Beatific vision

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Wandile said:
The Catholic Church permits generation of eastern saints not as endorsement of the theology as some of them condemn catholic teachings, but for their virtue. Gregory Palamas was a godly monk.
The problem is that Latins like to accuse St. Gregory of heresy.  So how can a heretic be a "godly monk" and a saint?  Either he's a heretic or he's a saint.  He can't be both. 

That’s called Catholicism. Rome has the final day on all matters concerning theology. That’s is the voice of Peter as we see it.
That's called Papism.  This is Catholicism: 

"But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
- Apostolic Canon 34

Secondly the Byzantine east has existed longer without palamism than with it. To be eastern does not necessarily require palamism though (Just the orientals, assyrians and even the late 18th century Russian Orthodox Church). I have no desire for it to be erased as it generally is a matter thought about by monks and theologians and nobody else really. It’s not worth the effort nor does it pose any serious pressing danger to the faith.
"Palamism" is merely the formal defined doctrine of what the Greek Fathers always taught.  It wasn't some novelty.  Neither is it some "theory" that only monks care about.  The Palamite Councils are fully authoritative and are part of Holy Tradition.  They have been unanimously received and accepted by the Church.  They can't be undone.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,686
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Canada
PorphyriosK said:
Wandile said:
The Catholic Church permits generation of eastern saints not as endorsement of the theology as some of them condemn catholic teachings, but for their virtue. Gregory Palamas was a godly monk.
The problem is that Latins like to accuse St. Gregory of heresy.  So how can a heretic be a "godly monk" and a saint?  Either he's a heretic or he's a saint.  He can't be both. 

That’s called Catholicism. Rome has the final day on all matters concerning theology. That’s is the voice of Peter as we see it.
That's called Papism.  This is Catholicism: 

"But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
- Apostolic Canon 34

Secondly the Byzantine east has existed longer without palamism than with it. To be eastern does not necessarily require palamism though (Just the orientals, assyrians and even the late 18th century Russian Orthodox Church). I have no desire for it to be erased as it generally is a matter thought about by monks and theologians and nobody else really. It’s not worth the effort nor does it pose any serious pressing danger to the faith.
"Palamism" is merely the formal defined doctrine of what the Greek Fathers always taught.  It wasn't some novelty.  Neither is it some "theory" that only monks care about.  The Palamite Councils are fully authoritative and are part of Holy Tradition.  They have been unanimously received and accepted by the Church.  They can't be undone.
Well stated.  In reality, for the Orthodox there is no such animal as "Palamism."  The teachings of St. Gregory Palamas and his patristic forerunners are intrinsic to the Faith.  Period.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
PorphyriosK said:
Wandile said:
The Catholic Church permits generation of eastern saints not as endorsement of the theology as some of them condemn catholic teachings, but for their virtue. Gregory Palamas was a godly monk.
The problem is that Latins like to accuse St. Gregory of heresy.  So how can a heretic be a "godly monk" and a saint?  Either he's a heretic or he's a saint.  He can't be both.
All fathers believed in some material heresy of some sort. Never mind the normal saints.

That’s called Catholicism. Rome has the final day on all matters concerning theology. That’s is the voice of Peter as we see it.
That's called Papism.  This is Catholicism:
I’m pretty sure the religion is called Catholicism... I don’t know of any religion called papism...

"But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
- Apostolic Canon 34
You do know these canons were not written by the apostles right?

Here is the voice of the first millennium church:

Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

”You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.”

And

About Pope St. Julius I of Rome, the famous Greek Church historian Socrates Scholasticus (380-450AD) relates the following in his Church History 2:8:

“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

St. Jerome the Great of Stridon says in 376 [Letter 15:1-2 to Pope St. Damasus I of Rome in PL 22:355]:

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul ... The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold ... My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.“

Bishop St. Ambrose the Great of Milan says in 378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306]:

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"

The same holy bishop says in Letter 11:4 to Roman Emperor Gratian in PL 16:946A:

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church the head of the whole Roman world and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all [churches] the bonds of sacred communion

Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:
”We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.”

Pope St. Boniface I of Rome says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A]:

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."

Secondly the Byzantine east has existed longer without palamism than with it. To be eastern does not necessarily require palamism though (Just the orientals, assyrians and even the late 18th century Russian Orthodox Church). I have no desire for it to be erased as it generally is a matter thought about by monks and theologians and nobody else really. It’s not worth the effort nor does it pose any serious pressing danger to the faith.
"Palamism" is merely the formal defined doctrine of what the Greek Fathers always taught.  It wasn't some novelty.
This claim does not stand up to historical scrutiny. The seeds of Palamas’ thought can be found in the fathers but he connected their words in a way never seen before and extrapolated on their teaching in manner unheard of before. This is the very reason why in his time his teaching was so controversial even amongst the Greek church. It’s was novel and unheard of. Even by the time of Florence the controversy over the teaching had still not died down in the Greek world.

The Orientals too used the same fathers and never arrived at this conclusion. Neither did the latins who knew the writings of the Greek fathers. Both communions arrived at the same conclusion, a nominal distinction between essence and operation. Palamas was the first to assert that this distinction was in in fact, real.

Neither is it some "theory" that only monks care about.  The Palamite Councils are fully authoritative and are part of Holy Tradition
In your church. Not ours.

They have been unanimously received and accepted by the Church.  They can't be undone.
Revived with a bit of imperial force to help it along.

In your church. Not ours.

Wandile:  You have been asked many times to remember that this is an Orthodox site, and to respect the hospitality offered to you here as a Roman Catholic.    Disparaging a central part of the Orthodox Faith by rudely and abruptly stating that its tenets apply in the Eastern Orthodox Church and not in the Roman Church, and also not-so-subtly suggesting that the aforementioned tenets would not hold sway were it not for political interference, hardly shows a desire to graciously accept our hospitality.  At times you appear to take it as a given that the edicts of the Roman Church are normative without thinking that this might not be true for the Orthodox.  You will receive a warning of 40%, and will thus be on post moderation for a time.  Please address any appeal to me.

Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Wandile said:
You do know these canons were not written by the apostles right?
Yes I am.  That’s just the title.  They were “composed in the name of the Holy Apostles” by our Fathers and were made solemnly authoritative for us by the 2nd canon of the Quintesext Council.  They are again, part of Holy Tradition and authoritative in the East.

Canon 2:
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders….  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.

Here is the voice of the first millennium church:
Whenever you bring up quotes like this you insist they are authoritative, but when we bring up quotes that contradict them, you say they are not authoritative.  And round it goes.  I can come back at you with completely contradictory quotes all day long:

He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men....” [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34].

St. Cyprian of Carthage: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power...”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)

St. Isidore of Seville: “The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power.”[De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782]

“Peter then was only the first among the apostles as Stephen was the first among deacons.” [Augustine, Sermon 316; cf. also St. Cyprian, 71st letter, to Quint.]

For no one setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror forceth his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every Bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone has the power of both setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein” [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, The Judgments of Eighty-Seven Bishops in the Council of Carthage on the Question of Baptizing Heretics, pp. 286-287].

St. Jerome:  “It is not the case that there is one [superior] church at Rome and another in all the world beside it. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If authority is asked, the world is greater than the city [of Rome]...Wherever the bishops be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhenium, the dignity is the same, and the priesthood the same...All alike are successors of the apostles...Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city, Rome, only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception...?” [Hieronymus Epistle 146: To Evangelus

St. Theodore the Studite: “We maintain the Faith common to the Universal Church...We affirm this [faith] with certainty not simply because of the Second Holy Council of Nicea, or because of the Holy Council prior to it which dogmatized most-divinely, but by reason of the things which have been established existing since the very time our Lord and God was among us and by reason of the Divine written and unwritten Tradition...This is the Evangelical Faith of us sinners. This is the Apostolic confession of our lowliness, as well as the religion of us least ones, handed down to us by the Fathers. If anyone at all from among our contemporaries or from earlier times, if even Peter and Paul (for I speak what is incredible as admitted for the sake of argument), even if Peter and Paul should come from out of heaven itself dogmatizing and evangelizing to the contrary, we could not receive them into communion, as not adhering to the pure teaching of the Faith.” [St. Theodore, Epistles, “To the Iconoclast Synod”, P.G. 99, 1117B, 1120A]

I could go on with many, many more.  I can also link you to example after example where the Bishop of Rome was overruled or ignored by Councils, struck from the diptychs and threatened with anathemas by Councils, or left out of jurisdictional decisions altogether, etc.  Not to mention Honorius and other legitimate popes that were deposed or anathematized.

In your church. Not ours.
Amen.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
PorphyriosK said:
Wandile said:
You do know these canons were not written by the apostles right?
Yes I am.  That’s just the title.  They were “composed in the name of the Holy Apostles” by our Fathers and were made solemnly authoritative for us by the 2nd canon of the Quintesext Council.  They are again, part of Holy Tradition and authoritative in the East.

Canon 2:
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders….  But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.

Here is the voice of the first millennium church:
Whenever you bring up quotes like this you insist they are authoritative, but when we bring up quotes that contradict them, you say they are not authoritative.  And round it goes.  I can come back at you with completely contradictory quotes all day long
Wrong. Your quotes never do anything of the sort as shown even below.

He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men....” [Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34]
Primacy of rank can’t exist as the order of bishops is the highest rank in the church. Catholicism doesn't teach that the pope is a fourth rank of holy orders. So this is null quote.

St. Cyprian of Carthage: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power...”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4)
St Cyrpian teaches Roman supremacy quite explicitly in his letters. So your quote from him is null and betrays his understanding of primacy if you think he never  held to it. The only time hi question Roman authority was when the Roman authority he favoured so much turned towards him in his dispute over rebaptism.  In fact St Cyprian himself asked the pope to depose a certain bishop in France using his Roman authority.

”With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

St. Isidore of Seville: “The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power.”[De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782]
Quote St Isidore honestly:

We know who is in charge in the Church of Christ to the extent that we reverently, humbly and devoutly profess more especially to give due obedience in all things to the Roman Pontiff as God’s Vicar. Whoever proudly resists this principle, we decree, is altogether outside the fellowship of the faithful, as a heretic.” St. Isidore of Seville (620 A.D.)

St. Isidore of Seville

The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” (ante A.D. 636),in PL:84

-St. Isidore of Seville

“Peter then was only the first among the apostles as Stephen was the first among deacons.” [Augustine, Sermon 316; cf. also St. Cyprian, 71st letter, to Quint.]
St Augustine also said “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” or in Latin ” Roma locuta; causa finita est,”

For no one setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terror forceth his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying; inasmuch as every Bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who alone has the power of both setting us in the government of His Church, and of judging of our acts therein” [A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, The Judgments of Eighty-Seven Bishops in the Council of Carthage on the Question of Baptizing Heretics, pp. 286-287].
The bishops of Carthage were wrong in the refusing of Roman submission, following St Cyprian in his dispute with Rome, as they ignored the canons of Sardica. It was from this episode in church history we hear that St Augustine noted of the fate of St Cyrpian Saying that he attonned for his errors in martyrdom. In time the synod of bishops in Africa yielded to Roman authority once again. Failed quote.

St. Jerome:  “It is not the case that there is one [superior] church at Rome and another in all the world beside it. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If authority is asked, the world is greater than the city [of Rome]...Wherever the bishops be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhenium, the dignity is the same, and the priesthood the same...All alike are successors of the apostles...Why do you bring forward a custom which exists in one city, Rome, only? Why do you oppose to the laws of the Church a paltry exception...?” [Hieronymus Epistle 146: To Evangelus
Quote honestly

Catholics believe every ounce of this. All bishops are equal. The highest rank in the church is bishop. Bishops however do not have the same authority hence auxiliary bishops, archbishops, metropolitan archbishops, patriarchs and Popes. This does nothing to his other quote of only following Rome as following Christ. Failed quote. Here is a reminder:

St Jerome:
“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevail”

St. Theodore the Studite: “We maintain the Faith common to the Universal Church...We affirm this [faith] with certainty not simply because of the Second Holy Council of Nicea, or because of the Holy Council prior to it which dogmatized most-divinely, but by reason of the things which have been established existing since the very time our Lord and God was among us and by reason of the Divine written and unwritten Tradition...This is the Evangelical Faith of us sinners. This is the Apostolic confession of our lowliness, as well as the religion of us least ones, handed down to us by the Fathers. If anyone at all from among our contemporaries or from earlier times, if even Peter and Paul (for I speak what is incredible as admitted for the sake of argument), even if Peter and Paul should come from out of heaven itself dogmatizing and evangelizing to the contrary, we could not receive them into communion, as not adhering to the pure teaching of the Faith.” [St. Theodore, Epistles, “To the Iconoclast Synod”, P.G. 99, 1117B, 1120A]
The same St Theodore on the same matter:

” St Theodore of Studion;
I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”

The part about peter and Paula teaching error is true and held by catholics today. You are not bound to hold errors of your superiors.

None of these quotes contradict what I presented lol.


Almost every single father there you quote has a parallel passage affirming Roman authority. The issue is with your understanding.

I could go on with many, many more.  I can also link you to example after example where the Bishop of Rome was overruled or ignored by Councils
No council has legitimately overruled a pope. Not a single one. People ignoring popes is the same as a faithful ignoring their superior. It’s proves nothing but disobedience.

struck from the diptychs and threatened with anathemas by Councils
The only time this happened was by the insistence of the emperor against the will of the bishops at the 5th council. So this would only prove imperial force forces bishops to do something they didn’t want to do.

or left out of jurisdictional decisions altogether, etc.  Not to mention Honorius and other legitimate popes that were deposed or anathematized.
Honorius was dead. He was not the pope anymore AND the bishops were ultimately wrong on their judgment of him and the Pope Leo II overruled their decree to one of negligence.

In your church. Not ours.
Amen.
Amen
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
 

PorphyriosK

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,546
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Vanhyo said:
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
Yeah, Francis and his dancing bishops.



I have absolutely no problem at all with the simple, devout lay faithful of the Roman Catholic Church.  Many of them are not far off from the spirit of Orthodoxy and are like prisoners in their own Church with its modernist nonsense.  But I've about had it with aggressive Trads and papal apologists (i.e. Papal Lawyers) frantically trying (and failing) to argue against us while their own Church is collapsing.  They see Orthodoxy as a threat and are irritated that we have preserved Holy Tradition without the help of their papal monarchy.  They're just used to slam dunking on Protestantism and can't handle it.  I copied this quote from another site and it perfectly describes their current worldview:

"The Roman Catholic church that these trads "belong to" is like an idealized Platonic form that exists only in their minds… The idealized Pope [that exists only in their mind] is the source of stability, certainty and catholicity. The real Pope, on the other hand, is an apostate that needs to reenter into communion with their idealized Pope (again, which is a metaphysical form that has no basis in tangible reality).

Anyone that refuses to enter into communion with their imaginary Pope, in their invisible church, is basically a Protestant, and this includes the actual Pope of Rome... They're basically just Sedevecantists. The whole thing allows them to be in rebellion with the entire Christian world (with every actual Christian church) while maintaining this imaginary "submission" and "humility.
"
"

I'm about done here.  Sorry to derail the original topic. 
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
Personhood is not the same as essence at all.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
PorphyriosK said:
Vanhyo said:
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
Yeah, Francis and his dancing bishops.



I have absolutely no problem at all with the simple, devout lay faithful of the Roman Catholic Church.  Many of them are not far off from the spirit of Orthodoxy and are like prisoners in their own Church with its modernist nonsense.  But I've about had it with aggressive Trads and papal apologists (i.e. Papal Lawyers) frantically trying (and failing) to argue against us while their own Church is collapsing.  They see Orthodoxy as a threat and are irritated that we have preserved Holy Tradition without the help of their papal monarchy.  They're just used to slam dunking on Protestantism and can't handle it.  I copied this quote from another site and it perfectly describes their current worldview:

"The Roman Catholic church that these trads "belong to" is like an idealized Platonic form that exists only in their minds… The idealized Pope [that exists only in their mind] is the source of stability, certainty and catholicity. The real Pope, on the other hand, is an apostate that needs to reenter into communion with their idealized Pope (again, which is a metaphysical form that has no basis in tangible reality).

Anyone that refuses to enter into communion with their imaginary Pope, in their invisible church, is basically a Protestant, and this includes the actual Pope of Rome... They're basically just Sedevecantists. The whole thing allows them to be in rebellion with the entire Christian world (with every actual Christian church) while maintaining this imaginary "submission" and "humility.
"
"

I'm about done here.  Sorry to derail the original topic. 
Bishops can’t dance? Stiff and always angry even outside liturgical functions. Never happy or just... human.

And secondly nobody likes James Martin except his band of liberals and the LGBT crowd.

The Catholic Church most people experience is nothing like the nonsense mentioned on this site. If you want to talk about us, at least be honest.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Vanhyo said:
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
According to catholic teaching nobody is bound to follow a superior in their errors.  Nobody is bound to worship pachamama even if Pope Francis yelled at the top of his lungs. We are actually called to correct them. St Thomas explains this by the example of St Paul correcting St Peter to his face in scripture.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
Personhood is not the same as essence at all.
I wasn't implying it is. Just pointing out that one can share in the divine nature without sharing in the essence. What your teaching is a platonic version of the essence. where all will unite to the one god in essence.
Here is a description.
    Book IV, chapter 2, is a typical example of one of Ficino's arguments in support of the immortality of the soul. Citing various Platonic texts, alongside works by Augustine and Origen, he attempts to prove that the soul has a natural desire to attain knowledge of the highest truth and the greatest good — knowledge, in other words, of God — and that the satisfaction of this desire is the source of our greatest happiness. Since, however, neither this knowledge nor this happiness can be acquired in the present life, it must be achieved in the next. If this were not the case, then the aspiration, implanted in our minds by God, to penetrate to the cause of all causes and thereby achieve happiness would be useless and futile. The soul, therefore, must be immortal.
    — Luc Deitz, Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts (1997)[4]

 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
Personhood is not the same as essence at all.
I wasn't implying it is. Just pointing out that one can share in the divine nature without sharing in the essence
The three persons of the trinity all share in the divine essence equally and fully. In God essence and nature are the same thing so saying you can partake in the divine nature but not the essence makes no sense at all.

What your teaching is a platonic version of the essence. where all will unite to the one god in essence.
My view is Aristotlean and Thomist to be precise. Maybe they mildly intersect here.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
According to catholic teaching nobody is bound to follow a superior in their errors.  Nobody is bound to worship pachamama even if Pope Francis yelled at the top of his lungs. We are actually called to correct them. St Thomas explains this by the example of St Paul correcting St Peter to his face in scripture.
Are you trying to convince me to follow to papacy or you want me to resist the papacy ? Because your previous copy/pastes suggest the papa is the absolute and final authority on morals and dogmas.

The pope, elected by the roman curia and leading a council is the standard of morals and authority not wandile from the internet. There are doctors of the papacy who say you ought to obey the pope, even if he orders you to worship the devil. Who shall i listen to ? Your doctors or wandile from the internet ?

I can tell you what i plan, just keep calm and stay orthodox  8)
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
Personhood is not the same as essence at all.
I wasn't implying it is. Just pointing out that one can share in the divine nature without sharing in the essence
The three persons of the trinity all share in the divine essence equally and fully. In God essence and nature are the same thing so saying you can partake in the divine nature but not the essence makes no sense at all.

What your teaching is a platonic version of the essence. where all will unite to the one god in essence.
My view is Aristotlean and Thomist to be precise. Maybe they mildly intersect here.
So these words mean you also partake in gods essence. Correct? Earlier you stated that you don't mix into gods essence.  Can you clarify?


2 Peter 1:4
by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Btw: your views aren't Aristotlean.

. . . the soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some sort. For it is not a body, but it belongs to a body, and for this reason is present in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a sort (414a20ff).
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Vanhyo said:
©papal forgeries®, the copy/paste edition ™


i guess now we have no choice but to join papa francisco and worship the pachamama.
According to catholic teaching nobody is bound to follow a superior in their errors.  Nobody is bound to worship pachamama even if Pope Francis yelled at the top of his lungs. We are actually called to correct them. St Thomas explains this by the example of St Paul correcting St Peter to his face in scripture.
Are you trying to convince me to follow to papacy or you want me to resist the papacy ? Because your previous copy/pastes suggest the papa is the absolute and final authority on morals and dogmas.
The pope isn’t always infallible. He can err. You know this. Right now you’re being obtuse.

The pope, elected by the roman curia and leading a council is the standard of morals and authority not wandile from the internet.
He is when he follows the faith. If he says God does not exist, we obviously won’t follow him in that.

Stop these straw man arguments. I know you know we don’t believe such ridiculousness. Argue in good faith or don’t bother all. These are strawmen and arguments are a waste of time for everyone.

There are doctors of the papacy
There is no such thing as a doctor of the papacy.

who say you ought to obey the pope, even if he orders you to worship the devil.
It’s obviously hyperbole. It was a female saint who said something to that effect, simply saying we called to obedience even in the pope reprobate. She didn’t mean literally, she was using exaggeration to make point. Bad priests don’t invalidate our call to obedience. Obedience can only be looses when obedience makes us contravene divine law which is due higher obedience.

Who shall i listen to ? Your doctors or wandile from the internet ?
Strawman. Stop it now.

I can tell you what i plan, just keep calm and stay orthodox  8)
Okay
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Btw: your views aren't Aristotlean.

. . . the soul neither exists without a body nor is a body of some sort. For it is not a body, but it belongs to a body, and for this reason is present in a body, and in a body of such-and-such a sort (414a20ff).
My views are from St Thomas who’s philosophy was aristolean.

Why you taking about the soul? I never mentioned the soul anywhere.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
Your description seem like it was read from a book. Problem is you dont really understand what you are writing.
Becoming a part of essence,  means you are actually bonding with the essence. Thats like saying two individuals become one Losing what they each had as individuals.  Does that sound correct?
Only if you bond completely with the others essence. With God that is impossible not for him but for us as we are finite and thus experience God to the extent of our finititude hence we do not become him as to become God you must experience his essence infinitely as God as infinite, which no man can do because of our limited nature.

If we do not experience God as he is during divinization then we are not being deified and all of it is just a big old trick being played on us.
Which one is it? either you bond or you don't. If you don't then the EO are correct. What you have been Teaching us is that you become part of his essence and now you are down playing it.
I have never taught that we become his essence as to become his essence you need to interact with his essence fully/infinitely. You keep missing this distinction. We participate with God’s essence to be truly deified yet, we do not become God or his essence as to do so needs an infinite participation which a creature cannot do. A creature can only participate finitely which is how we are divinised and still don’t become divine (God).
So, how is this connection made? If there are two essences, man and god. What is the binding property?
God...
God in essence or god in energies?
This alone shows how you teach composition in God.

God is never apart from his essence. God is his essence. There is no God apart from his essence.
I'm not teaching anything.  Its you who have come here to school us. Your not doing a very good job at it.
So,  maybe you can explain to me what the difference is between divine nature and essence. This way we know what you mean.
In God nature and essence are the same thing.
So there are 3 divine figures and 3 essences in the trinity? I see.
Personhood is not the same as essence at all.
I wasn't implying it is. Just pointing out that one can share in the divine nature without sharing in the essence
The three persons of the trinity all share in the divine essence equally and fully. In God essence and nature are the same thing so saying you can partake in the divine nature but not the essence makes no sense at all.

What your teaching is a platonic version of the essence. where all will unite to the one god in essence.
My view is Aristotlean and Thomist to be precise. Maybe they mildly intersect here.
So these words mean you also partake in gods essence. Correct? Earlier you stated that you don't mix into gods essence.  Can you clarify?
Yes :

” By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
- 2 Peter 1:4



2 Peter 1:4
by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust
Exactly LOL you’ve literally broken down your own argument. Essence and nature are the same thing in God.

Generally nature and essence are synonymous. They describe the same reality from two different points of view:

Essence is that by which a thing is what it is.

Nature is that by which a thing acts as it does.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
 

Ainnir

Taxiarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
5,942
Reaction score
171
Points
63
Age
37
This must be why "silence is the language of Heaven."
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
Seeing God face to face is seeing his essence. Sight in scripture is more than just visually looking at God. It’s participating in him. It’s an intellectual experience. Seeing God face to face and being partakers of the divine nature go hand in hand. I have said it multiple times that to become God in essence you need to participate infinitely in God. As we are finite, we only participate finitely in God and thus don’t become God.

With all due respect I’m starting to think there is a serious language barrier here because for a long time now, your replies just aren’t making sense based on the content presented.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,867
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
Seeing God face to face is seeing his essence. Sight in scripture is more than just visually looking at God. It’s participating in him. It’s an intellectual experience. Seeing God face to face and being partakers of the divine nature go hand in hand. I have said it multiple times that to become God in essence you need to participate infinitely in God. As we are finite, we only participate finitely in God and thus don’t become God.

With all due respect I’m starting to think there is a serious language barrier here because for a long time now, your replies just aren’t making sense based on the content presented.
There is no language barrier.  I'm sometimes in a hurry and don't actually take the time to fully convey everything.  Plus I'm a one finger typer and my grammar isn't the greatest.  So I try to say as much as I can in a few sentences.

Most of the things you write,  im not against.  Just trying to point out that there is a mechanism that allows man to be a part of the divine nature without actually becoming a part of the essence. The fathers like Palmas and Maximos and a host of others all repeat the same mechanismin in there writings. That man can become a saint in this life. That is what everyone is trying to tell you. One doesn't need to die to see god.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Tzimis said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
Seeing God face to face is seeing his essence. Sight in scripture is more than just visually looking at God. It’s participating in him. It’s an intellectual experience. Seeing God face to face and being partakers of the divine nature go hand in hand. I have said it multiple times that to become God in essence you need to participate infinitely in God. As we are finite, we only participate finitely in God and thus don’t become God.

With all due respect I’m starting to think there is a serious language barrier here because for a long time now, your replies just aren’t making sense based on the content presented.
There is no language barrier.  I'm sometimes in a hurry and don't actually take the time to fully convey everything.  Plus I'm a one finger typer and my grammar isn't the greatest.  So I try to say as much as I can in a few sentences.

Most of the things you write,  im not against.  Just trying to point out that there is a mechanism that allows man to be a part of the divine nature without actually becoming a part of the essence. The fathers like Palmas and Maximos and a host of others all repeat the same mechanismin in there writings. That man can become a saint in this life. That is what everyone is trying to tell you. One doesn't need to die to see god.
For me the biggest stumbling block I have with what you’re saying is how you separates nature and essence as if they are different. In God those are most certainly the same thing. His nature is his essence so to partake in his nature is the partake in his essence.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
Seeing God face to face is seeing his essence. Sight in scripture is more than just visually looking at God. It’s participating in him. It’s an intellectual experience. Seeing God face to face and being partakers of the divine nature go hand in hand. I have said it multiple times that to become God in essence you need to participate infinitely in God. As we are finite, we only participate finitely in God and thus don’t become God.

With all due respect I’m starting to think there is a serious language barrier here because for a long time now, your replies just aren’t making sense based on the content presented.
What about the eucharist, what do you add to yourself with each bite ?
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Tzimis said:
So, your no longer going to see god face to face. You're actually going to become god in essence.  Got it now.
Seeing God face to face is seeing his essence. Sight in scripture is more than just visually looking at God. It’s participating in him. It’s an intellectual experience. Seeing God face to face and being partakers of the divine nature go hand in hand. I have said it multiple times that to become God in essence you need to participate infinitely in God. As we are finite, we only participate finitely in God and thus don’t become God.

With all due respect I’m starting to think there is a serious language barrier here because for a long time now, your replies just aren’t making sense based on the content presented.
What about the eucharist, what do you add to yourself with each bite ?
When I eat Holy Eucharist I consume the body, blood soul and divinity of our Lord. By doing so, I am imparted the divine life of God in me (Grace) that where I may have been spiritually dead or spiritually struggling, I am made alive again in Him.
 

Xavier

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
32
Website
marianapostolate.com
Vanhyo said:
Wandile said:
Again a few verses later God says:“And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face thou canst not see.“
- Exodus 33:23
This is why it is only possible in the after life from our viewpoint.

Not if you take holy communion - isaiah 6:1-6, and we do live in the age of the church, but in the old testament when the Lord would appear to his people as a theophany they often felt shocked, terrified (by their uncleanness before God) and as if they were going to die.

some interpret seeing Gods back only, as seeing only his uncreated energies but impossibility for the living to see his essence(substance) and we do know that Christ tells the jews that God the Father is God of the living, not of the dead and if the saints are alive in God and not dying, then obviously you cannot apply that quote from exodus in the way you want to apply it.
Ok. But if Face of God=Essence of God, while Back of God=Energies of God, then what else does Our Lord mean when He says we will see the Face of God, if we are pure in heart, other than that we will see His Essence? If Face=Essence, as you say, then seeing God's Face=seeing God's Essence. We can agree that this will take place through the operations. In Catholic theology, we see God's essence through His energies/operations. As we see the sun through its light. The divine operations manifest the divine essence.

Definition from Catholic Dictionary: "DIVINE OPERATION

God's activity outside of himself. Also called divine activity ad extra in contrast with divine activity within the Trinity. The Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence teach that all of God's activity outside the Trinity is done simultaneously and equally by all three persons. Thus everything that God does in the world of creatures, whether naturally or supernaturally, is the operation of all three divine persons." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

The reference to seeing the Glory of God can also be understood as seeing the Essence of God in a vision manifested through the Energies. The Glory of God refers sometimes to the Light of Glory that surrounds Him externally, and sometimes to His Essential Light. We see the sunlight through the light it spreads to those on earth; so it will be with the Light of God in Heaven. C.S. Lewis said, in another context, "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it but also because by it I see all things". In a similar way, we may say, The Blessed will see the Light of God in Heaven, as we see the sun has risen. Both because they see the Light of God in Himself (His Essence) and because, in that Perfect Light manifested to His creatures, they see all creatures also.

So, for us, seeing God Face to Face in Eternal Glory, means, seeing the Light of God face to face immediately in perfect Light forever. Can you explain why St. Paul says, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Cor 13:12), Vanhyo? I agree we should look forward to seeing God Face to Face. It should be the goal of all our spiritual practices and life's actions.

God Bless.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
2,628
Reaction score
31
Points
48
Age
56
Location
USA
Is the light on Mt. Tabor( Mark 9 etc.)  considered to be the equivalent of the Beatific vision?

If this has been brought up, then I overlooked it.
 

Vanhyo

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Location
Bulgaria
It seems to me that cor 13, speaks of lacking love (in the present time) but then coming to completeness(acts done with love) St Paul humbly say that he havent attained perfect love yet, here is a question, how does he know that we get to see Gods face when we attain this love ? The letter doesnt specify when completeness is. (in this life, the next or the resurrection).

Because it is not specified i decided to check church fathers comments.

Agustin of hippo says:
But when we begin to have a spiritual body as we are promised in the resurrection, let us see it even in the body, either by an intellectual vision or in some miraculous manner, since the grace of the spiritual body is indescribable. We shall then see it according to our capacity, without limitations of space, not larger in one part and smaller in another, since it is not a body, and it is wholly present everywhere. Letter , To Consentius.


I am not excatly sure what he means,  does he speaks of the first resurrection (when we become christians) or the second resurrection, which is at the second coming ? One thing is for sure - if it speaks of the second resurrection than this exclude the papal idea of the beutific vision.

This is an interesting commentary from st Gregory the theologian:
No one has yet discovered or shall ever discover what God is in his nature and essence. As for a discovery some time in the future, let those who have a mind for it research and speculate. The discovery will take place, so my reason tells me, when this Godlike, divine thing, I mean our mind and reason, mingles with its kin, when the copy returns to the pattern it now longs after. This seems to me to be the meaning of the great dictum that we shall, in time to come, know even as we are known.

It seems to me this is saying that we can never see the essence but in time we start to experience the divine energies.
 

Michael Seraphim

Sr. Member
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
150
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Location
Indonesia
In creatures there is such a distinction. In God, because of his simple nature, there isn’t.
Who is God = God
What
is God = God
God is simply God


This is all the proof you need that this distinction of what vs who does existence in God. God [Who] is what He is hence the divine name given to Moses; I (Who) AM WHAT I AM.


This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time...


Essentially is.



This is explained earlier by the distinction between subsistence and underlying essence. There is no distinction of persons relative to the divine essence of the persons. There is only distinction of the persons relative to each other; that is at a subsistential level



Not me, St Paul. Is is what you are. That is essence. When you see God as he is, that is to see his essence



There is no contradiction at all but I do see how common it is for people steeped in Greek theology to struggle to understand Latin heology (This is not a shot at you mind you).

As St Thomas teaches eloquently on this matter; In divine substance no distinction exists, not even of person. The distinction of person exists at a subsistential plane. That is; the divine persons relating to each other and communicating one indivisible and indistinguishable divine nature.
In creatures there is such a distinction. In God, because of his simple nature, there isn’t.
Who is God = God
What
is God = God
God is simply God


This is all the proof you need that this distinction of what vs who does not existence in God. God [Who] is what He is hence the divine name given to Moses; I (Who) AM WHAT I AM.


This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time...


Essentially is.



This is explained earlier by the distinction between subsistence and underlying essence. There is no distinction of persons relative to the divine essence of the persons. There is only distinction of the persons relative to each other; that is at a subsistential level



Not me, St Paul. Is is what you are. That is essence. When you see God as he is, that is to see his essence



There is no contradiction at all but I do see how common it is for people steeped in Greek theology to struggle to understand Latin heology (This is not a shot at you mind you).

As St Thomas teaches eloquently on this matter; In divine substance no distinction exists, not even of person. The distinction of person exists at a subsistential plane. That is; the divine persons relating to each other and communicating one indivisible and indistinguishable divine nature.
Dreadful mistake

WHAT God is = God
WHO God is = The Father Eternally-Begetting the Son and Eternally-Processing the Holy Spirit

Essence and Person are two different things. Again you are conflating His Identity [so to speak, namely YHWH], which His Essence. His Name describes His Being, but is not identical with His Essence

What do you mean by 'underlying essence'? Are you imagining the Divine Essence as a sort of substratum upon which the Divine Persons rise out?

Latin theology = bad theology. I wouldn't invoke Aquinas. Guy's a bad theologian as proven by his notion of Actus Purus
 

Cavaradossi

Archon
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
2,036
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Secondly the Byzantine east has existed longer without palamism than with it.
The Latin West existed longer without Thomism than with it. The inconsistency between Thomas and Palamas then hardly demonstrates that either is right or wrong on the subject.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Warned for disrespecting the teachings and the person of St. Gregory Palamas for a second time.
The Latin West existed longer without Thomism than with it.
Indeed it has and that’s why to be western doesn’t necessitate being Thomist unlike being Byzantine in modern times mandates being "Palamite."

Although unlike "Palamism," Thomism wasn’t a new idea or teaching but rather a highly systematized form of the already existing patristic method (Borrowing from philosophy to explain theological truths). Where as "Palamism" even in the east itself was controversial and identified as a novelty (debates over its legitimacy as a development of earlier patristic ideas were very vibrant as a result).


Wrong. Being EASTERN ORTHODOX, not "Byzantine", necessitates believing in all of the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. The second Sunday in Great Lent is dedicated to his memory and his teachings in every Eastern Orthodox Church worldwide. His teachings are an integral part of the Orthodox faith, and for the Orthodox are simply an elaboration of apostolic Tradition.
The fact that it took until the end of the fourteenth century for some to accept his teachings is not the same thing as affirming that they were never fully accepted until the "modern" period.

No further assertions, either implicit or explicit, that seek to deny the universally accepted veracity of St. Gregory's teachings in the Eastern Orthodox Church will be tolerated.


"O Light of Orthodoxy! Teacher of the Church. Its Confirmation! O Ideal of Monks and invincible Champion of Theologians! O wonder-working Gregory, glory of Thessalonica and Preacher of Grace! Always intercede before the Lord that our souls may be saved!"

(Apolytikion, second Sunday of Great Lent.)

Slights against glorified Orthodox Catholic saints, such as the obvious dig you directed at St. Gregory by spelling "palamism" and "palamite" with a lower-case "p" while dignifying "Thomism" with an upper-case "T" are unacceptable. Also, the very category of "Palamism" does not exist for the Orthodox, and you have continued to ignore this. You have been reminded over and over again that you are here on this Orthodox site as a guest and that you should behave accordingly.

You were originally to have received a warning of 100 points, until it was realised that you were warned for a similar infraction in February. You will instead receive a warning of 200 points and will be on post moderation for 5 weeks.
Please address any appeal to me.

Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator




The inconsistency between Thomas and Palamas then hardly demonstrates that either is right or wrong on the subject.
As I said earlier, I wasn’t speaking about "Palamism" being right or wrong when I mentioned that the east has existed without it much longer than with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,686
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Canada
Although unlike "Palamism," Thomism wasn’t a new idea or teaching but rather a highly systematized form of the already existing patristic method (Borrowing from philosophy to explain theological truths).
Not so. St. Thomas Aquinas did use the Fathers a lot in his reasoning, but like other Scholastics he also imported many ideas from pagan philosophy into his theology in their entirety without removing or changing erroneous elements as the Fathers largely did. Origen was condemned largely because of being guilty of the same mistake. St. Gregory Palamas is the clear inheritor of the teachings of the Fathers.
 

Wandile

Archon
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
3,265
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Location
Johannesburg, South Africa
Not so. St. Thomas Aquinas did use the Fathers a lot in his reasoning, but like other Scholastics he also imported many ideas from pagan philosophy into his theology in their entirety without removing or changing erroneous elements as the Fathers largely did. Origen was condemned largely because of being guilty of the same mistake. St. Gregory Palamas is the clear inheritor of the teachings of the Fathers.
Well this is just wrong. Aquinas on many occasions defers to the truth of faith over that of the philosophers when there are disagreements. He regularly corrected his philosophical basis when it didn’t line up with faith so too he made corrections to the fathers where they had erred. Aquinas was a servant of truth not a servant of specific teacher (Father/philosopher). He highly respected those two bases and deferred to them as the bases of his faith but he wasn’t scared to disagree with them when they erred.

There is practically no difference between the method of St Thomas and that of St John of Damascus for example.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,686
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Location
Canada
Well this is just wrong. Aquinas on many occasions defers to the truth of faith over that of the philosophers when there are disagreements. He regularly corrected his philosophical basis when it didn’t line up with faith so too he made corrections to the fathers where they had erred. Aquinas was a servant of truth not a servant of specific teacher (Father/philosopher). He highly respected those two bases and deferred to them as the bases of his faith but he wasn’t scared to disagree with them when they erred.

There is practically no difference between the method of St Thomas and that of St John of Damascus for example.
You are absolutely right to say that St. Thomas did indeed "defer to the truth of faith" against philosophical thought at times. But the simple fact of the matter is that he could not help being a creature of his time and place. Being an intellectual and a philosopher in the 13th-century West meant being a scholastic; there's just no way to get around this. He was an incredibly brilliant thinker who often attempted to transcend the limits of his scholastic training while paradoxically still working within its confines in that he just couldn't help it: it provided the foundation on which he built his argumentation. Scholastics tried to explain Christian doctrine in terms of a rationally and philosophically explained schema instead of as revealed truth. In the very post of yours I have just responded to, you yourself openly admit that Aquinas was a scholastic philosopher of his time first and foremost and that his faith was based on philosophical teachings: "[St. Thomas] highly respected [his mentors in the priesthood and the study of philosophy] and deferred to them as the bases of his faith..."

St. Thomas could not escape his scholasticism and its complex innovative reasoning which was plainly not a continuation of patristic Tradition.

As for your claim that St. John of Damascus and Aquinas used the same method: any similarities here are largely superficial in nature. St. John lived in Syria and Palestine in the seventh and eighth centuries. St. Thomas lived in Western Europe in the thirteenth century. Scholasticism does not have its beginnings until the late eleventh-century West with Anselm, the "father" of scholasticism.
 
Last edited:

xariskai

OC.Net Guru
Warned
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
21
Points
38
Wandle said:
Thomism wasn’t a new idea or teaching but rather a highly systematized form of the already existing patristic method (Borrowing from philosophy to explain theological truths). Where as "Palamism" even in the east itself was controversial and identified as a novelty.
This is completely wrong /false.

Thomism was both controversial and regarded as a novelty in the RC west as observed by RC philosopher Fr. Frederick Copleston, S.J.:

"...in the Middle Ages Aquinas' philosophy never came to occupy the position in the Catholic Church which it enjoys today; it was simply one philosophy among others. And mention has already been made in the first chapter of the fact that Aquinas was regarded by his contemporaries as an innovator. Indeed, some of his ideas met with opposition not only from theologians and philosophers outside the Order to which he belonged but even from some Dominicans... " (F. C. Copleston, Aquinas (Baltimore: Pelican Press), p. 243).


I have come across no major historian or philosopher who has claimed otherwise as you have (if they had they would have been wrong). Where in God's green earth did you acquire such a misconception, Wandle?
 
Top