/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>trusting Jay Dyer

I shiggy diggy, fam.

>>738302

This may help you out.

http://www.orthochristian.com/98156.html

>>738302

I have not read Palamas nor am able to say what he means exactly by the terms he uses with respect to how a Catholic might but there's this take on the matter:

"Long story short, both East and West have always spoken of the Essence and Energies of God (Energy is translated into Western theological use as "activity" or "operations"). Prior to the Schism there was really no division on this issue; that came with theological developments in the Byzantine East with St. Gregory Palamas and his debate with a theologian called Barlaam (in the 14th century).

Their disagreement was basically this: if we can't comprehend the Essence of God, but we can experience His Energies, how are these two things related? Barlaam argued that the two are distinct, and therefore we can't have a direct experience of God. St. Gregory Palamas argued that they are distinct but they are both Divine, and so we have a direct experience of God through the Energy, but not through the unknowable Essence. Barlaam countered that this would make two Gods, and Palamas responded that Barlaam's solution runs against Scripture and Tradition, since the Apostolic teaching is that we become direct participants in the Divine Nature through Grace. Barlaam, denying that the Energy could be God, also denied direct participation in Divinity (at least that's how Palamas presents his argument; we only really know of Barlaam's beliefs through the writings of his opponent).

In the West this debate quite simply never came up, or rather the sharing of Divinity with humanity was approached from a different angle (with the Protestant Reformation). The fact that humans can't comprehend the infinite Divine Essence was resolved by simply pointing out that "knowing" is not the same as "comprehending", much the way that I can know about the Sun without comprehending nuclear physics. With that distinction in place, there really wasn't any need argue over the distinction between Essence and Energies, since the Divine Energy in this case is simply the direct operation of the Divine Essence (this manner of speaking of Essence and Energies also fits with the teachings of great Eastern Fathers like St. John of Damascus, but so does St. Gregory Palamas' answer). In Western theology, saying that we experience the Divine Energy, but not the Divine Essence, is simply translated as "we experience the action of the Divine Essence without comprehending It"…"

https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=79886&pid=1353682#pid1353682

>>738308

>>738307

What's wrong with Jay Dyer? He has a pretty big ego, but other than that I'm not sure.

>>738311

It wasn't St. Palamas who defined the essence-energies distinction. Roman Catholics hammer this down everytime in a blind attempt to discredit it.

It wasn't even his main point, he was defending Hesychasm. Almost every big name down from St. Basil talks about the two operations of God and His energies. It's telling that a lot of the quotes about the two operations of God are from the 5th, 6th and 7th councils because they were defending from the hellenic heresies like Monothelitism.

Including Pope St Agathos, proof that Orthodoxy didn't change. Rome did.

What I think most people miss is that Absolute Divine Simplicity is NOT EVEN THE ROOT of the Roman Catholic heresy. It ultimately comes from the west going back to understanding Truth as an abstraction rather than a person, our God Jesus Christ.

St. Basil, again, used the male article to refer to "The One" while the hellenics like Plotinus used the abstract article.

Thomas is a rehashed Plotinus, the idea that we can reason back from a coffee mug to the "oneness" of God is hellenic. The difference is that Thomas just nominally says that God is a person, even though no "personhood" is used to reason our way back to "The One" that is Actus Purus, only abstractions. He doesn't act like God is a person which is why Thomism rejects communion and has to discard energies, only in name.

That is the reason why such distinctions were discarted in Roman Catholicism and kept in Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is about COMMUNION, because communion can only be done with a person (Logos). Such distinction was kept because that's how we COMMUNE. When we take Logos as Logic (abstract) rather than God (Jesus Christ, personhood) we have Roman Catholicism, Platonism, Atheism, and every heathenry under the sun. No communion, no energy.

Essence-energies relates to Hesychasm because Hesychasm is about COMMUNION.

>>738355

>It ultimately comes from the west going back to understanding Truth as an abstraction rather than a person, our God Jesus Christ

In which ways does Roman Catholicism view truth as an abstraction? Isn't the idea of Christ as the logos a fundamental part of Catholicism?

>>738357

Nominally only.

The whole argument for absolute divine simplicity is taken from abstract Logic, not from Logos.

The argument for essence-energies distinction is taken from communion, which can only be due to personhood of Logos.

>>738355

No offense, but you don't really know what you're talking about. I know you think you do, but that itself is part of the problem. The quote in my post already explains the issue, your rhetoric is unhelpful and confused.

>>738363

How so?

>>738365

>The fact that humans can't comprehend the infinite Divine Essence was resolved by simply pointing out that "knowing" is not the same as "comprehending", much the way that I can know about the Sun without comprehending nuclear physics. With that distinction in place, there really wasn't any need argue over the distinction between Essence and Energies, since the Divine Energy in this case is simply the direct operation of the Divine Essence (this manner of speaking of Essence and Energies also fits with the teachings of great Eastern Fathers like St. John of Damascus, but so does St. Gregory Palamas' answer)

>>738366

Absolutely no connection to communion, which is what I point out as what originates the difference.

Communing with God is different because it is not comprehending 2+2 = 4 but not knowing what infinity is. No connection to personhood, only abstractions is what Absolute Divine Simplicity imples in its Logic.

>>738367

I think this might be a false dichotomy

>>738369

See it like this: All these arguments can be used, and were, for the Monad in Plato.

We can use it to prove the Monad, an abstraction, why can we also use it to prove a personal God?

We can't hold an argument that proves both the Monad and the personal God.

>>738369

My claim is this: the God of Roman Catholicism is the Monad but it's called ywhw in name only.

>>738370

>We can't hold an argument that proves both the Monad and the personal God.

Why? God revealed himself in Jesus Christ, I think you're wrong for implying that Catholic's believe in an abstract philosophical God, and just because something is philosophically correct doesn't mean that there isn't more to it that we understand through divine revelation.

>>738351

As far as I understand he is to the Orthos what the most meme family monastery is to Catholics.

>>738374

he doesn't belong to a breakaway sect tho

>>738374

Pretty bad comparison considering Most Meme Monastery are an apocalypse cult, and Jay Dyer is just a well read youtuber

>>738372

The Summa Theologica can be used to justify the Monad. We both agree on that.

Now, the problem is that while you say that it is a person all the major differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism point otherwise.

For example: Essence-energies Distinction against Absolute Divine Simplicity, Panentheism against Dualism, etc.

They all point to the lack of communion of the Laity with God inside Roman Catholic doctrine and a big emphasis in Orthodoxy. That's what Orthodoxy teaches, to start with revelation and that we mustn't deviate from that in Philosophy.

And that's what Revelation teaches, Paul wasn't making arguments according to classical Aristotelian Philosophy, in fact, it is explicitely said that the wisdom of the greeks is foolishness to God.

What Thomism teaches is to start with abstractions such as numerology, abstract oneness, dialectics, and that we can then work our way up to God. Potentiality and Actuality are abstractions, Actus Purus is an abstraction.

Orthodoxy is absolutely much more emphatic in the personhood of Christ.

My argument is that Absolute Divine Simplicity is a consequence of the lack of communion in the Roman Catholic Church due to Platonic abstract thinking infiltrating it.

>>738376

>>738379

I just said this because many people meme him here

>>738386

>here is this one guy who used philosophy to justify God

>this is literally all of Catholic spirituality

You're actually deluded.

>>738391

You can't use Philosophy alone to justify the Biblical God. All the hellenics used Philosophy to justify the Monad, Thomas has the same exact argument except he calls God that one on the Bible.

That's what this bottom-up abstract approach implies.

>>738386

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use our intellect, or that abstract truth doesn't come from God? There is truth that we can comprehend, but there's also revealed truth that put's everything into perspective.

>>738403

>You can't use Philosophy alone to justify the Biblical God

You can't, I don't think Catholics do. But Why can't philosophy and reason be used as a way to lead you to revealed truth? Philosophy in and of itself is only a means to an end

>>738411

>>738413

I'm saying philosophy is to make sense of revelation and not the other way around. We can fit the Biblical God in a lot of abstract machinations we come up with.

I'm saying we can absolutely fit both the Monad and the Biblical God in Absolute Divine Simplicity and Dualism. We can fit only the personal God in Essence-Energies Distinction and Panentheism. And communion in general implies personal Logos.

Because one Church uses Philosophy as a tool of Revelation, the Orthodox, and another has Philosophy as the starting point. That is what is wrong. Philosophy can never be the starting point, as it is the starting point in the Summa Theologica. It also is the starting point in many forms Platonism, and what these all share is that they can justify the abstract Monad. Because if you start with an abstraction of truth you get an abstract God. If you start with a command (implies personhood) you get a personal God.

>>738386

>complaining about "muh dialectics"

Howdy there Jay.

>>738391

In his defense, most "trads" also think Catholicism and Thomism mean the same thing, with Charles Coulombe the only exception I know of offhandedly.

t. Catholic Platonist

>>738452

Regardless, Thomism is hailed very mugh and is a central point of it. Roman Catholicism is the degeneration of Orthodoxy into Platonism.

Absolute Divine Simplicity, The Filioque, Dualism, and every change away from Orthodoxy reflects that. The origin of such degeneration is the Platonic conotation of The One and Logos as abstractions rather than the Orthodox personhood. The personal Logos differentiates Orthodoxy from any other Religion. Roman Catholicism has developed a doctrine that is compatible with BOTH.

It might've taken hundreds of years for Roman Catholic doctrine to square off its contradictions about both of its influences, but the clear development of doctrine away from personal communion in every aspect of the new doctrine indicates it was and still is degenerating into Abstract Philosophy.

The visible and latest change in our time is the deviation from the creation ex-nihilo of Orthodoxy unto uncreated Matter of Platonism and Origen (who was heavily influenced by the hellenics and that's why he's not a Church Father). That is called the Big Bang, the Big Bang is compatible with uncreated Matter, it's an old hellenic pagan idea. Roman Catholics also hold that the Biblical God sets it up, but they CANNOT deny that the Big Bang is compatible with both Christianism and Platonism.

And the reason that it was suggested by a Roman Catholic priest is yet again another indication of that degeneration. It wants to hold BOTH Christianism and Platonism.

It's impossible to hold the Christian Logos and the Platonic Logos at the same time. That is the crux of the Roman Catholic error, all else is consequence.

>>738459

Ignoring the fact that's it's not a doctrine, why does the big bang necessitate uncreated matter?

>>738459

>deviation from the creation ex-nihilo of Orthodoxy unto uncreated Matter of Platonism

Is there a catholic theologian denying creation ex-nihilo?

>the Big Bang is compatible with uncreated Matter

I think bigbang is compatible both with created and uncreated matter.

>>738355

> It ultimately comes from the west going back to understanding Truth as an abstraction rather than a person, our God Jesus Christ.

This is coming from the church that labels everything as a mystery