/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

You should start with some more urgent pieces of theology like justification and work from there.

>>828351

I have. Orthodox justification and atonement is the best.

Protestant justification is a big yikes for me.

>>828351

Protestant soteriology is the biggest misread of the Bible ever.

>>828369

>>828359

Justification by faith alone is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls

Here's protestant soteriology:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

>>828359

>Protestant justification is a big yikes for me.

Not all Protestants are Calvinists or Lutherans.

I think at the heart of it, the majority of us have similar views on justification. Some Protestants are just too stubborn to admit it. They've mentally committed to a theological framework, but their actual walk lives out an entirely different quest for holiness (to their credit! I am not trying to insult anyone. I thank God for the love these people have). The preachers who are truly "Faith Alone" are TV swindlers and degenerates. And they create followers who live without conscience. Those Westerners who are probably preparing to go out to a bar tonight and hook up with some loose woman, and then go to a megachurch tomorrow. Either that or they're those Mainline Protestants with LGBT rainbow flags hanging in front of their church and teaching Yoga classes on te side. That's what "Faith Alone" amounts to in actual practice.

>>828370

>For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The whole context of John 3 is Jesus discussing being reborn with the Spirit too. And as we know, there are fruits of the Spirit. If someone's "belief" never produced fruit, it was never the kind of belief Jesus was talking about here.

>>828370

I know the Prot arguments and if Prots are right I think Christianity actually falls. But I don't want this to become a debate about Prot reeing.

This is more of a Orthodox-Catholic discussion. Whether Thomist metaphysics can be honestly integrated into Orthodoxy, and whether one must accept Palamism to be Orthodox.

>>828385

I think it IS pertinent. Because many Protestants want to simply get to a point before Thomas and Gregory too. Some go too far, but the basic impetus never wanted to rid of Church history entirely, just like yourself.

the more I hear about other religions, the more I am Glad to be Catholic and the less I want to hear about others.

>>828390

>the more I hear about other religions, the more I am Glad to be Catholic and the less I want to hear about others.

We're not different religions. We're all Christians, have the same Lord, and the same scriptures, more or less. There's much to share and work together with.

>“Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

>

>“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. -Matthew 9:38-41

>

>>828388

I want Thomas WITH Orthodoxy. Luther was a brainlet. Don't get me started on Calvin. Protestant theology is like it's aesthetics: ugly.

>>828345

orthodox are incapable to hold another ecumenical council, as we have seen in recent times, so palamism can't become dogma.

>>828405

based, ironically

>>828405

>palamism can't become dogma

You're a few hundred years late with this comment becuase of the Fifth Council of Constantinople, it's also sometimes named after Palamas for a reason.

I know there aren't a lot of Orthodox believers here so a legitimate answer takes some time but your reply is still very ignorant.

>>828345

The kissing of icons is far from mandatory, people may give a few looks for you for not doing it but it's not necessary, it's just a high form of reverance that has several differing reasons behind it. Palamism on the other hand is dogma so I suggest you deeply study it more, preferably from legitimate sources and maybe even with the help of someone learned.

If you cannot reconcile it with your beliefs then you must admit that your rejection of Palamism is Heterodox in nature.

If you would be converting solely for the aesthetics and the larp please just be Eastern rite Catholic.

>>828457

orthodox cant decide if the council is ecumenical or not:

>"His [Palamas'] teaching was confirmed by two councils held at Constantinople in 1341 and 1351, which although local and not ecumenical…" (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, 3rd ed. Ch. 3, pg. 64).

>>>828405

Well then I apologise for not knowing better. It is widespread enough for me to have forgotten it is not ecumenical as of yet.

>>828459

Meant for:

>>828460

Still, I hold that Thomism is practically alien for most and Aquinas is generally disregarded in favour of Palamas whenever the two meet, I can't even think of an Orthodox Thomist of note and Palamas, is remembered each year while his opponents to Palamism at the time are anathemad each year. I think the Church's general stance that has been rather longstanding is obvious, if not an actual in-your-face dogma yet.

>>828457

>If you would be converting solely for the aesthetics and the larp please just be Eastern rite Catholic.

Like I said, I like everything else about Orthodox dogma. I could even be western rite Orthodox. I just can't get into Palamas.

>>828459

Fascinating. Maybe the Holy Spirit is at work here?

I have a question, where can I get unbiased analysis of Eastern Orthodoxy? I am a nonsectarian 'protestant' but only by virtue of being unwilling to join any denomination, or any of the older churches, namely Catholic, Orthodox, different Oriental churches. The closest thing i would call myself is Paleo-Orthodox, which is a movement within protestantism which calls for ignoring or limiting the infleunce of reformers, and focusing on the first several centuries of ancient Christianity, though without any of the baggage of prayer to saints. (Im not saying prayer to saints is idolatry, it isnt. but i do believe its inappropriate. I have looked at the arguments. You can make arguments in favor of it, but they are weak. Not invalid, but very weak) please note by unbiased i mean not anti OR pro orthodox. just neutral.

>>829345

john bekkos

>>829353

Thanks. I'll look him up.

>>829353

Would you give me name(s) for modern authors.

>>829345

how do you edit posts?

>>829372

james likoudis

>>828461

I don't think you've posted why you don't like Palamas. Is it the essence/energies distinction? Is it hesychastic prayer? Is it his critique of Barlaam and by extension scholasticism?

>>829489

I dislike the essence-energies distinction and the critique of scholasticism. Aquinas was a genius.

>>829513

Seems stupid and contradictory to posit an essence as unknownable. You're admitting you know something about it.

And now we have what, a holy quarter, essence-father-son-holy spirit?

Anyway, I just don't care for Palamas or EO theologians in general. I will probably just end up Catholic as my recent reading is pointing me towards Augustine being a genius and the papacy being correct. Two things the EO don't want to admit.

>>829522

>Seems stupid and contradictory to posit an essence as unknownable. You're admitting you know something about it.

Unfortunately, you'll still have to abide by this even if you go to the Roman Church as even they admit that things such as the Eucharist are a mystery beyond our understanding. Barlaam was a hyper scholastic that went far beyond the norm of scholasticism in the Roman Church.

>And now we have what, a holy quarter, essence-father-son-holy spirit?

I don't follow this train of thought. Forgive me, could you explain your thinking further?

In all honesty, I have a lot of respect for the Roman Church despite it's internal moral/sexual flaws that it is currently wrestling with. If you decide to go down that road, may God be with you.

>>829525

But the eucharist is something that exists. The unknowable essence of God as something different from His energies is something made up by Palamas.

And is the essence not different from the holy trinity? Making God the trinity + 1 (the unknowable essence)?

>>829527

>And is the essence not different from the holy trinity? Making God the trinity + 1 (the unknowable essence)?

Ahh, maybe this is the source of some confusion. From my understanding (forgive me if I lead you in error), but "essence" refers to the being of each member of the Godhead (almost similar to modern existential philosophical concerns of the nature/essence/being of an individual) and the "energies" are the affects of the Godhead. I don't believe it was ever meant to be implied that "essence" pointed to some distinct entity.

>>828345

As an Eastern Rite Catholic we practice Palamas as well.

>>829810

Melkite?

>>829527

The "essence" of a Person is what defines the characteristics of that Person. Essences do not, and cannot, exist "in the void", but rather exist only as enhypostasized in a particular Person. That is, the Divine Essence is not something that exists in away way apart or independent of the three Persons of the Trinity, but may only be said to exist inasmuch as it exists enhypostasized in each one of them. The same can be said for Human Nature, both for "regular" humans like you and I, as well as the God-Man Christ, in whom Human Nature also become enhypostasized.

When we talk about a being, the Person/Hypostasized are "the thing itself", they are what makes that being, a being. The Essence is what defines who that person is, and what they are capable of. And lastly, the Energies are what make that person knowable - or, in other words, the Energies are a person are how they manifest themselves external, and interact with other beings. When we say the Energies are distinct, all that we're saying is that genuine knowledge and experience of a particular person is indeed possible.

And when we say that knowing the Essence of a thing is impossible, that Essences are unnknowable, that isn't because there's some spooky magic barrier around the Essence. It's just that, by definition, an "essence" isn't something you interact with. That's just how we're defining the term. And relatedly, "Energies", divine or otherwise, are not some magical aether-substance. That's just the term used to express the way a being is able to act.

St. Gregory Palamas was far from the first to codify this distinction. Certainly he elaborated upon the idea in response to a heresy cropping up in his time, but the idea that this constitutes some new school of "Palamism" is simply silly. These concepts are readily used in refuting certain strains of early gnostic and neoplatonic heresies regarding the ONE and uber-simplicity of the Essence, and especially we can see it described in St. Maximus's work, and presented at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which dealt directly with the concept of energies. Among other issues, the Sixth Council dealt with the heresy of Monenergism, combatted with the orthodoxy of Dyoenergism (one energy vs two in Christ). Note that this was a separate issue entirely of monophysitism vs dyophysitism (one essence vs two). The very fact that the two issues - the quantity of essences and the quantity of energies - were treated separately from one another should be proof enough that the two were also considered distinct.

I think the issue here is that you're detaching the idea of both Essence and that of Energies, from the idea of the Hypostasis. Both Essence and Energy are meaningless without the context of describing a specific Hypostasis. As I said earlier, these things don't exist "in the void", but can only properly be used after the Person is identified.

I hope this clarifies things? Thus far (and I'm a new participant in this conversation, first post in this thread) it seems like the discussion hasn't had a proper basis for what is actually meant by the E-E distinction.

>>828345

Adding on, I think you have a skewed understanding of what 'Eastern-Rite Catholicism' will bring you as well. They also, generally, hold St. Gregory in high regard, and you won't really find them discussing Thomism at all. They'll certainly be participating in the veneration of icons.

If you're really hung up on the kissing - I reckon you're American? Because the kissing isn't necessarily a "Byzantine Rite" thing so much as an "Old World Culture" thing. Go to many European countries - France, Spain, Italy - and you'll find that friends greet one another with a kiss or two on the cheek. It's just a standard thing that's done as a greeting. And of course Near Eastern cultures are full of it too. Kissing icons is the same way - the Saints are our companions, and we greet them with a kiss. That's really all there is to it. And if you aren't comfortable with that, no one would force you to. But St. Paul does tell us to "Greet one another with a kiss of peace", after all. As for calling it "cringe" - I think that's more just cultural ignorance, on your part.

>>829858

I think I like that Palamas isn't dogma in the EO. It seems their lack of recent ecumenical councils affirming dogma allows the EO to be quite accommodating when it comes to theology instead of being narrowly focused on black and white issues like the Catholics.This might be a strength rather than a weakness.

>>830281

St. Palamas's theology is absolutely dogmatic, in that, like I said, it isn't some novel system of "Palamism", but is just a further explanation of doctrine that had already been explored by the earlier Fathers and enshrined in Ecumenical Councils before him.

We celebrate, every year, the 2nd Sunday of Great Lent as Palamas Sunday in remembrance of his deeds. His work isn't an innovation, but it is absolutely recognized as an astute statement of the one Orthodox Truth.

You won't find solace in Eastern Catholicism. When I was a uniate, Palamism was still present and the 2nd Sunday of Lent was still the Sunday of Gregory Palamas.

>>829345

Orthodox are not allowed to engage in apologetics until they have been given permission by their bishop and, preferably, been Orthodox for a minimum of 10 years, however most bishops don't require that.

That's why you won't find good Orthodox apologetics outside of people who've been given permission to do so, who are few and far between. Most people doing "Orthodox apologetics" online, especially here, are newcomers to the faith and don't know that they aren't supposed to be doing apologetics without their bishop's blessing.

If you're seeking Orthodox apologetics, go to your nearest Orthodox church and have a sit down with the priest. They wear funny robes but they don't bite. Every priest I've met is a wonderful person.

>>830364

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Maybe someone should warn Jay Dyer. Though I am very certain that this would not dissuade his polemics.

>>830392

Jay has said on multiple occasions that he has permission from his Bishop to do what he does on his channel.

Palamas wanted to protect a tradition of prayer and intimacy with God, of hesychasm. Not autists debating terms and logical systems.

Hesychasm means silence, so shut up and pray.

>>829513

This is utterly ridiculous, and how do you suppose that these people who have "have interacted through God through dreams visions," Etc. are true? and to those visions that are biblical, would you not say that is the Essence of God moving over them? why would that "Energies" xd

>>829522

Completely Logical and sound Decision. Catholic Faith = Universal Faith.