www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hesychasm

Myles,

I am glad that you decided to stick around, because the things you bring up are precisely the issues that I am interested in discussing.

Now, I must eat.

God bless,
Todd

Myles,

When I said that the eternal manifestation is on the level of ousia some weeks back in my short essay, I essentially mean what you say right here:

Moreover, the Eastern teaching guarantees that man's encounter with God is always, and by definition, "personal," because the divine energies are the personalized (enhypostatic) enactments of the divine essence by the three divine persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, when a man participates in the uncreated divine energies, he comes into direct personal communion with the tri-hypostatic God.

I also quoted Metropolitan John Zizoulas along with quoting Saint Maximus from Richard Haugh's book of how Maximus interpreted the filioque in his day along the lines of the Greek Triadological Model. An enactment of all the 3 persons say in the eternal manifestation of a divine person implies a common singular power, which implies a common singular ousia. That is what I think Metropolitan John (along with Maximus and Cyril) had in mind in his phrase "on the level of ousia."

Daniel

Dear Alice you stated:

"In the end, does it really matter? Have all those who believe one way or the other not gone to Heaven because of it, or how about those who do not know anything in their simple unread minds, but know more of the heart and soul than most theologians......have they also not gone to heaven to experience the gifts of God, whatever they may be?"

--------------------------------------------------

What you have stated above was the whole purpose of hesychasm. It was to obtain God through our 'nous', (heart and spirit), and not through our knowledge. Now it seems in my simple and unkownledgabe mind, that all these discussions of what constitutes the Vision of God vs. Beatific Vision as well as God's essence vs. energies, is leading us into the very path of attaining 'divinity' through our knowledge... something that Saint Gregory vehemently opposed.

Zenovia

Oops. My last post was meant for you Todd.

Regarding the other issues surrounding dogma, I'm still trying to work on those. Someone on my blog by the name of Jason in the comments section of the latest post there, suggested that "absolutely simple essence" in the Lateran IV decree meant in the wider context of canon 2 that the divine essense wasn't divisible amongst the persons as Joachim held. I thought that was an interesting contribution, which someone like Maximus or Palamas would have no problem with.

Daniel

Hmm, yes. Thats about right. For St Thomas God is being itself and the predicates attributed to him are just inadequate descriptions of his infinity.

My next question is then is there anyway to find real common ground between Thomism and Palamism? Can Thomist philosophical theology ever feed into the Oriental way?

Moreover, and perhaps I am not fully understanding because admittedly I might be batting a little bit out of my league given how I apprehend simplicity. Nonetheless, from what you're saying I'll assume that simplicity is viewed differently in Maximinian thought than in Thomist thought, right? But if you understand simplicty differently than St Aquinas does is God not compromised?

St Thomas defined God's nature as identical to his existence because the alternative would have been metaphysical composition, wouldnt it? God does not posses a nature like creatures do, God is his own nature. In God there is no potentiality because all his inadequately described attributes are part of his essence in its infinity. Without the Thomist definition of simplicity how does one evade metaphysical composition?

Reagarding this topic, about hesychasm, Maria said well: The most important is to live the prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.
I think that time is short, and we do not know when it ends.
We, all the Christians, are called to be children of God, to be dwellers of the Heavenly Garden of God's Kingdom.
In a garden are different flowers, wild flowers, daisies, white or red roses, lilies, and many others, singing their love songs to their Creator.
The most great is the love for God and people, for all, as our Lord asked us. Even more But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44) It is a commandment, not a recommendation.

Alice said well too, that there are simple unread minds who Who is a theologian? I remember only the words of Avva Evagrios o Pontikos: If you are theologian, then pray truly; and if you pray truly, then you are theologian. (From De Oratione, 60, Philokalia)

Unread or read, surely there are people who pray truly, either in monasteries, or in their own families, or on other paths.

But who can say is a theologian if we agree Avva Evagrios's word? If we say that we pray truly, then there is the danger of being proud.

We are called to live everyday the Resurrection in our souls, and if we will be good sons and daughters of our own Churches, participating at the Holy Sacraments, Divine Liturgy, having love for God and all, then we will be found worthy of the Kingdom of God, tasting and knowing directly the Glory of God, endless, for God is without boundaries.
In the eight day.

Christ is Risen! Truly He is Risen!

Marian

St Thomas Aquinas said that he learnt more at the feet of a crucifix than he ever did from textbooks. There can be no theology without prayer. Of that I am absolutely certain. For instance, when I first came to Oxford my faith was almost completley destroyed by what I was reading in my Biblical Critical studies seemed to nullify my faith. I was so pressed for time, the schedule was so tight that I didnt even have time to pray (Martin Luther also had this problem at Wittenberg its in his letters). It was only when I just threw everything aside and began to pray properly that my mind was granted light to see that all the conclusions of historical criticism are biased by hermenutic technique and philosophical pressupositions. It just came. In the peace of God's presence my mind percieved and was relieved...

St Thomas said that sin clouds reason and no doubt my sloth was eroding my inner life. My dissipation, my laziness. But by praying all of a sudden I could think. God gave me light and I must confess anytime I have ever come to any understanding in theology it has been in mental prayer. St Thomas Aquinas taught me this way thats why I am so devoted to him and he also taught me that all we say about God are just inadequate expressions of a truth that I can never understand. If I say God is good can I understand God's goodness? Of course not thats impossible. Nobody can apprehend God but God.

But the discussion going on between Apotheoun, Augustini and myself is not merely idleness. We argue as St Thomas Aquinas taught that we might come to a great appreciation of the truth. That we can present it and defend it (particularly to the unbelievers) for 1 Peter says always have a reason for the faith you have, no? Yes all we say is ultimately straw compared to what God truly is. St Thomas Aquinas himself said as much when God finally granted him the gift of the transforming union. However, please try to understand we're not doing this for pride's sake or to clog up the board. We're doing this because we have a thirst to add depth to our meditations.

Man is a strange animal. It is much easier for him to contemplate a subject than to contemplate nothing at all? I cannot tell you of the joy that fills my heart when I contemplate the fact that in God there is no potentiality...to many people St Thomas work is dry but this man was taken into ecstasy so often and with increasing frequency until he reached the 7th mansion as St Teresa called it. Why?? Think. Think of the beauty.

In God there is no potentiality, there is no lack, no privation. Yet God makes us, loves us. He makes us not for neccessity, not for biological or psychological needs. Not because he must will us because he need only will Himself as He must only will the perfect good: Himself. But He really, really loves us for the sake of it. A pure act of the will...its incomprehnesible, its beautiful, its...beyond description and St Thomas admits as much.

The debates we have might seem to be frivolous (and maybe my own input is frivolity because I am impure of heart and St Thomas Aquinas had perfect chastity, which allowed him to 'see God' as Mt 5:8 promised) but they open up doors...doors behind which is a sight so beautiful that we can rightly say that 'eye has not see, nor has ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man what God has stored up for those who love him'. This 'intellectual exercise' is not simple mental gymnastics. It is an action that arises spontaneously out of the heart.

We arrive at definitions in order to meditate upon them. Knowing we cant know God by logic alone we push reason to its limits so that we can jump from the highest peak into the eternity that lays beyond. If it appears that we are doing otherwise, I apologise.

God love you
Myles

Myles, my brother in Christ,
I know about St. Thoma only this: Guillaume de Toco, the biographer of St. Toma d'Aquino, say that one day St. Toma together with some students were walking through Paris. The students presented him the architectonical beauties of the city. St. Toma said: 'I would want to have instead of all these beauties, the Homiliae of St. John Chrisostom at the Gospel of Matthew.'
These words made me to think.
We have to pray more, with true love for all.
In Risen Christ, Marian

Undoubtedly my friend, undoubtedly...

God love you
Myles

Dear Apothioun you said:

"Moreover, the Vatican's clarification on the filioque issued back in the mid-1990s is helpful here, because it is an admission by the Western Church, at the highest level of its Magisterial authority, that the Father alone is the cause of both the hypostasis of the Son, and the hypostasis of the Spirit. Thus, it is an admission that the Son does not participate in the origination of the hypostatic reality of the Spirit."

Frankly I don't know how anyone could have assumed otherwise since the Father is the 'Creator' and our Lord Jesus is the 'Logos' (Word)... which in my simple mind is the Holy Spirit coming through our Lord.

Thank you for addressing me.

In Christ,

Zenovia

post 1, www.byzcath.org, 17 May 2005


Todd,

No need to apologize. I think your posts have been respectful and substantial and charitable; and I *thank* you. :-)


Well, a lot of this topic is new to me, so forgive me if I fumble a bit. But, here is how I see the Roman Catholic view of grace. (See the Catholic Encyclopedia online, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm)

Created grace does not deify Man. Only uncreated grace deifies us. In other words, only uncreated grace saves us, and sanctifies us, and allows us to participate in the life of the Trinity here and hereafter. Created grace is the effect in us, in our creaturely nature, of God�s deification of us.

Allow me to explain.

Grace means "gift." It is a gift from God. Hence, the question is: what does God give us?

The answer is two-fold. God gives us the gift of His very Self. He also gives us the gift of creation. In other words, there is uncreated grace and created grace.

Uncreated grace is God's gift of His very Self to us.

Uncreated grace is not what the East would call God's "essence" because that would be impossible. God's "essence" (as I understand the term) refers to God's infinity. Well, it is impossible for Man to receive God's infinity because Man is finite and the finite cannot apprehend the infinite. Or, as Scripture says, "No man has seen the face of God and lived."

On the other hand, God clearly gives Himself to us. That is the whole point of the mission of Jesus, the coming of the Holy Spirit and the entirety of the Gospel.

So, while Man cannot participate in God's "essence," Man can receive and participate in God's "energies." For if I understand that term correctly, God's "energies" refer to God's gift of His very Self as He stoops down to our level in order to raise us up to His level. Most simply, God's energies are the Eucharist and all which He gives us of Himself that enables us to receive and to live in the Eucharist: starting now and foretasting forever.

Thus for "uncreated grace" (gratia increata substantialis).

What of "created grace" (gratia creata accidentalis) ?

Again, I am new to this, so I might be wrong.

But, from what I can understand, generally "created grace" simply means God's gifts of creation. Again: grace means gift. Well, there is God's gift of His very Self to us, His energies, for our salvation and sanctification. Those are "uncreated." But there are also all the other gifts He gives us. The morning sunshine, a meal, our health, our families, indeed, ourselves: these are all gifts (graces) that God created for us. Created graces are graces because they are gifts from God, and they are created because God made them.

Now, part of His created gifts are the effects that His uncreated grace has upon us (gratia creata accidentalis) .

In other words, we as creatures are transformed by God�s uncreated grace. When God gives us the gift of His energies, we are thus able to participate in God�s life; and that is uncreated grace. Yet consequently, we are become new creations in Him.

I hope I made sense.

God Bless.

--John

I botched the formatting when I first tried to post this; my apologies; here is my second attempt. --John


Todd,

No need to apologize. I think your posts have been respectful and substantial and charitable; and I *thank* you. :-)


Well, a lot of this topic is new to me, so forgive me if I fumble a bit. But, here is how I see the Roman Catholic view of grace. (See the Catholic Encyclopedia online, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm)

Created grace does not deify Man. Only uncreated grace deifies us. In other words, only uncreated grace saves us, and sanctifies us, and allows us to participate in the life of the Trinity here and hereafter. Created grace is the effect in us, in our creaturely nature, of God�s deification of us.

Allow me to explain.

Grace means "gift." It is a gift from God. Hence, the question is: what does God give us?

The answer is two-fold. God gives us the gift of His very Self. He also gives us the gift of creation. In other words, there is uncreated grace and created grace.

Uncreated grace is God's gift of His very Self to us.

Uncreated grace is not what the East would call God's "essence" because that would be impossible. God's "essence" (as I understand the term) refers to God's infinity. Well, it is impossible for Man to receive God's infinity because Man is finite and the finite cannot apprehend the infinite. Or, as Scripture says, "No man has seen the face of God and lived."

On the other hand, God clearly gives Himself to us. That is the whole point of the mission of Jesus, the coming of the Holy Spirit and the entirety of the Gospel.

So, while Man cannot participate in God's "essence," Man can receive and participate in God's "energies." For if I understand that term correctly, God's "energies" refer to God's gift of His very Self as He stoops down to our level in order to raise us up to His level. Most simply, God's energies are the Eucharist and all which He gives us of Himself that enables us to receive and to live in the Eucharist: starting now and foretasting forever.

Thus for "uncreated grace" (gratia increata substantialis).

What of "created grace" (gratia creata accidentalis) ?

Again, I am new to this, so I might be wrong.

But, from what I can understand, generally "created grace" simply means God's gifts of creation. Again: grace means gift. Well, there is God's gift of His very Self to us, His energies, for our salvation and sanctification. Those are "uncreated." But there are also all the other gifts He gives us. The morning sunshine, a meal, our health, our families, indeed, ourselves: these are all gifts (graces) that God created for us. Created graces are graces because they are gifts from God, and they are created because God made them.

Now, part of His created gifts are the effects that His uncreated grace has upon us (gratia creata accidentalis) .

In other words, we as creatures are transformed by God�s uncreated grace. When God gives us the gift of His energies, we are thus able to participate in God�s life; and that is uncreated grace. Yet consequently, we are become new creations in Him.

We change, because of Him; and that is what is meant by the term �created grace.� We are still creatures, but we are different because of God's gift of Himself. This transformation of us, as creatures, only begins in this life. Yet, Christ gave us hints of what this fully means.

One example is Christ�s risen body. In Christ's human nature, He was still human. He still ate fish, He still had His wounds (which St. Thomas touched), etc. But He was also different in His human nature. He was able to walk through walls; He was able to appear and disappear; and so on. So, in His human nature, Christ was still human; He (in His human nature) was still a creature. Yet, His human nature was also transformed. This, I think, is an example of created grace.

So too, for a second example of created grace, are the martyrs. God gave them uncreated grace. That, in turn, transformed them so that they were able endure unspeakable agonies in order to testify to Him.

So too, for a third example, are the saints who glow with the Uncreated Light of Mt. Tabor. Clearly, that Uncreated Light is God�s energy. Clearly too, a saint who thus shines is (to put it mildly) a bit different from the rest of us. The Uncreated Light is God�s energy; it is uncreated grace. The changes which it works in the saint who thus shines are what is meant by the term �created grace.�

For a fourth example of what is meant by the term �created grace,� there are the common situations from everyday life when people are able to overcome temptations and sins. St. Paul complained of these; and Jesus said, �My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.� (2 Corinthians 12:9) Clearly, God is perfect and so too must be His energies, His uncreated graces. What, then, could Christ have meant when He said that His power would be made perfect in weakness? I humbly suggest that He was referring to the transformation of *us* --as creatures. We are deified by uncreated grace; and the fruits of that deification within us, in our creaturely nature, are what the West calls �created grace.� Hence, every time someone overcomes a temptation to sin, there is uncreated grace which, when accepted, consequently transforms the person into a better person. That consequential transformation of a person into a better person, by the power of uncreated grace, is what is meant by the term �created grace.�

Finally, here is an analogy to illustrate what I mean. Suppose a human being is like a child and suppose God is like a parent. Now, let us further suppose that God's uncreated grace (His energies) are like food. (I know that, in reality, food is a created thing; I'm only comparing food to God's energies for the sake of this analogy.) Well, if the child eats the food, two things happen. The life in the child is continued; that would be like the presence of God's energies (His uncreated grace) within us. But, there would be another effect: the child would physically grow. The child is still a child, but the child would grow as a child: precisely because the child has been nourished from food. That growth inthe child (as a child, because of eating food) is like created grace. We, as creatures, are changed as creatures by God's uncreated grace; and that change in ourselves as creatures is what the West means when it says "created grace".

Etc.

Created grace is *not* God's essence nor His energies. Created grace is the transformation of us, as creatures, because of God�s uncreated grace.

So, in sum:
--God�s essence is God in His infinity.
--God�s uncreated grace (His energies) is God's presence in us and our participation in Him.
--God�s created grace is the transformation of us, as His creatures, because of His energies.

In terms of cause and effect:
--Uncreated grace is the cause.
--Uncreated grace is also the effect: as we participate in the Divine energies.
--Created grace is also the effect, as we are transformed as creatures by the Divine energies.

Hence, created grace does not deify Man. Only uncreated grace (God�s energies) deifies Man. Created grace is the consequential transformation of us, in our creaturely nature, because of uncreated grace.

And thus, as you wrote,

I hope I made sense.

God Bless.

--John

Wow. My head hurts after reading this thread. I really don't think God has at this time given me the grace to understand this topic. But it's very interesting.

I do want to comment on one thing, though. This is spurred by Photius' comments but not directed to him, rather it's directed to the wider world at large.

The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org IS NOT AND NEVER WAS THE DOCTRINE OR POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. [and someone please correct me if I'm wrong!]

I say again THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT THE DOCTRINE OR POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. It merely represents the opinion of a number of Catholic scholars, in this case one S. VAILH�. Some of it's good, some of it's off. I don't think you'd find anyone but a "Trad" who would write something like that article on Hesychasm.

That now begs a few questions:

1. What is the position of the Catholic Church on issue X?

Well, I'd start with this:

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

THIS is the official position and summary of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Other things I would consult are:
1. the various councils judged as "ecumenical" by Rome.
2. Papal encylcals are a good source for the contemporary positions on various issues. Ideally they should be read in Latin (or at least a reasonably official English translation), they should not be quoted for proof-texts and they should be read with the necesirties of the particular era as well as their universal meaning in mind.

2. What is the Catholic Church's official position on Hesychasm and St. Gregory Palamas?

Well, I do not know of one per se. But, for Catholic-Orthodox issues I would point to:

1. Par. 838 of http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm
"With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'"

2. http://www.cin.org/v2east.html

3. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

These are the legitimate sources for the Catholic position and Faith. You will note that Hesychasm is nowhere mentioned.

I will also note that a local Greek Catholic parish I know of commemorated the Feast Day of St. Gregory Palamas on the second week of the Great Lent. Thus, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned he IS NOT a heretic, and I would recommend consulting the texts for Vespers, Othros, and Liturgy for that feast published by the Byzantine, Ukranian, or Melkite Catholic eparchies in the US. In fact, I'd be fascinated to see what differences there are between their liturgical texts and (say) the Greek Orthodox or ROCOR texts.

However, this further begs the question:

3. What is the current opinion of Catholic theologians on Hesychasm?

I would cite Fr. Aidan Nichol, O.P.'s Christendom Awake, p. 184-195. He specifically praises St. Gregory Palamas and his opinion is best summarized by his statement


Fr. Yves Congar, OP also directly addressed St. Gregory Palamas' theology with a bit more rigor and focus in his book I Believe in the Holy Spirit . This book should be troubling for those who are looking for ecumenical proof-texts, but nevertheless is blows many holes in those who would hold positions like Monsieur VAILH� cited above.

I'm sure there are also many other, more authoritative and contemporary Catholic theologians who discuss St. Gregory Palamas and Hesychasm. If anyone wants to reasearch this subject I'd recommend the libraries of major Catholic universities (CUA, Fordham, Notre Dame and Georgetown come immediately to mind in ths US) as well as a Byzantine Catholic monastery. Those looking for decisive answers must at the bare minimum consult the libraries and theologians associated with the Catholic Patriarchates of Kyiv, Antioch, and Rome.

My guess: you won't find anyone who'll say "Gregory Palamas is a heretic", and you'll find plenty of answers to the contrary.

I'm also afraid (surprise surprise) that none of this research can be conducted on the internet.

[I am no theologian so please correct me if I'm anywhere wrong]

Myles,

I am soooo glad to be reading your new postings.

-ray

Christ is Risen!

Your point is well taken. However, I did at least give the caveat of "pre-Vatican II" RC opinion, and I thought that article to reflect that opinion (albeit with excessive emphasis) because of other things I had read. And, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an Imprimatur from a notable bishop of a century ago.
Note also that on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, in the cathedral (and occasionally elsewhere) Service of Orthodoxy, that the Byzantine Catholic version had Saint Gregory in the "Anathema" list ... I do not know what has become of this service since Vatican II.

Photius