|
0 members (),
280
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
As a Byzantine Christian I see no need for a "created" light, as describe by Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Journet, when I can participate directly in the uncreated Light of Tabor.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I quote from you, from one of the papers on your website:
"Now, in order to be fair to the Latin Church�s teaching on grace as a created reality, I thought I would provide an interpretation of that doctrinal position that explains it in a way that would allow it to be conformed, at least in some sense, to the Eastern view of grace as uncreated. A. N. Williams, in her book The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, argues that the term �created grace� signifies not the nature of grace in itself, but rather its mode of existence within the created person receiving it, for as she says, �. . . grace conforms to the nature of its subject: �In this way it must be a finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and Christ�s soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.� Nevertheless, grace considered as gift is not created, nor is the effect of grace created.� [19] In other words, grace is essentially an uncreated reality, that is, it is a participation in the uncreated life of God, but once it is infused into a limited finite being, it takes on the characteristics of that being. So, one could say that in the Latin tradition grace is only called created because a created being receives it, while in its essence it is and remains uncreated."
Do you now disagree with your paper? Has your position changed? For with this last paragraph, I agree, and have been arguing the point, but to no apparent effect. Yes, I wrote that, and I believed that to be the case at the time. Now take note of when I wrote that, because I did not write it yesterday, and since writing that paper I have become convinced that Williams' attempt to salvage the pagan philosophical theology of the West is doomed to failure. God bless, Todd P.S. - I have not hidden the fact that my theological beliefs have changed over the course of the last three years. Three years ago I accepted Vatican I and II as ecumenical, but I no longer accept these councils as binding upon the East.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Ok, I've calmed down.
One last question, as I browse through some of your old papers. I take it there has been a modification in your views? A development? I, for one, do not find the (what I would consider rather extreme) version of the doctrine of deification expounded here on byzcath in your papers--certainly no "as a Byzantine Christian I must reject this!"
I ask because if I am going to take the time to read your stuff (which I probably will), I want to know if the Apotheoun of, say, 2004 is the same as the one I'm discoursing with.
Peace (and I do mean it),
Karl
P.S. Ah, I see you've answered my question above.
Last edited by Pseudo-Athanasius; 03/29/07 02:54 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Yes, as I said above, my theology has changed over the last three years.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
As a Byzantine Christian I see no need for a "created" light, as describe by Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Journet, when I can participate directly in the uncreated Light of Tabor.
God bless,
Todd Let me try to explain exactly what I don't understand here, which may help you make your position clearer. You object to the term "created," because it means a mediation of theosis, which you say (and I agree) would be not theosis at all. Yet, in the same sentence you use the word "participation." Why isn't participation subject to the same objection? For it is "taking part." Hadn't you better avoid that word, to be consistent with your thought? I would have rephrased your reply to me as "I see no need for created light when I can see God directly (in his energies)." Participation leads to the same problem you are trying to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
For the sake of clarity, this is the portion of the text that I no longer accept as valid: A. N. Williams, in her book The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, argues that the term �created grace� signifies not the nature of grace in itself, but rather its mode of existence within the created person receiving it, for as she says, �. . . grace conforms to the nature of its subject: �In this way it must be a finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and Christ�s soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.� Nevertheless, grace considered as gift is not created, nor is the effect of grace created.� In place of the false notion that grace is conformed -- in some sense -- to its recipient, I now believe that the recipient is conformed to uncreated grace. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
As a Byzantine Christian I see no need for a "created" light, as describe by Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Journet, when I can participate directly in the uncreated Light of Tabor.
God bless,
Todd Let me try to explain exactly what I don't understand here, which may help you make your position clearer. You object to the term "created," because it means a mediation of theosis, which you say (and I agree) would be not theosis at all. Yet, in the same sentence you use the word "participation." Why isn't participation subject to the same objection? For it is "taking part." Hadn't you better avoid that word, to be consistent with your thought? I would have rephrased your reply to me as "I see no need for created light when I can see God directly (in his energies)." Participation leads to the same problem you are trying to avoid. No, I do not see any danger in the use of the word "participate," because it does accurately reflect the reality of theosis, since man does participate in the divine energies, which are communicable, but he does not participate in the divine essence, which is wholly simple and incommunicable. On the other hand, the three divine persons do not "participate" in the divine essence or the divine energies; instead, the divine essence and the divine energies are proper to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is participated, He does not participate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Hardon is not alone in what he says about sanctifying grace as a "created" thing, which is not God. I will be posting another text shortly from Cardinal Journet.
God bless,
Todd Yes, but in the same paper he explains what he means by it not being God: he uses the Divine Life absolutely speaking to refer only to the Divine Persons. He's making a strict use of terms in a manner that isn't done by Aquinas. As written I'd simply say that Fr. John Hardon is wrong in this case because he's not using the terms the way the Doctors of the Church (St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross specifically) used them. This wouldn't be the first time for a Jesuit theologian to be erroneously representing a tradition.  Of course, Fr. Hardon doesn't seem to be claiming to perfectly represent Aquinas, so it's no fault of his. His points in this essay are certainly contrary to the view expressed by the Dominicans I've spoken to on this subject, again unsuprising given that he's a Jesuit  I'll follow Doctors of the Church over Fr. Hardon any day: In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God's sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness. St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mt. Carmel. Again, the commentators often fall painfully short when compared to the Fathers and Doctors themselves  Of course, some modern commentators haven't fallen into the same trap as Fr. Hardon, as his fellow Jesuit Piet Fransen shows: Created grace does not act as a screen between God and us since it comes into being only because of and within the gesture by which God unites us immediately to Himself. He gives Himself without an intervening medium; He comes to dwell in us and takes us back to Himself. Emile Mersch called this grace �un etre d�union,� �a unifying being.� Created grace is at once the fruit and the bond of the indwelling, originating in the indwelling and sustained by the indwelling; it raises us into an ever-deepening actualization of the indwelling on earth and in heaven. Latin expresses it more tersely: ex unione, in unione et ad unionem�arising from our immediate union with God, granted in that union and urging us to that union. We need a dynamic concept, one that lives because it is enveloped in the �living life� which is none other than God Himself. So not all Jesuits are bad  Peace and God bless!
Last edited by Ghosty; 03/29/07 06:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
I should say in fairness, as a post-script, that Fr. Hardon doesn't deny the participation of Uncreated Grace, he just doesn't equate it with created grace the way Aquinas does. Rather he, like later Scholastics, divides created Grace against Uncreated Grace in an ontological way, as opposed to the modal manner of distinction present in the Summa (this is a common problem with later Scholastics in dealing with the Summa; they often divide things in order to make distinctions that were never present in the original work, and Dominicans were guilty of this as well). You can see Fr. Hardon discussing the real participation in Uncreated Grace in part B of that same work: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_004.htmPeace and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Todd,
I hereby declare YOU the winner!!!
Congratulations!
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I should say in fairness, as a post-script, that Fr. Hardon doesn't deny the participation of Uncreated Grace, he just doesn't equate it with created grace the way Aquinas does. Rather he, like later Scholastics, divides created Grace against Uncreated Grace in an ontological way, as opposed to the modal manner of distinction present in the Summa (this is a common problem with later Scholastics in dealing with the Summa; they often divide things in order to make distinctions that were never present in the original work, and Dominicans were guilty of this as well). You can see Fr. Hardon discussing the real participation in Uncreated Grace in part B of that same work: http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_004.htmPeace and God bless! Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that sanctifying grace is, as Fr. Hardon said, ". . . not God, it is not the Holy Spirit, it is not just God's favor. It is something created, given to us by God out of love and mercy, which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life." In Byzantine theology sanctifying grace IS God, because only God is holy, and only He can impart His holiness to man. The divinized man does not receive a "created" holiness through the process of theosis; instead, he receives God very own uncreated holiness. As a Byzantine Christian I do not believe in what Aquinas calls "created" grace.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
For the sake of clarity, this is the portion of the text that I no longer accept as valid: A. N. Williams, in her book The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, argues that the term �created grace� signifies not the nature of grace in itself, but rather its mode of existence within the created person receiving it, for as she says, �. . . grace conforms to the nature of its subject: �In this way it must be a finite being, since it is in the soul of Christ, as in a subject, and Christ�s soul is a creature having a finite capacity; hence the being of grace cannot be infinite, since it cannot exceed its subject.� Nevertheless, grace considered as gift is not created, nor is the effect of grace created.� In place of the false notion that grace is conformed -- in some sense -- to its recipient, I now believe that the recipient is conformed to uncreated grace. God bless, Todd The very expression of a distinction between essense and energies is a "conformation" of the divine essence, on the part of the Trinity so that mankind may receive God's grace. You are not going to suggest that the analogy of the sun and the rays is an equivalent and perfect analogy are you? You are not going to suggest that the Trinity is an eternal divine multiplex, in that God has a Part 1 and Part 2, essence and energies, and that the energies, Part 2, are of the eternal God, rather than a mystery of God's economy? If you are going to make that claim I want to see some texts that address that very issue, very clearly. If the energies are a mystery of God's economy, and not Part 2 of his uncreated being, then they are in themselves, a conformation of grace to the needs of creation. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
[. . .]
In place of the false notion that grace is conformed -- in some sense -- to its recipient, I now believe that the recipient is conformed to uncreated grace.
God bless,
Todd [. . .] You are not going to suggest that the analogy of the sun and the rays is an equivalent and perfect analogy are you? Mary, I am sometimes baffled by your posts, because you issue responses to me that often speak of things that I have not even mentioned in our conversation. I have not used the analogy of the sun and the rays, and the light conveyed through the rays. But had I used it I would be more than happy to say that all analogies limp. You are not going to suggest that the Trinity is an eternal divine multiplex, in that God has a Part 1 and Part 2, essence and energies, and that the energies, Part 2, are of the eternal God, rather than a mystery of God's economy? I have already responded to this sufficiently in my posts within this thread. The essence / energy distinction is real, it is not merely notional, but it involves no separation in God. God is wholly simple in essence, while being multiform in His uncreated energies; thus, as St. Gregory Palamas would say, the divine essence is indivisibly divided among all the many energies. If you are going to make that claim I want to see some texts that address that very issue, very clearly. St. Palamas covers the multiform nature of the energies in the Capita Physica and in his Dialogue Between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite (and several other texts), if I have time I will try to transcribe some of that information, but you are of course free to read the texts I have mentioned at any time. In spite of the multiform nature of the energies, St. Palamas insists that there is no "composition" in God. If the energies are a mystery of God's economy, and not Part 2 of his uncreated being, then they are in themselves, a conformation of grace to the needs of creation. The distinction between essence and energy in God is an ineffable mystery, it is not a Scholastic rational speculation. Thus, the distinction is beyond comprehension, and can only be experienced, this is another of the differences between Eastern and Western theology. Western theology is conceptual in nature (i.e., it is an intellectual exercise), while Eastern theology is experiential in nature (i.e., it transcends both mind and body, while including both through a personal encounter with God via His energies). There is an article in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly by Dr. Joost van Rossum that talks about this, it is in volume 47, nos. 3-4, 2003. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
If the energies are a mystery of God's economy, and not Part 2 of his uncreated being, then they are in themselves, a conformation of grace to the needs of creation. The distinction between essence and energy in God is an ineffable mystery, it is not a Scholastic rational speculation. The distinction is beyond comprehension, and can only be experienced, this is another of the differences between Eastern and Western theology. Western theology is conceptual in nature (i.e., it is an intellectual exercise), while Eastern theology is experiential in nature (i.e., it transcends both mind and body, while including both through a personal encounter with God via His energies). There is an article in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly by Dr. Joost van Rossum that talks about this, it is in volume 47, nos. 3-4, 2003. God bless, Todd My question stands and it has been answered in the east. The energies are a part of God's divine economy. You may get away with giving me the brush-off here, but you will not get away with it out in the world. My question has been answered in Orthodox theology, which is how I know to ask the question. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The energies pervade the economy, but they are eternal and uncreated, so they are not dependent upon creation.
Your statement if taken in a restrictive manner is heretical.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
