It's such an honor to have my question answered by a small Iranian man... I can die peacefully now. :,)

@Iminyourare12

Ай бұрын

Wait astro is an Iranian?

@NicoFTWandMichael

Ай бұрын

@@Iminyourare12 No idea bro, just presuming from the thumbnail.

@manimoradi2153

26 күн бұрын

@@Iminyourare12yeah

The ortho bros bout to be mad with this one

@issaavedra

Ай бұрын

I'm Orthodox, and I'm not going to pretend to be able to follow the "debate". Top Orthodox theologians disagree with top Catholic theologians... and I'm nowhere near as smart as either of them, and even less able to rationally decide which side is right. I have to go with my gut. I like these high-level topics because they're like brain candy to me, but if my salvation depends on my brain power, I'm doomed.

@XmarkedMySpot

Ай бұрын

@@issaavedra I admire your humility brother 🫡

@thomasmalacky7864

Ай бұрын

​@@XmarkedMySpotCatholicism the homosexual seat.

@thomasmalacky7864

Ай бұрын

Thomas repent from Roman Catholic heresy

@thomasthellamas9886

Ай бұрын

@@thomasmalacky7864 I’m a Baptist heretic. Not a Roman Catholic heretic.

EO's theology of God is completely different from any agreed-upon presuppositions about God and the Trinity in the West. It seemed so strange, and against Scripture and history, that I rejected it and embraced Catholicism.

@TheGreekCatholic

Ай бұрын

It's just because photius got deposed and wept and mourned himself. Then, like Luther, he had a breakthrough. Oh, yes. The filiqoue. Since then, the eo have had to dance around some ridiculous distinction to fit their theology. They've cut off their nose to spite their face.

@AluminiumT6

Ай бұрын

That's a chad way to convert 🔥

@user-ud9tk4qg6t

Ай бұрын

Is the E/E distinction as posited by Dyer et al the typical "Orthodox" interpretation of Palamas?

@TheGreekCatholic

Ай бұрын

@user-ud9tk4qg6t think the EO holds a neo-palamite position, which emphasizes the distinction further.

@TheGreekCatholic

Ай бұрын

@Danielqu976 God created the universe from nothing but himself (his essence). Through his energies, he created, and therefore, his energies permeate his creation, which he limits how he pleases. This maintains his trancedences, simplicity, and his effectiveness in the world. There is no need to make a real distinction with his energies and essence.

Aquinas says that because God is simple that we will see Him as He is but we will not comprehend Him (that is, fully as in scientifically or comprehensively), but we can say we know Him in the way that one can know a thing or subject in passing but not in the fullest depth

Orthobros mad in the comments because they don't even understand the critique. Saying that "but energies proceed from the essence" is literally irrelevant to the argument. The argument is this, either the divine essence is knowing, willing, loving, etc. by virtue of 1) of itself or 2) by virtue of really distinct inseparably united divine energies. If the former, then it leads to essence/energy real identity, if the latter, then God's essence in itself (i.e., without the consideration of energies) is deficient and imperfect, because it is only knowing, willing, loving, merciful, etc. only INSOFAR AS there are these inseparable energies proceeding from it. Therefore, they actualize God's essence and make him to be knowing, willing etc. Thus, God's essence is actualized. Once again, Orthobros don't understand most basic arguments.

@NicoFTWandMichael

Ай бұрын

Hey Astro. Question. I just need some affirmation that my memory didn't make up these statements. Did St. Gregory Nazianzus somewhere say that he was open to the possibility of some knowledge of the essence, and I also read a quote where he said that at some point God dwells in us by energies but later dwells substantially. Also, did St. Gregory of Nyssa say that, after this life, we will discover God but this time, after death that is, not only by energies.

@dvinb150

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 The holy Damascene definitely wasn't a Neoplatonic Ismaili like you guys seem to be, he wasn't a radical cataphaticist who thought the divine essence is wholly indescribable & unknown/ invisible even in the next life & that it transcends our categories of being, knowledge etc. And if the divine energies are the essence in motion & are really distinct from the essence, then you not only believe in a composite, but also in a mutable god, a god whose essence is in motion.

@iteadthomam

Ай бұрын

@@NicoFTWandMichael Yes, they say that it's the divine essence. For instance, St. Gregory of Nazianzus says in oration 28 that: "What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire."

I think this misunderstands the Cappadocian idea of apophatic theology in regards to the Divine Essence.

@dylanisaac1312

Ай бұрын

I agree. I think Palamas states that the Essence of God is so tracendent that we may not even describe Him... To say that God's Essence requires His Energies to be perfected goes against the whole idea of Apophatic Theology in the East.

@quasimodo6940

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 Astro actually believes that Palamas is reconcilable to thomism on DS, but he rightfully ridicules the neopalamite position.

@quasimodo6940

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 it's not, because formal distinctions aren't contrary to real identities. But the neopalamites deny a real identity between the essence and energy

@quasimodo6940

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 no. Not at all. Neopalamism denies a real identity between God and His perfections but all Scotists accept a real identity between God and His perfections

@dylanisaac1312

Ай бұрын

@@quasimodo6940 what do you mean by "denies a real identity"?

Actually, the best retort I’ve yet seen is regarding the language of Constantinople 381

@Patriarch.Chadimus

Ай бұрын

Genuinely curious, what language does Constantinople 381 say in regards to the Essence-Energies Distinction?

If his essence is not all knowing then how can he beget his word substantially?

Deficient? Why something beyond knowledge would be necessarily deficient?

@quasimodo6940

Ай бұрын

It's not about being beyond knowledge but since it is purely actual and that knowledge is a pure perfection, then it must be exccedingly knowledgeable. But if the essence isn't knowledgeable because its pure act but because its actualized to be so by energies, which is what neopalamites may, unconsciously or not, propose, then astro's critique is sound.

@Patriarch.Chadimus

Ай бұрын

​@@quasimodo6940I think Trey from.Telosbound has a really good video on Potency in God and what that actually means in St. Gregory Palamas and the issue of a lot of mirepresentation of his theological views on the matter. Genuinely, and I say this as an Orthodox, I think much like how many "pop-apologists" in Catholicism tend to misrepresent the deeper positions of Rome, the same is true in Orthodoxy.

How do you think your boy redeemed zoomer did vs Leighton Flowers?

@marteld2108

Ай бұрын

I started to listen to the debate. In the first 5 minutes “Redeemed Zoomer” misrepresents the Church and said the Catholic Church teaches “Double Predestination.” I replied to a post of his saying he is wrong based on CCC 600 and 1037.

@VACatholic

Ай бұрын

@@marteld2108 You should check out this guy named "Scholastic Answers". He has a 1 hour video on the topic you might find interesting.

@littlechildinbigworld

Ай бұрын

​@@marteld2108have you seen Wagner harmonize catechism with double predestination?

I am of the mind that Neo-Palamism is nonsense, myself (Whether it is what Palamas even taught is debatable, as well), but I'm not sure if Astro's rebuttal of it in particular is an adequate objection. If one goes by the proof-texts that these people use, then it would not really be accurate to say that the Divine Essence is endowed with perfections as a potency actualized by the Uncreated Energies. Rather, they would say that the Essence *transcends* the Energies utterly and infinitely, so it's not "the Divine Essence is not knowing/powerful/infinite/etc. unless there is an energy of knowledge/power/infinity/etc. inseparably united to it," so much as "The Divine Essence is incomparably greater than knowledge/power/infinity/etc, and these attributes are simply the tokens and natural symbols of it that we can contemplate." Put that way, you can almost compare it to the Neoplatonic idea of the Eternal Intellect that emanates from the One and holds all the Intelligible Forms within itself (Though not quite the same, since Palamas held that the energies are already superessential, whereas Plotinus et al would expressly deny this of the Intellect. So perhaps a more apt comparison is Proclus' Henads) Of course, that is precisely what brings Neo-Palamites out of the soup and into the frying pan: It effectively results in Polytheism by positing two divinities: A lower one, which we can actually contemplate and participate in, and a higher one, which is utterly beyond all our contemplation and cannot be participated in, and infinitely transcends the second divinity. It's almost as if Neo-Palamites affirm a necessary production of something from the Godhead, except for the fact they stop short of full-on Spinozism by locating this procession within the Godhead itself, rather than identifying it with creation or somesuch. Overall, a huge mess on their part. Love your work, nonetheless!

@dvinb150

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 Palamas literally accepted the language of the energies being a θεότης ὑφειμένη (lower divinity) in his 3rd Letter to Akindynos (1341). Then, after the Palamite councils of June & August 1341, he got cautious to approve of such language, because it had been used against him by Barlaam & Akindynos, so he doesn't affirmatively use it anymore in his later writings. So, you cannot claim Palamas never affirmed such language, he did at some point. And you Dyerites fail to understand that acts can be considered actively as on the part of the agent, or passively as on the part of the patient. So yes, the act of begetting & the act of creating are really identical on the part of the agent, which is God, but really distinct on the part of their termini, since one is created & the other uncreated.

@dvinb150

Ай бұрын

At least the ancient & modern Neoplatonists like the Ismaili Shi'a think of the eternal Intellect being a creature & not God Himself, unlike the Neo-Palamites/Dyerites do.

@dvinb150

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 So, are you of the opinion that Palamas did not believe that the divine essence is identical to the divine energy in reality?

@dvinb150

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976 Yes, the divine will is the divine essence, which is the divine activity. But all of these can be virtually distinguished among themselves by our intellects.

@ConradThePalamite

Ай бұрын

@@Danielqu976good stuff in the replies man 👍

does this guy have a youtube channel?

some thing distinct from the divine nature yet eternal and perfect the divine nature, yeaa isn't that paganism 101 basically?

You need to take on Jay Dyer.

@krkenheimer

2 ай бұрын

@@Linkgt Erick Ybarra did 4 years ago and Pinesap did like a week ago

@AluminiumT6

2 ай бұрын

He needs to stop blocking ppl on twitter. Too sensitive.

@tomasrocha6139

2 ай бұрын

He blocks everyone while pretending people are scared to debate him.

@alonsoACR

Ай бұрын

Denying the filioque is indefensible. Pretty much all other Christians don't deny it, why do orthobros? It's not even dogma in the East. Seems sometimes like they just want to be contrarians

@BCATO

Ай бұрын

Jay the blocker?

? He didn’t even come close to debunking anything

@iteadthomam

Ай бұрын

Not an argument, Dyerite.

@dimitridawydow5176

Ай бұрын

@@iteadthomam How do you know that I'm a "Dyerite"... It wouldn't be plausible for me to argue against Michaels or Thomists points on the spot because those would not influence your opinion in any way... I'll do it anyways by asking you a question. Did the Catholic Church change the original Apostolic teaching or did Palamas invent a new form of faith? I seriously doubt that Palamas was an inventor, rather he was a continuator.

@DANtheMANofSIPA

Ай бұрын

@@dimitridawydow5176These guys are skitzo. They cant take any disagreement without freaking out

@JayDyer