I think the official doctrine is that they are "of the same essence" - metaphysically one and the same, but distinct as individuals. Or that's just another heresy and I'm going to hell - it's been a while since my church days.
"Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial."
Which makes about as much sense to most people as quoting a random Derrida paragraph.
As someone who has read Derrida and listened to his (much more lucid) lectures, the answer is "Yes". He's mostly full of shit, and he's trolling in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate his ideas and prevent them from being co-opted by capitalist hegemony.
I may be spouuting a heresy so please correct me if i am wrong. I aint no christian anyway.
It is my understanding that we all have escence and form. My ecence is matter aranged in atoms molecules cells organs and then a person.
God is not made of matter it is made of divine substance wich in order to work has to have certain properties. Because of this when you make a person of it you can use the same substance to make another one. So they are consubstantial.
Close. The issue here is that Jesus is fully Human and Fully divine, in a hypostatic union (or a union of the two into one nature in practice, if you're Miaphysite which IIRC isn't considered heretical anymore)
So something being outwardly "matter" or not has no impact on its divine nature. See also Communion in Catholic/Orthodox (and some interpretations of Anglican doctrine) where the host is fully transformed into the divine but maintains its outward character.
Sorry for the late repply. Bussy holiday season. But dosent comunion involve transubstantiation. Wich esentialy changes the substance from regular mater to god stuff? The same can be saud for christ havig a human form and be substantially god.
But now that i think about it this would mean a shape is being predicated on god. Wich shouldnt be posible.
It does, but in order to dodge the "but it look like a biscuit, checkmate papists!" Argument there was some clarification on how that happens exactly.
Or to use the catechism
What is the meaning of transubstantiation? Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered.
Is this copium? A bit, but there's also a few different schools of thought on this even within doctrine so they keep the mechanism a bit vague.
I think the official doctrine is that they are "of the same essence" - metaphysically one and the same, but distinct as individuals. Or that's just another heresy and I'm going to hell - it's been a while since my church days.
No, that's correct. Or more formally
"Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial."
Which makes about as much sense to most people as quoting a random Derrida paragraph.
I still haven't met anyone who can convince me one way or the other if Derrida was full of shit, trolling, or actually had something to say.
As someone who has read Derrida and listened to his (much more lucid) lectures, the answer is "Yes". He's mostly full of shit, and he's trolling in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate his ideas and prevent them from being co-opted by capitalist hegemony.
I may be spouuting a heresy so please correct me if i am wrong. I aint no christian anyway.
It is my understanding that we all have escence and form. My ecence is matter aranged in atoms molecules cells organs and then a person.
God is not made of matter it is made of divine substance wich in order to work has to have certain properties. Because of this when you make a person of it you can use the same substance to make another one. So they are consubstantial.
Close. The issue here is that Jesus is fully Human and Fully divine, in a hypostatic union (or a union of the two into one nature in practice, if you're Miaphysite which IIRC isn't considered heretical anymore)
So something being outwardly "matter" or not has no impact on its divine nature. See also Communion in Catholic/Orthodox (and some interpretations of Anglican doctrine) where the host is fully transformed into the divine but maintains its outward character.
Sorry for the late repply. Bussy holiday season. But dosent comunion involve transubstantiation. Wich esentialy changes the substance from regular mater to god stuff? The same can be saud for christ havig a human form and be substantially god.
But now that i think about it this would mean a shape is being predicated on god. Wich shouldnt be posible.
It does, but in order to dodge the "but it look like a biscuit, checkmate papists!" Argument there was some clarification on how that happens exactly.
Or to use the catechism
Is this copium? A bit, but there's also a few different schools of thought on this even within doctrine so they keep the mechanism a bit vague.