orthodox perspective - but this is truly the language the Fathers used. The problem with Arianism wasn't the language of divinity itself, but what its implications are, that is, whether that means the Son is homoousios or that He is homoiousios with the Father.

We've come to the conclusion that the Son is truly homoousios to the Father, but the fullness of divinity is from the Father, goes fully to the Son, and from the Son goes fully to the Holy Spirit, although all of this is ontologically speaking and a relation of nature rather than grace so the most precise we can get is that the Son is homoousios to the Father and the Holy Spirit is homoousios to the Father and the Son. Thus the Father can be the only True God, and the Son can be True God from True God, naturally, and without there being two True Gods or one single Divine Person.

Although I must also say that this is in fact the second time I've heard the accusation of Arianism against us, on here, so it's not the first time. It might be the same person though.

But if there is any doubt, taking a look at the Eastern Catholics is sufficient… Those of Byzantine tradition use the same theological language as we do, even to the point that Gregory Palamas's theology is becoming mainstream among Ukrainian and Melkite Catholics again, and they most definitively would agree with the Orthodox on the language we use regarding the monarchy of the Father and the unity of the Trinity (and, of course, theosis).

>>545425

Monarchy of the Father and theosis never left Western tradition though. Sure, it might feel that we do not talk about it that much but it's only due the fact, that there are more important issues for the time being.

"Glória in excélsis Deo" used in Mass is classical Greek fathers theology of monarchical, yet consubstantial Trinity

>>545427

Right, I'm not saying those doctrines do not exist in Latin theology, and as you said, if anything, the Mass focuses on the monarchy of the Father more than the Divine Liturgy does.

But it's not the first time I see Catholics criticize the Orthodox theological terms used to talk about it. Besides the person above, I've talked with Catholics who said the Greek terms used to describe the monarchy of the Father (and particularly, the focus on there being one God because there is one Father) are suspicious and mainly a reaction to the filioque. And I've also talked to Catholics who say that theosis is Buddhist nonsense… Lord have mercy.

(by the way, Orthodox aren't much better - a lot of apologists seem to disagee with the filioque without really knowing why)

>>545415

Amen

>>545416

>The Son inherits from the Father, but what He inherits is being, ontologically, God by nature

The Son does not depend on the Father for His divine nature, He has the divine nature by nature. The Father is God in and of Himself, the Son is God in and of Himself, and the Holy Spirit is God in and of Himself. There is no procession of essence, only of person. When the fathers, the scholastics, and the reformers speak of procession of essence, they mean only procession of person, which they call essence, since person and essence are really the same thing in God.

>That is why He is consubstantial to Him

He is consubstantial to Him because he has everything the Father has. This does not mean He has these things because of His relation with the Father, because the reception of these things from the Father is itself part of the divine essence.

>Thus there is one True God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, True God from True God, of one essence with the Father, but not of one person.

Of one numerical essence, or one kind of essence? The Father and the Son are similar to the point of being the same. The Athanasian Creed says "The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal". Unless they posess the exact same numerical essence, there are three eternals.

>Thus there is one God because there is one Father

How can this be, unless it is to the exclusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

>By the way, the term "semi-Arian" is usually used for the heresy of Pneumatomachoi

Maybe now, but the term has its origin in a position which predates Macedonianism.

>This relation to the only true God -is- one of nature

I know, that's why it's heretical. Relation cannot exist without difference, so if the nature of the Son relates to the nature of the Father then they are different in nature.

>How much have you researched on Orthodox & Byzantine Catholic theology?

Unfortunately, not much. I haven't gotten any books, because honestly I wouldn't know what books to get. I've had to rely on things online, but part of that is distinguishing between that which actually represents Eastern Orthodoxy and that which does not.

>>545432

>There is no procession of essence, only of person.

>person and essence are really the same thing in God

I don't get it

>>545432

>The Son does not depend on the Father for His divine nature, He has the divine nature by nature.

On contrary, he is "God from God" i.e. "Essence from essence". If Son was not "dependent" of Father then he would not be his only-begotten Son, moreover, he would be second God.

>The Father is God in and of Himself, the Son is God in and of Himself, and the Holy Spirit is God in and of Himself.

The Father is UNBEGOTTEN AND UNPROCEEDING God in and of Himself, the Son is ONLY-BEGOTTEN God in and of Himself, and the Holy Spirit is PROCEEDING God in and of Himself.

>There is no procession of essence, only of person.

Son and Holy Spirit have their essence of Father for their Hypostasis is from Father.

>When the fathers, the scholastics, and the reformers speak of procession of essence, they mean only procession of person, which they call essence, since person and essence are really the same thing in God.

If person=essence then we are Modalists. And we are not modalists.

>He is consubstantial to Him because he has everything the Father has.

He has everything BUT being Father. And Father is unbegotten, unproceeding. Innascibility belongs to the Father, who is from no one.

>This does not mean He has these things because of His relation with the Father, because the reception of these things from the Father is itself part of the divine essence.

If that was he case, then Father proceeds from Father, who proceeds from Father, who proceeds from Father ad infinitum

>Of one numerical essence, or one kind of essence? The Father and the Son are similar to the point of being the same.

<one kind

<similar

You are either Araian or Trithiesit. Or both.

>The Athanasian Creed says "The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal". Unless they posess the exact same numerical essence, there are three eternals.

The creed also says: The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

>How can this be, unless it is to the exclusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit?

For Son is "God from God" and Holy Spirit "from Father and Son proceedes"

>Maybe now, but the term has its origin in a position which predates Macedonianism.

It does not. Between Macedonius and Arius there is mere 30 years.

>I know, that's why it's heretical. Relation cannot exist without difference, so if the nature of the Son relates to the nature of the Father then they are different in nature.

On the contrary, The Father is denominated only from paternity; and the Son only from filiation. Therefore, if no real paternity or filiation existed in God, it would follow that God is not really Father or Son, but only in our manner of understanding; and this is the Sabellian heresy.

Everything which is not the divine essence is a creature. But relation really belongs to God; and if it is not the divine essence, it is a creature; and it cannot claim the adoration of latria; contrary to what is sung in the Preface: "Let us adore the distinction of the Persons, and the equality of their Majesty."

>Unfortunately, not much. I haven't gotten any books, because honestly I wouldn't know what books to get. I've had to rely on things online, but part of that is distinguishing between that which actually represents Eastern Orthodoxy and that which does not.

And that's where the shoe pinches. Start with those guys: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html

>>545770

>On contrary, he is "God from God" i.e. "Essence from essence"

So then you believe the essence of the Son is contrary to the essence of the Father? Or do you mean to tell me there is a thing which derives from itself?

>If Son was not "dependent" of Father then he would not be his only-begotten Son

Anon, who is the Father dependent of? How can the Father posess aseity and the Son not posess aseity if they share the exact same essence?

>The Father is UNBEGOTTEN AND UNPROCEEDING God in and of Himself, the Son is ONLY-BEGOTTEN God in and of Himself, and the Holy Spirit is PROCEEDING God in and of Himself.

You weren't reading very close if you think I reject that. Of course, the Son comes from the Father, but this is merely the order of relations, not causation.

>Son and Holy Spirit have their essence of Father for their Hypostasis is from Father.

Which is of course what I said immediately after that. Properly considered, the Son and the Holy Spirit have their essence of nothing since they have their essence in the same way the Father does. But in our thinking they have their essence from the Father because they have themselves from the Father (though properly they have themselves of nothing just as the Father).

>If person=essence then we are Modalists

http://newadvent.com/summa/1039.htm#article1

>He has everything BUT being Father. And Father is unbegotten, unproceeding. Innascibility belongs to the Father, who is from no one.

Not once did I ascribe paternity or innascibility to the Son and you cannot find me doing so.

>If that was he case, then Father proceeds from Father, who proceeds from Father, who proceeds from Father ad infinitum

The reception of all things from the Father is the Son. The Father begets the Son by nature and spirates the Holy Spirit by nature. The Son is begotten of the Father by nature, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by nature.

>You are either Araian or Trithiesit

You should try looking really super close this time. I said "same kind of essence" as an alternative to "same numerical essence". 'Kind of' is language of genus. In my observation, the Greeks interpret the word "same substance" as "same genus of substance", not "same exact substance".

>It does not. Between Macedonius and Arius there is mere 30 years.

Wow, just 30 years? You could practically blink and that go by. Semi-Arianism started almost immediately after Nicaea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiousian

>>545323

Lutherans are a lot less different on a lot of those points than you might think.

>Why was there never a "protestant" church in any country that persisted, continually through history from ancieny/early Christianity?

Maybe has to due to the fact the Vatican labels them as heretics and murders them

>>545790

>So then you believe the essence of the Son is contrary to the essence of the Father?

It's the same essence.

> Or do you mean to tell me there is a thing which derives from itself?

Yes. For creed says: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God"

>Anon, who is the Father dependent of?

Noone, that's why he is Father.

>How can the Father posess aseity and the Son not posess aseity if they share the exact same essence?

Aseity of Son (and Holy Spirit) is from aseity of Father. If there would not be from Father, they would not be consubstantial. Remember, "The Son is the image of the invisible God".

>You weren't reading very close if you think I reject that. Of course, the Son comes from the Father, but this is merely the order of relations, not causation.

On contrary "this day have I begotten thee" says God to God. It's generation, not mere relation. If it was mere relation, we would be Tritheist.

>Which is of course what I said immediately after that. Properly considered, the Son and the Holy Spirit have their essence of nothing since they have their essence in the same way the Father does.

>But in our thinking they have their essence from the Father because they have themselves from the Father (though properly they have themselves of nothing just as the Father).

Then Son is unbegotten and Spirt is unproceeding and innascibility belongs not to the Father alone.

>http://newadvent.com/summa/1039.htm#article1

You do know that this very article refutes you?

For it says that

<But as it was shown above (I:28:2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other.

Relation is essence, and those relations are paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession. And paternity alone is uncaused, principle without principle.

>Not once did I ascribe paternity or innascibility to the Son and you cannot find me doing so.

<I ascribe paternity or innascibility to the Son

<Son have their essence of nothing since they have their essence in the same way the Father does.

You just did that.

>The reception of all things from the Father is the Son. The Father begets the Son by nature and spirates the Holy Spirit by nature. The Son is begotten of the Father by nature, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father by nature.

And nature=essence. So Father gives essence to Son, as well to Spirit. Father alone, by being Father does not have essence from anyone.

>You should try looking really super close this time. I said "same kind of essence" as an alternative to "same numerical essence". 'Kind of' is language of genus. In my observation, the Greeks interpret the word "same substance" as "same genus of substance", not "same exact substance".

<Making Arians out of Greek Fathers.

>Wow, just 30 years? You could practically blink and that go by. Semi-Arianism started almost immediately after Nicaea.

<Links to article about homoiouusian

<An Arian problem, not Semi-arian one

Nigga.

>>545323

>Why was there never a "protestant" church in any country that persisted, continually through history from ancieny/early Christianity?

why do you think?

>>545841

>Yes. For creed says: "God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God"

Unless you wish to claim the Father and the Son are the same person, that is not claiming self-derivation.

>Aseity of Son (and Holy Spirit) is from aseity of Father

Aseity is complete independence of all other things. If the Son is dependent for His aseity on the Father then He is non-aseic.

>If there would not be from Father, they would not be consubstantial

They are not consubstantial because the Son comes from the Father, the Son comes from the Father because they are consubstantial. It is God's essence, generation, the Father could not exist without begetting the Son.

>Remember, "The Son is the image of the invisible God".

This refers to generation, not causation.

>It's generation, not mere relation

Here I was thinking generation was relation

>Then Son is unbegotten and Spirt is unproceeding and innascibility belongs not to the Father alone

No, anon, it does not follow that the full equality of the persons would mean the notions do not exist

>Relation is essence, and those relations are paternity, filiation, spiration, and procession. And paternity alone is uncaused, principle without principle.

Anon, why do you think this refutes me? Why does it not just further prove my point that person and essence are the same thing in God? Is this simply a red herring?

>You just did that.

No, anon, I did not. To affirm the aseity of the Son is not to deny the sole innascibility of the Father.

>And nature=essence

The term "by nature" means "according to essence". I am saying that it is the Father's essence to beget the Son. A God without the Son and the Holy Spirit would be no God at all.

><Making Arians out of Greek Fathers.

I did not say Greek fathers

><An Arian problem, not Semi-arian one

It was only at the very beginning of the controversy that Arians used the term. The Semi-Arians were opposed to Arianism as well.

>>545808

hell, luther used the orthodox as a clear example as to why having a pope is incorrect.

The word has I don't even want a universal church

>>546893

That's why reformation was such a failure then, it all makes sense now, thanks for supproting Catholic Church, man.