www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Akindyos and Barlaam are dead. Whom do you think these anathemas apply to?

Name names, give quotes, please.

Or are you implying that those who don't agree with you in this thread are anathema?

Yes, I know what the word "literally" means, but you apparently do not understand that God (and man) are more than essences.

Theosis involves a real ontological participation in the uncreated divine energies (i.e., God as He is manifested in the world); and so, by participating in them a man takes on all the characteristics of divinity at the level of energy. Man becomes uncreated by participating in the uncreated, and this participation is real, i.e., it is a literal divinization of his own existence by participation in God's uncreated life and glory.

Sadly, it is clear to me, that you and I will never agree on what theosis involves.

Now, as far as my quotation from the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is concerned, it has a twofold purpose: (1) I quoted it to show Mary that the real distinction between essence and energy does not involve a "separation" within God, and (2) I quoted it so that people would have a better understanding of the dogmactic nature of this distinction.

Finally, the anathemas in the document, which are not my own creation, apply to anyone who denies the truths proclaimed in the Synodikon.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - See St. Gregory Palamas' Third Letter to Akindynos

Anathema, anathema, anathema!

Just gimme that old time religion!!

Alex

Todd,

The anathmas would apply to ORTHODOX who reject said items, but not people outside the Orthodox Communion, correct? If they apply to everyone, regardless of communion, then how would it be possible to be in communion with Latins?

Yes, they are dead, but the Synodikon doesn't just condemn them, it condemns their heretical ideas.

I have not called anyone a heretic.

That said, the Synodikon of Orthoodoxy is a compilation of the dogmatic decrees of the Church, which is supposed to be chanted on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Now clearly, any man who embraces the positions condemned in the document would come under its anathemas, but if he does not embrace the theological errors condemned in the text, it follows that he has not placed himself under the censure of anathema.

God bless,
Todd

As an Orthodox Christian in communion with Rome, I accept the authority of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, because it forms an integral part of the Byzantine tradition.

God bless,
Todd

So, man becomes uncreated by participation. In other words, the word "uncreated" doesn't mean the same thing when applied to the theosisized and to God.

Let me be clearer: Words are either:

1) Univocal: they refer to the same thing in the same way. Pizza is good. Ice cream is good.

2) Equivocal: They refer to different things, but have the same sound. As my daughter said, Bishop John doesn't look like the bishop on my chess board.

3) Analogical: they refer in some way to the same thing, but in some ways different, such as "God is good," "Pizza is good."

I take "literal" to mean "univocal." It's clear to me that you aren't using "uncreated" in a univocal way. I want to make clear that I am not using it in an equivocal way. That's why I disputed the implied claim that I was saying theosis isn't real. Of course it's real, but it is, as you have said, by participation.

Anyway, on my walk I came to regret some of the tone of my earlier posts. Sorry. Theology is a blood sport

Pseudo-Athanasius,

Are the energies of God uncreated or created? If they are uncreated, it follows that anyone who participates in them becomes uncreated. If they are created, then divinization itself becomes impossible, because nothing created can impart divinity to man.

God bless,
Todd

Pseudo-Athanasius,

It is not the use of the word "literal" that is the problem; instead, it is that we have different theologies of God. I hold that God is more than the divine essence, and you -- apparently -- hold that God is only essence.

If I were to agree with you and say that divinization (i.e., becoming uncreated) is not literal, I would ultimately be saying that the divine energies are not God Himself, and I cannot do that.

God bless,
Todd

I think, actually, that we mean different things by the word essence. I've got to feed my kids, but let me just say in passing that ousia and essentia are _not_ equivalent, as can be seen from the translation of the Nicene creed into latin, where homoousios is translated "consubstantialem", not conessentialem or something similar.

The confusion between Latin and Greek becomes worse when we find that hypostasis is translated "person", but more literally should be translated "substantia."

Kids are calling.

Let me put it another way: Through the process of theosis man does not become essentially divine; instead, he becomes energetically divine. Nevertheless, God is both essence and energy, and so it follows that the divinized man becomes really, literally, and truly, divine and uncreated, and not merely nominally, figuratively, or fictitiously divine and uncreated.

I will not say anything that undermines the reality of theosis as a real participation in God's uncreated energies. In other words, I do not accept the Western understanding of divinization that reduces it to an intentional participation in God through a created habitus.

God bless,
Todd

I do not know how many times in this thread that I have already said that divinization does not involve and essential change in man, or the false idea that he can somehow have a beatific vision of the divine essence, because such things (i.e., and essential change or a vision of the divine essence) are impossible.

Nevertheless, theosis involves a real participation in God's energies, which makes man truly divine and uncreated, without beginning or end (cf. St. Gregory Palamas, Third Letter to Akindynos).

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - We should probably just agree to disagree on this issue.

P.P.S. - I am using the word "essence" (ousia) as it was used by the Greek Fathers.

One may be able to have a vision of divine essentia without being able to have a vision of divine ousia. The "beatific vision" is how Thomas explains genuine participation in God, but he is very clear to say that God dwells in inapproachable light, and so is ultimately beyond our knowledge. Something is seen, what God wills us to see, and something isn't. Ultimately we can't say what God is, but what God isn't, which is a nearly direct quote.

So, in Thomas we have
1) That which can be "seen" or participated in,
and
2) That which cannot.

Both are called "essentia."

In Palamas, we have
1) That which can be seen or participated in,
and
2) That which cannot.

The first is called "energies" and the second is called "essence"/ousia.

It seems to me that essentia is broader in its denotation than ousia.



Anyway, I'm not going to agree to disagree until I'm sure I disagree, which I'm not, since I absolutely affirm a real participation of the Christian in the divine nature, as Peter says.

Aquinas holds that essence and energy in God are identical, because God is pure act. I do not accept that idea.

St. Gregory Palamas holds that "three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." [St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 75] Man cannot participate in the divine essence, because it is beyond being, nor can he participate in the hypostasis of any one of the three divine hypostaseis, but he can participate in the uncreated divine energy. In other words, man can participate in one of the three modes of God's being, i.e., the divine energy, and this is what makes the divinized man truly, and not in mere appearance, divine and uncreated.

God bless,
Todd