|
1 members (KostaC),
362
guests, and
122
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,526
Posts417,646
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
 Then you'll forgive me if I return the favor and say that I do not recognize you as an authority on Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians. Mary That's fine, but at least I am acquainted with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers and various Orthodox theologians (through reading them, and by talking to Orthodox friends), while you, as an Eastern Catholic not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, have taken it upon yourself to speak for the Orthodox Church. God bless, Todd I am afraid you don't know me at all so your characterization of me is quite false. I have not stepped foot inside of a papal Church for Sunday liturgy for nearly three years, except when visiting or when I go for confession and communion at daily mass. In the main my liturgical life and prayer life is lived out in Orthodoxy. It was very clear in some of my posts that an Orthodox monk assists me in my vocation in the erimetic life, I have formal theological training for university credit, and I am just as capable of reading as you are. Lets not engage this downward spiral and pay close attention to the texts. Thanks, Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Yes, I have read Zizioulas' "Being and Communion," and although he does not give as great an emphasis to the energies as other Eastern Orthodox authors, he does not deny the dogma of the distinction between essence and energy.
God bless,
Todd Nor do I. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
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! 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. I was simply being fair to Fr. Hardon because I utterly reject what he wrote. His view does not reflect that put forward by St. Thomas Aquinas at all, but makes "created grace" a less-than-Divine modification of humanity. Such an idea is directly contradicted by St. Thomas Aquinas, since anything "less-than-divine" can be possessed by a creature. He does not say that the Light of Glory is "less than Divine", but rather it is an aspect of the Divine Nature. Fr. Hardon seems to be treating the term "form" as meaning less than it does in Aquinas' work, as meaning "kinda like" rather than literally "in the form of". I've heard my Dominican instructors complain about this tendency in modern commentators to reduce the meaning of participation, but I'd never seen it with my own eyes until now. I appreciate the opportunity to read it! So if you're equating Fr. Hardon's view with Aquinas' view, or even as the only viable interpretation of Aquinas' view, set that fear aside. Fr. Hardon's view is not the one that's been taught to me by Dominicans, nor does it reflect the only modern interpretation of of Latin theology. If all I had to go on was Fr. Hardon's assertion, I'd utterly reject Latin theology too. His position not only doesn't reflect the great theologians of his own tradition, but is self-contradictory. We can't be made to see God by being made "less than God". Period. Aquinas makes this clear again and again in very reasonable terms, and I can't imagine why anyone would come to Fr. Hardon's conclusion, though I know it's shared by many. Peace and God bless!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518
Catholic Gyoza Member
|
|
Catholic Gyoza Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,518 |
I feel like Sisysphus trying to keep up with this thread!  I'm still on the first page! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Apotheoun wrote: God is wholly simple in essence, while being multiform in His uncreated energies How does this square with St. John of Damascus' assertion that the Divine Energy is utterly simple, but operates in creatures according to their natural receptivity of it? When, then, we have perceived these things and are conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learned that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again, the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the attributes of the essence. Further, the true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker. If what you say is true of Byzantine teaching, then somewhere along the line this doctrine above, which St. John of Damascus asserts as the true doctrine, was lost. Any thoughts? Peace and God bless!
Last edited by Ghosty; 03/29/07 05:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
When, then, we have perceived these things and are conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learned that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again, the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the attributes of the essence. Could you provide the citation for this quote? It seems there is another question raised by Damascene. Is he speaking here of the knowledge which we have in this life or the next? From the comparison above regarding the knowledge which we have of the soul and body, it appears in fact, that he is speaking of the knowledge which we have of God in this life where from the effects, we can know something about cause, ie, that He exists and we can know something about His attributes, ie, that He is good, just, etc. and not their opposites. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made Romans, ch 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Apotheoun wrote: God is wholly simple in essence, while being multiform in His uncreated energies How does this square with St. John of Damascus' assertion that the Divine Energy is utterly simple, but operates in creatures according to their natural receptivity of it? [. . .] Further, the true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker. If what you say is true of Byzantine teaching, then somewhere along the line this doctrine above, which St. John of Damascus asserts as the true doctrine, was lost. Any thoughts? Ghosty, The divine energy is both one and many, i.e., it is one in relation to its source (the Tri-hypostatic Godhead), and many in relation to its manifestations, as St. John Damascene said, "God Who is invisible by nature is made visible by His energies" [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodox, Book I, no. 13], and as he goes on to explain, ". . . the divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity." [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, no. 14] In other words, the divine energy is indivisibly divided in its manifesting forms, and so it is experienced by man as multiform (i.e., it is both one and many at the same time). The Byzantine tradition refuses to accept a philosophical concept of divine simplicity that makes all of God's energies (His glory, goodness, mercy, justice, infinity, etc.) identical, and merely notionally or virtually distinction. They are really distinct, but inseparable. God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
When, then, we have perceived these things and are conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learned that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again, the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the attributes of the essence. Could you provide the citation for this quote? It seems there is another question raised by Damascene. Is he speaking here of the knowledge which we have in this life or the next? From the comparison above regarding the knowledge which we have of the soul and body, it appears in fact, that he is speaking of the knowledge which we have of God in this life where from the effects, we can know something about cause, ie, that He exists and we can know something about His attributes, ie, that He is good, just, etc. and not their opposites. The things that St. John speaks of as being "perceived" are things spoken about God in Holy Scripture, and so he is not simply talking about by abstracting from creation to the Creator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
[. . .] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made Romans, ch 1. Notice in the quotation from Romans that it is the divine power ( dynamis) and divinity ( theiotes), and not the divine essence ( ousia), that is revealed in creation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 490 Likes: 1 |
Apotheoun wrote: God is wholly simple in essence, while being multiform in His uncreated energies How does this square with St. John of Damascus' assertion that the Divine Energy is utterly simple, but operates in creatures according to their natural receptivity of it? [. . .] Further, the true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker. If what you say is true of Byzantine teaching, then somewhere along the line this doctrine above, which St. John of Damascus asserts as the true doctrine, was lost. Any thoughts? Ghosty, The divine energy is both one and many, i.e., it is one in relation to its source (the Tri-hypostatic Godhead), and many in relation to its manifestations, as St. John Damascene said, "God Who is invisible by nature is made visible by His energies" [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodox, Book I, no. 13], and as he goes on to explain, ". . . the divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity." [St. John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, no. 14] In other words, the divine energy is indivisibly divided in its manifesting forms, and so it is experienced by man as multiform (i.e., it is both one and many at the same time). The Byzantine tradition refuses to accept a philosophical concept of divine simplicity that makes all of God's energies (His glory, goodness, mercy, justice, infinity, etc.) identical, and merely notionally or virtually distinction. They are really distinct, but inseparable. God bless, Todd I don't see how his words lead to a belief of real distinction within God between Glory and Goodness and such, but rather this seems to point to a real distinction within us of the one Energy received. One doesn't have to posit distinctions within God for there to still be real distinctions between Good and Glory and Love and such; having those distinctions be really present in creatures receiving the Divine Energy only would not reduce the distinctions to merely notional or nominal. On the contrary, it seems to be saying precisely that the Divine Energy is utterly undivided, but that the Divine Energy supplies the component parts of the created natures. This doesn't imply a division in the Divine Energy at all, but rather indicates how each component part is "filled up" essentially by the Divine Energy according to its own real and natural limit, like water taking many different forms depending on the container, or clear light showing the many visible colors of objects even while it remains undivided in itself. As you've explained it, there seems to be a division within the Divine Energy itself eternally which St. John of Damascus doesn't seem to allow for, but rather refers to distinctions only in reference to creatures receiving the Divine Essence. Peace and God bless!
Last edited by Ghosty; 03/29/07 07:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
The things that St. John speaks of as being "perceived" are things spoken about God in Holy Scripture, and so he is not simply talking about by abstracting from creation to the Creator. Certainly in Book I ch. 3 of and Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, he is attempting to make a proof not from Scripture but from things which are mutable: All things, that exist, are either created or uncreated. If, then, things are created, it follows that they are also wholly mutable. This argument Damascene thinks satisfies the Greeks: That there is a God, then, is no matter of doubt to those who receive the Holy Scriptures, the Old Testament, I mean, and the New; nor indeed to most of the Greeks. For, as we said(9), the knowledge of the existence of God is implanted in us by nature. Aquinas, of course, will take this argument from motion and perfect it. Damascene, not unlike Aquinas, will also use the analogy of the human word to God's word. Here is Damascene in Book I, ch 6: but He ever possesses His own Word, begotten of Himself, not, as our word is, without a subsistence and dissolving into air, but having a subsistence in Him and life and perfection, not proceeding out of Himself but ever existing within Himself... And while Damascene says that God is incomprehensible, he certainly maintains that through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowlege of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague... Some of these names of God are more appropriate than others: Some again have an affirmative signification, as indicating that He is the cause of all things. For as the cause of all that is and of all essence, He is called both Ens and Essence. And as the cause of all reason and wisdom, of the rational and the wise, He is called both reason and rational, and wisdom and wise. Similarly He is spoken of as Intellect and Intellectual, Life and Living, Power and Powerful, and so on with all the rest. Or rather those names are most appropriate to Him which are derived from what is most precious and most akin to Himself. That which is immaterial is more precious and more akin to Himself than that which is material, and the pure than the impure, and the holy than the unholy: for they have greater part in Him. So then, sun and light will be more apt names for Him than darkness, and day than night, and life than death, and fire and spirit and water, as having life, than earth, and above all, goodness than wickedness: which is just to say, being more than not being. Bk I, ch 12 And certainly the procession of the Spirit through the Son is not without precedent even in Damascene: And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as though proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause With respect to the notion of God's energies, Damascene here sees them as an idea It appears then(9a) that the most proper of all the names given to God is "He that is," as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me(1). For He keeps all being in His own embrace(2), like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, "He that is good(3)." For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.
The second name of God is o qeos , derived from qeein (4), to run, because He courses through all things, or from aiqein , to burn: For God is a fire consuming all evils(5): or from qeasqai , because He is all-seeing(6): for nothing can escape Him, and over all He keepeth watch. For He saw all things before they were, holding them timelessly in His thoughts; and each one conformably to His voluntary anti timeless thought(7), which constitutes predetermination and image and pattern, comes into existence at the predetermined time(8).
The first name then conveys the notion of His existence and of the nature of His existence: while the second contains the idea of energy. When Damascene speaks of what has been revealed to us he does not speak of uncreated energies: We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essences; and that He is known(4), and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession; I point out these matters to show that East and West can be in agreement and united under one Shepherd, provided that a rigourous neo-palamite, anti-Thomas, a priori position is not one's starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
How does this square with St. John of Damascus' assertion that the Divine Energy is utterly simple, but operates in creatures according to their natural receptivity of it? Here is another passage from ch 14 of Bk I to support your position: Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity. For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures, and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence The notion of energy here seems much like Aquinas' notion of grace--God, who is indivisible, acting upon His creation. The division comes from the side of creation, not from God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
St.John Damascene defines energy in chapter 15 of Bk III:
"The efficient and essential activity of nature." He then argues that since Jesus Christ has two natures, he has two energies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Ghosty and lm, Again, we cannot simply quote texts, even of Aquinas, in isolation to how the Latin Church has, for centuries, understood them, as well as her theologians. Perhaps this is beyond the medium of the internet forum, but there is no doubt that RC theologians have traditionally and vigorously opposed the Eastern view on Theosis using Aquinas. No getting around that and modern views notwithstanding. Also, the idea that the East and the West must fully "agree" on this in order for their to be unity is a non-starter. To do that, one would have to really stretch not only quotations and their interpretations, but historical attitudes and also one is left telling the Orthodox Church how it should be thinking about both Palamas and Aquinas - and that is not only undiplomatic ecumenically speaking but a non-starter overall. It is best to leave Palamas and Aquinas alone and not try to "make" them agree. They do not agree, at least insofar as the Latin Church has historically understood Aquinas and as the Orthodox Church has understood Palamas with respect to the West. Aquinas was canonized for his holiness but his theology is a Latin tradition that need not be imposed on anyone but the Latin Church. In the Orthodox Church itself, there are saints who, while alive, attacked each other's theologies. And yet they are saints in the one Orthodox calendar and that is that. I don't know what "Neo-Palamite" is and the idea I've read here elsewhere resurrecting the old RC antagonism toward St Photios (and he is honoured as a saint by the BC Church) - all this shows that the authors do not really appreciate Byzantine Orthodox theology at all, much as they say they read it and much as they say they are "BC." If you are "BC," then you've got a long way to go to appreciate Eastern theology for its own sake rather than measuring it up against the standard you are imposing here of Aquinas' views. Normally, the Administrator would come in here (I'm sure he's busy and when he has a moment, he's doing prostrations ;)) and would say much the same thing. Although he would, of course, say it much better!  Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 99 |
Alex,
For whatever it's worth -- ie practically zero -- I more or less agree with you. I would add though that despite disagreements we can still learn from eachother. The nice thing about being in communion is that we can appreciate what the other "side" has to contribute, and perhaps even incorporate it, when it does not conflict with the byzantine tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
