/lit/ - Literature

>What does it mean when the Fathers say that Christ introduces us to the Father?

“God became man so that man might become God.”

>>14672941
Colossians 1:15

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

>>14673019
Nay: I mean what does it mean metaphysically, since they are talking about it as a mystical experience; is Christ, in this sense, the nous before the One?

Bump.

>>14672941
Unrelated question, from my surface level understanding of hesychasm it seems to be something that's really only taught and formally practiced in EO monasteries etc and is not something that's usually taught to people who have normal lives with jobs and families. Some someone who is more knowledgeable about EO explain the situation to me and confirm or deny whether my perception is correct?

A saying goes: mary leads us to the son and the son leads us to the father. Here it appears to signify the purified soul to the logos and the becoming part of god to the father who i designate as most incomprehensible since he feels like the beginning of being as i know it and beyond it. In a duality i would call the son light and the father darkness. But in reality their is just blinding light.

>>14673660
Anyone can do the Jesus prayer. I know some do it while working or cooking. Sucks for those having to devote their attention to lower things, if they wanted they could change their vocation. Anyways, you don't gotta be a monk. Monasteries are for the sick, does not mean only they want to be devoted to God.

>>14673057
Nous and one sound correct enough to me. What are words anyways?

>>14673811
Monasteries aren't for the sick, brother; rather, they are for the lovers, it seems to me.

>>14672941
>According to Palamas, the ousia is unknowable, however are the hypostases knowable?
The Energies are knowable, the Energies are effected by the Hypostases. Obviously we can know nothing of the Essence but thy Hypostases are neccessary to enhypostatize the Energies. We reject the idea of abstract, uneffected Energies.
>What does it mean when the Fathers say that Christ introduces us to the Father?
That human essence and energies are united to Divine Essence and Energies in the hypostatic Union of Christ. Christ become the bridge that crosses the chasm between created and uncreated. This allows our nature and energies to be deifed by the Divine Eneriges, we still have no contact of understanding of the Divine Essence.

>>14673057
>is Christ, in this sense, the nous before the One?
No, we reject the neoplatonic meaning of these words. In God, Essence, Energies, and Hypostases are all equal ontologically. Christ being a single Divine Hypostasis who assumed human essence and energies has no lower or subordinate role in the Godhead.

>>14673660
The other guys was right to say that anyone can say the Jesus Prayer and this is the first part of Hesychasm. Hesychasm does have further techniques (positions of sitting, was of rhyming the prayer with a way of breathing etc.) which are rarely taught even in monasteries. One of the fathers says that attempting them without proper preparation and maturity will at best ruin your lungs and at worst be a spiritual catastrophe for you. That is why reading texts like the philokalia is usually recommended only under the guidance of your spiritual father.

>>14674258
>We reject the idea of abstract, uneffected Energies.
Effected was probably the wrong word to use here.I mean that the energies are never divorced from hypostasis. They can be not yet effected (logoi) but are never existing apart from person.

You'll need to read St. Dionysius and St. Maximus at the very least to understand Palamas.

>>14673057
The neoplatonic view lost out in Orthodox Christianity, although some of the very early church fathers dabbled with that notion, and it's obviously present in Gnosticism. In Orthodox Christianity all three are of entirely the same essence, being coequal.

>>14674258
Interesting answer. Any books apart from The Triads that I may read that deal with the ousia/hypostases/energy of God?

>>14674545
>>14674258
Indeed. It's clear that Origen and Clement, and all of those who followed their line of thinking, treated Christ as "subordinate" to the Father, and in a level of presence beneath him.

>>14674569
God, History, and Dialectic by Joseph P Farrell. (avoid everything else he wrote except for Free Will in St Maximus the confessor and his translation of and introduction to the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photios)
St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality by John Meyendorff
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church and Dogmatic Theology both by Vladimir Lossky
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (I think its called the Experience of God in English) by Fr. Dumitru Staniloae.

Most Orthodox theologians will deal with it in some capacity, but those are some good places to start. Dogmatic Theology by Lossky is short and a great introduction if you had to start with one.

>>14674591
Origen is anathematized at Constantinople II and Clement was never recognised as a saint precisely because both of them retained neoplatonic tendencies. See St. Photius' 10 points of contention with Clement

>>14674569
>>14674615
Actually if you already have a decent grasp on Orthodox theology and want to deal with Hesychasm and distinctions in God, its probably better start with Meyendorff's book.

>>14674615
>Origen is anathematized
Isn't there debate around the validity of the anathemas against Origen?

>>14674615
>>14674638
Thank you for your recommendations! Meyendorff's book interested me greatly; unfortunately, however, it doesn't seems to available online?
I've read Lossky's Mystical Theology and found it a bit lacking. I will be sure to check The Experience of God.

People love to hate origen. He sees that Jesus said his father is greater than he is. They don't condemn jesus and yet they condemn origen. The church for many years fought each other because they did not use the same language which points to the truth. So be cautious when you see a man condemning another, because some men are more concerned with using the official symbols and language of their tribe of humans that they want to be in good standing with. They may not actually understand the truth that the descriptions point to. Instead of throwing origen under the bus, why don't you try to see if he is really the heretic some claim him to be. Worse of all some who hate origen laud a popular "saint" who said it was good to torture heretics.

>>14674647
No. Some modernists like David Bentley Hart desperately try to make it seem like that, as they hate the idea of eternal damnation. Everyone until the last century admitted that Origen was anathematized. Even before the anathemas, he was not treated as a saint. There are no icons of him, he is not on any calendar for veneration and he was corrected by those that immediately proceeded after him (Cappadocians) Pic related is a letter written by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem which was accepted at the 6th Council.

>>14674682
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22883303687&searchurl=sortby%3D17%26tn%3DSt%2BGregory%2BPalamas%2Band%2BOrthodox%2BSpirituality&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1
Staniloae's books are pretty expensive so maybe start with the first one to see how you like it? He is an excellent and well respected author though and was responsible along with Fr. Arsenie Boca for translating the Philokalia into Romanian, so you can be sure that he has the credentials for this kind of theology.

>>14674716
>So be cautious when you see a man condemning another, because some men are more concerned with using the official symbols and language of their tribe of humans that they want to be in good standing with.
The Councils condemned him. If you are an Orthodox Christian in good standing, you cannot abide by his teachings. That is not to say that he wrote nothing of value or that we cannot learn from him, we certainly can. But we ought to go to the Saints who have been proven to have little error before we go along with Origen or Clement's speculative theology which often ends in error.

>>14674716
>Worse of all some who hate origen laud a popular "saint" who said it was good to torture heretics.
Who are you referring to here?

>>14674746
Isn't Evagrius a saint?

>>14674755
Aquinas. Does not matter though. Fleshly tribalistic humans will try to fit into the group that their flesh feels will give them the greatest chance at survival and reproduction. Most people Don't consciously understand that they, with their hairy body, betray their birthright for one meal.

>>14674776
Only for the Syriacs and Armenians who schismed from the Church in 451

>>14674785
>Aquinas
Ah makes sense
>Fleshly tribalistic humans will try to fit into the group that their flesh feels will give them the greatest chance at survival and reproduction. Most people Don't consciously understand that they, with their hairy body, betray their birthright for one meal.
sounds incredibly gnostic desu senpai

>>14674815
That's evolutionary psychology + the basic notion of the flesh in the new testament. It goes together pretty nicely. Christians should embrace it.

>>14674815
Why are the Syriacs and Armenians in schism?
Furthermore, are there any form of nestorianism alive? Honestly thinking about conjoining them.

>>14674840
Syriacs, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians etc are all in schism for retaining the miaphysite heresy. Not sure why you'd want to join the Nestorians but the Chaldean Catholic Church (in communion with Rome lol) literally venerates Nestorius so they probably are Nestorians, I think they deny it officially tho. Otherwise the Assyrian Church of the East is the current form of Nestorianism.

Why do you want to become a Nestorian?

>>14674836
>Evolutionary psychology
>evolution
literally condemned in the same chapter of the same letter from St Sophronius. Imagine having your theology influenced by psychologists and darwinists lmao

>>14674863
I'm mostly kidding, although the emphasis that the Nestorian puts on the differentiation between Christ and the Son, allowing the believer, having once reached the Son to fully realize Christ, being able to identify with him in a way that seems "prohibited" in Catholic Christianity- with its emphasis on the absolute differentiation between the creature and God, therefore with Christ, in their view; in truth, you will have a difficult time finding a Catholic, be Orthodox or Roman, of the past century that doesn't polemicises with something they call "pantheism"- attracts me.

>>14674938
>the differentiation between Christ and the Son
>with its emphasis on the absolute differentiation between the creature and God, therefore with Christ
This is precisely why Nestorianism is incompatible with hesychasm

>>14674970
How so?

>>14674993
Hesychasm is the firstfruits of theosis experienced by those who become as spiritually advanced as we can in this life. They that achieve it actively participate in the the divinity of Christ on the basis that Christs divinity deified His humanity, which is the same nature as our humanity. In the Nestorian model, there is two subjects, two persons who are abstractly joined together. The human person is human exactly like us and the divine Person in totally other than us, therefore there is no basis for participating in the Son's divinity as He didn't have a human nature like ours which was itself deified. Theosis and therefore hesychasm is predicated on the hypostasis of Jesus Christ joining together in Himself complete humanity and complete divinity. When you cut the person in half ascribing humanity to the one and divinity to the other, there is no longer any basis for human participation in divine energies. If the human 'part' of the Incarnate Christ was not deified, how can we, infinitely more sinful and fallen ever hope to be?

If christ is one then something about humanity is eternal. It's not true that there is an unpassable gap between creature and creator. But in general the brute beast who think men can overcome God's beauty and that they will be eternally condemned, have not seen the face of God and are as lost as the ones they feel are harshly condemned. Panentheism is not incompatible with Christianity, but "only god is" is not compatible because god loves his souls. If christ is god and human, it spells very good news indeed.

>>14675039
I do not see the point, dear strange.
As far as I'm aware, the Orthodox doctrine is that the incarnation elevated human nature, but it did not extinguished it; there was still, in Christ, two wills.

>>14674647
He was anathematized well after his death, which is generally a no-no.

>>14675145
yes, but what I find difficult to understand is that we participate in divine essence and we long for it, but how is it that Christ was both human and divine? Does it mean to say that he was both Purely Divine and humanly divine?

>>14675483
Maybe it's something to do with being an infant finite and infinite. Or that a perfect God can have development. Becoming and being. The idea of God giving birth to a son is already a strange one. Descriptions of God are descriptions of the most fundamental reality that holds all things up, so his nature makes reality function as it does.

>>14675483
>yes, but what I find difficult to understand is that we participate in divine essence
We don't participate in the divine essence directly but in the divine energies. In one sense we can say that the energies are enhypostatic because they persist where they are sent which makes a true union and participation possible.

"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature"
2 Peter 1:4

>how is it that Christ was both human and divine?
In the Person of Christ there is a sole subject: the Second Person of the Trinity who in the Incarnation assumes an impersonal human nature, meaning that a human person was not added but that the nature was enhypostatized or personalized in the God-man.

>>14674615
These are great suggestions but do assume you already are practicing and know Orthodox theology well. Meyendorff's work is the best place to start.

I would also suggest On to Road to Being: St Maximus the Confessor’ Syn-odical Ontology by Dionysios Skliris

Christ: The Alpha and Omega by Athanasius Yevtich is also a good accessible piece.

>>14675145
>If christ is one then something about humanity is eternal
Christ is only one hypostatically, there is only one person called Christ. At the incarnation, He assumed a created human nature with all that comes with it: will, energies, mortality etc. Everything we have in common with Him, He assumed at a specific moment in time, they are not eternal, so nothing about humanity is eternal.
>It's not true that there is an unpassable gap between creature and creator.
It was true up until Christ's Incarnation. When the St. Paul says there is but one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ, he is referring to this bridging of the gap between created and Uncreated in the hypostatic union.

>>14675242
>As far as I'm aware, the Orthodox doctrine is that the incarnation elevated human nature, but it did not extinguished it; there was still, in Christ, two wills.
You are correct. How is human nature elevated in the Incarnation if the same hypostasis was not at the same time human and divine though? Nestorianism teaches that there were two distinct hypostases which were joined together, that there were two subjects. They would say that the person who walked on water is different than the person who felt pain, though they shared a body. If they are to be consistent, they must even go so far as to say that the person who was crucified was different to the who was resurrected, because death is proper to humanity, while resurrection is proper to divinity. This is why Nestorians hate the term Theotokos for the Virgin Mary, because they think it is absurd to say the Holy Virgin bore the Divine Person, and not a human person. The two wills in Christ are because will is proper to nature, not person. There is 2 will in Christ but only 1 in the Godhead.

>>14675483
>yes, but what I find difficult to understand is that we participate in divine essence
We do not participate in the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence is totally unknowable, completely beyond comprehension, much less predication or classification. The Fathers say that trying to pry into the mysteries of the Divine Essence will result only in madness or blasphemy. We participate in the Divine Energies. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church. Read St. Dionysius' Mystical Theology, it's about 10 pages going to great length to explain the radical apophaticism necessary to have even the linguistic boundaries set for proper theology to be done.

>>14675600
>Maybe it's something to do with being an infant finite and infinite. Or that a perfect God can have development. Becoming and being.
This is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. I'm guessing that you're not Orthodox? I don't mean to judge or lecture, just hoping that inquirers don't get the wrong idea

>>14676090
True, I assumed that OP is familiar with Orthodoxy since he is looking into Hesychasm and seems somewhat familiar with Trinitarian terminology. I certainly wouldn't suggest anyone read Farrell without a good grasp lmao.

>>14674938
>being able to identify with him in a way that seems "prohibited" in Catholic Christianity

The heart of Catholic teaching is to unite yourself with Christ through the indwelling of the holy spirit received in prayer, sacraments, and good works. I think you might be ignorant of Catholicism if you think this.

>>14677129
Yes yes, i’ve read the areopagita, but dont the divine energies come from the divine essence? I know the divine essence is inscrutable, but it is the absolute reality, so everything in the proceeds/emanates from it in a sense (since it contains everything for everything is posterior to it and at the same time it has not a single thing since it is beyond everything)

>>14674258
What's the difference between Essence and Hypostases?

>>14677158
I'd say that's but a sacrificial identification, not a full psychological and metaphysical one.

>>14674258
"Christ being a single Divine Hypostasis who assumed human essence and energies has no lower or subordinate role in the Godhead."

I'm curious: how is "my father is greater than I." interpreted in this case?

>>14672941
There is a style in total denial, a certain elegance of fear. Hesychasm is so much convenient to release the desert within ourselves.

>>14678035

Why do you say that? Keep in mind that a big part of Catholicism is the Eucharist, in which Christians partake of God, obviously this is a mysterious and mystical union with Christ that's transformative.

>>14678124
It's, still, not a metaphysical identification- as it would be, if one were to be a Nestorian. You can probably understand how and why.
Even for the greater Saints, if they were to say with Eckhart that "all that was given to the Son, was given to me." wouldn't that be scandalous?

(It's a honest question; I do not know it, but I imagine that yes, it'd be scandalous.)

>>14678161
The Identification with the Son seems to be the real mystery of Christianity, and yet, by each anathema the mystics were more and more exiled, whether from the realization of it or from the clear statements as this, I do not know.

>“In the tradition of the Eastern Church there is no place for a theology, and even less for a mysticism, of the divine essence. The goal of Orthodox spirituality, the blessedness of the Kingdom of Heaven, is not the vision of the essence, but, above all, a participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity; the deified state of the co-heirs of the divine nature, gods created after the uncreated God, possessing by grace all that the Holy Trinity possesses by nature.”
-V. Lossky.

>>14678172
It's appropriate to know that there seems to be a real fear or perhaps a desire to ignore the Essence of God in favor of the Trinity in modern Theology, which is not the case with the two aforementioned mystics. Probably as a response to other Religions, which prioritize the unity of the Essence before the hypostases. Not that the essence can be truly known but, as St. Maximos puts it:
>"God is supra-non-knowable, and He can therefore be known only by an act of supra-non-knowing.”

As >>14677129 stated:
>"The Fathers say that trying to pry into the mysteries of the Divine Essence will result only in madness or blasphemy."

Perhaps these two just went a bit further.

>>14678112
Indeed. Aphophaticism is a grand way, since silence is the only way to reach God.

>>14674746
Can we still pray for people who have been anathematized?

>>14672941
I knew I was in the mood for something, but I didn't know it was Batushka. Thanks, anon.

Bump.

>>14674746
How can god become 'all in all' with the damned?
Either this implies annihilationism or the redemption of all.

>>14678099
Christ is referring to God the Fathers primacy in the Trinity. From the Father to the Son through the Holy Spirit. God the Father is the origin point of any divine action, in the same way we may say a Teacher teaches "From the Teacher to the Students through Word", God performs every action "From the Father to the Son through the Holy Spirit"-this does not entail subordination in essence however, in the same way the Pope was the first among equals. Contrast this with the Filioque in which both the Son and the Father spirate the Holy Ghost, I believe that the Catholics have no coherent way to explain that verse.

>>14680358
The redemption of all, of course. Search for apokatastasis.

>>14677727
>Yes yes, i’ve read the areopagita, but dont the divine energies come from the divine essence?
I don't think you can create causal relations between essence/energies/hypostasis. The three always coincide enhypostatised. There is no personless essence nor personless energy, and never does a person lack either. As far as I can tell there is no hierarchical or causal relationship between any of the three categories.

>I know the divine essence is inscrutable, but it is the absolute reality
We can't ascribe absolute reality to one of three distinctions in God, and if we had to give priority to one over the others it would be to person as this is where we start our theology. Christ says "I am the Way the Truth and the Light", not 'I give', nor 'My essence is.' To say that the Divine Essence is the absolute reality is probably assuming too much of the Essence, we just don't know.

>so everything in the proceeds/emanates from it in a sense (since it contains everything for everything is posterior to it and at the same time it has not a single thing since it is beyond everything)
This is more of a Western Christian or Neoplatonic view than Orthodox. Nothing proceeds from the Divine Essence. The only 'action of nature,' as St John of Damascus puts its in God, is the necessary begetting of the Son and spiration of the Holy Spirit, both of which are proper to the Father's nature. Even here though, it is a hypostatic, not essential generation. To say that the Divine Essence contains all things is to rob God of all agency. If all of creation was not created but pre-existed in the Divine Essence, on what basis are we not also God?

>>14677831
Interestingly enough, the word hypostasis and substance (which is just the latin form of essence) are both etymologically identical. Both mean under (hypo/sub) + standing (stasis/stance). One of the reasons why the word hypostasis was chosen in the Christological debates of the 4th century was to have a word similar to essence, but lacking all the philosophical baggage that the word came with. To properly answer you question though
Hypostasis = *Who are they* that are doing that? The subject, the 'I' that speaks or acts in the first person.
Energy = *What is it* that they are doing? The attributes or operations effected by the person.
Essence = *What are they* that are doing that? The stuff that a person is.

>>14678099
Several ways to interpret it. There is a single sense in which the Father is 'greater' than the Son, that is in their hypostatic origin. The Father is unoriginate, while the Son is eternally begotten. The Father is both anarchos, without principle in Himself, and monarchos, sole principle for other Persons. There is also the sense in which Christ is talking in a way proper to his humanity, The humanity of Christ is of course inferior to his Divinity, the Person however is not inferior to other Persons on account of His humanity.

>>14672941
When did Ryan Reynolds go bald and become a saint?

>>14673811
>if they wanted they could change their vocation
teach me how, im dying

>>14680358
>Either this implies annihilationism or the redemption of all.
No, it implies the resurrection of all unto either eternal blessedness or eternal damnation. From our perspective, the fires of hell and the Uncreated Light are the same thing, felt by people who are in vastly different situations relative to God.

>>14680521
Good answer. don't like the picture though. As you said the hypostatic difference for us is in hypostatic origin, not negation of the other hypostases.

>>14680717
Prayer is the only way. Give your heart and mind to God and he shall give you Himself.

>>14680686
but don't the three hypostases share the same essence? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different but they are all One (God) because of the divine quidditas. I don't know how could it be to assume too much of it insofar as it is what it is (unitive, inscrutable, quiddative).

>The only 'action of nature,' as St John of Damascus puts its in God, is the necessary begetting of the Son and spiration of the Holy Spirit, both of which are proper to the Father's nature. Even here though, it is a hypostatic, not essential generation
Don't know what you mean by action of nature, but yeah I think I fully agree on this.

>To say that the Divine Essence contains all things is to rob God of all agency.
It is as if you were separating god's essence from god.

>If all of creation was not created but pre-existed in the Divine Essence, on what basis are we not also God?
whatever is productive of anything is superior to its product, and that which is produced participates, communicates with its producer. We are not the Personal Eidos, but we participate of it. ''because god is good, we are; and any good that creatures possess derives alone from the essential goodness of God''.

>>14674258
this is going to sound weird but have you ever posted this exact same reply before? like almost word for word. because i am having a massive deja vu right now

>>14680956
Nope lol. I think I've used the same picture while talking on the subject but this post was typed up pretty haphazardly. I also ended up taking a paragraph or two out because I was rambling, so there was no referencing an older post or anything like that.

>>14680897
>Don't know what you mean by action of nature, but yeah I think I fully agree on this.
I mean that the begetting of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit is an eternal action of nature, not of will. The only action of God where He couldn't have chosen otherwise is the hypostatic generation of the other Persons.

>It is as if you were separating god's essence from god.
Not at all. I'm just saying that if we place created things as well as attributes and actions in the Essence of God, as oppose to the Energies and the Divine Mind, the Essence loses it's transcendence. St. Dionysius refers to the Essence as transcending the world of being and non-being. how can not just being, but mundane creation located in this Essence which is beyond essence?

>whatever is productive of anything is superior to its product, and that which is produced participates, communicates with its producer.
I agree with this.
>We are not the Personal Eidos, but we participate of it.
We participate of it only according to the Energies though, because we were created according to the Divine Energies. The essence remains totally other and inaccessible

>''because god is good, we are; and any good that creatures possess derives alone from the essential goodness of God''.
Who wrote this? When we speak strictly with theological terms, I think I would take issue with the attribution of human goodness to God's Essential goodness rather than God's Energetic goodness

"Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.