|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft:
It is very unwise to proof-text Aquinas or to presume that you know his meanings outside of the context of his whole corpus. What you've proofed here really does not comport directly with a comparison of Aquinas's "power" and Palamas's "energies." I am sorry that you took my quotation from the Summa as "proof-texting," but with that said, I appreciate your quoting the whole text of that article, because I can say unequivocally that I disagree not only with the portion I quoted, but with the entire article. In Reply to Objection 1, I disagree with the portion of the text that says: ". . . in God relations are subsistent, and so by reason of the opposition between them they distinguish the 'supposita'; and yet the essence is not distinguished, because the relations themselves are not distinguished from each other so far as they are identified with the essence." The reason I object to it is that it is a reduction of the hypostases of the Trinity to mere relations of opposition, when they are instead real subsistences, i.e., they are really distinct through their differing modes of origin and hypostatic properties. The Father alone, as the sole cause within the Godhead, is the origin of the other two hypostases. He is the origin of the Son through generation, and the Father alone is the origin of the Spirit through procession, and as a consequence the Son and Spirit are homoousios with the Father because they derive their being from Him. In addition, essence and hypostasis are not identical, because to say that involves the heresy of modalism. In other words, the hypostases of the Trinity cannot be simply identified with the divine essence, because if you identify the divine essence with any one hypostasis, for example, the Son, then it follows that the Father and the Spirit, who also have the divine essence become the Son, and that is heresy. Thus, there is a real distinction between essence and hypostasis, and this real distinction applies in both Triadology and Christology. In fact, to fail to make this real distinction leads to Sabellian modalism in Trinitarian theology and to either Monophysitism or Nestorianism (depending upon the case) in Christological theology. Next in Reply to Objection 2 Thomas said, "As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other," but this reduces the distinction between the hypostases to a mere mental distinction, i.e., a "distinction in our way of thinking," and that again can be held to be nothing more than a form of Sabellian modalism. Finally, in Reply to Objection 3 Aquinas said, "Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained (13, 1,3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called 'subjects,' 'supposita,' or 'hypostases.' So the divine persons are named 'supposita' or 'hypostases,' but not as if there really existed any real "supposition" or 'subjection.'" First this implies the concept of the analogia entis which has been clearly rejected by the Eastern Fathers and the Byzantine theologians, who follow them within the patristic tradition, because as Fr. Florovsky put it, ". . . there is no similarity between that which bursts forth from nothing and the Creator Who verily is, Who brings creatures out of nothing." [Fr. Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, page 48] Aquinas, by looking at created reality, has tried to give a reason for reducing the hypostases to mere relations of opposition, but this does not follow, unless of course you accept Aquinas' poor reasoning on this subject, because the hypostases are in fact more real than anything that exists in creation. God is tri-existent. Moreover, the distinction between the divine hypostases is a datum of divine revelation, and so to reduce it to some kind of intellectual distinction "in our way of thinking" is to undermine the entire point of revelation, which is meant to give us a real knowledge of the divine life, and it also confuses natural knowledge with revealed truth. The knowledge given through divine revelation is not a mere intellectual abstraction; instead, it is a real participation in the uncreated divine glory through the divine energies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft: Originally posted by Apotheoun: [b] Originally posted by Elitoft:
What is the source of your knowledge of Palamas's theology of essence and energies? The Capita Physica, the Triads, and various other primary texts, and of course secondary writings by Lossky, Papademitriou, Hussey, Pentecost, Bradshaw, Papadakis, and other authors.
Perhaps the first two might corroborate the argument that you are presenting in some of its parts, but Lossky is not known for his philosophical acumen at any rate, and has rarely, if ever, said anything accurate about Aquinas.
I am reasonably assured that to fully support your position it would be necessary to assert that Palamas believed that in divinization, man looses his creaturelyness to become divine and that is simply not true. That is the eventual logical conclusion to all the versions of the argument that you are presenting here. And that assertion is clearly not held by all, including St. Gregory himself, although some come very close to insisting that it is.
Eli [/b]How much of Palamas have you read? St. Gregory never taught that man "loses" his creaturely status, because of course in his essence man remains a created being, but St. Gregory does teach -- following in the tradition of St. Maximos the Confessor -- that man becomes uncreated by grace, that is, that man becomes uncreated in his energy, because he really participates in the uncreated divine energies that flow out from the triad of divine hypostases as a gift to man. As St. Gregory explains, through participation in the uncreated divine energies men become ". . . 'gods by grace', whom the saints say are 'unoriginate and uncreated by grace', when speaking on this subject." [St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, page 98] Based on the teachings of St. Maximos and St. Gregory one can say that man becomes a true icon of the incarnate Logos, because just as He is one uncreated hypostasis in two natures (divine and human); so too, a man redeemed by Him becomes one created human person, in two natures, possessing his human nature through the act of creation, and possessing the divine nature through his participation in the uncreated divine energies. Thus, by grace (i.e., divine energy) man becomes what Christ is by nature.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft: Dynamis and energeia are not identical.
Eli I am absolutely certain that they are not identical in meaning. If you read the books that Photios (Augustini) recommended you will see that the causal sequence is: ousia, dynamis, energeia, erga (See Michel Rene Barnes, The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology, pages 237 and 295). Dynamis is a capacity, while energeia is the activation or actualization of that capacity. An additional problem arises in the Thomist system, in that "power" can be reduced to the moral virtues, which would imply that divinization merely involves a mimicking of Christ, rather than an ontological participation in God's own uncreated life and glory. The tendency in Western theology is to reduce salvation to a type of created holiness that mirrors God's holiness, while in Eastern theology man does not simply receive a "created" holiness, or a "created" grace, but receives a real participation in God's own holiness. This difference came out during the debates at the Council of Florence, and for more information on that debate you can read Fr. Joseph Gill's book on the council (see Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, pages 202-207). It is important to note that Fr. Gill takes an anti-Eastern position throughout the book, but that really is to be expected, since he wrote the book prior to the reforms initiated by the Second Vatican Council.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Augustini:
Todd, I have a couple articles by Dr. John Jones former chair at Marquette that traces out the Byzantine, Scholastic, and Neo-Platonic as well as an analysis of Thomas' (mis)reading of the Divine Names in Dionysius. Email me at photius@sbcglobal.net and I'll send them to you later on tonight if you wish.
Photios Thanks, I would be interested in reading the articles. I sent you an email. Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon: You do not see a conflict because you subscribe to the Latin theological tradition, which confuses essence and energy. The vision of God entails a participation in the energies of God, not His essence, because His essence, as St. Basil said, "remains beyond our reach." [St. Basil the Great, Letter 234]
I am a Byzantine Catholic, and because I am a Byzantine I am also a Palamite. I gave up Thomism when I changed sui juris Churches.
Blessings to you,
Todd
I think I've said all that I want to say on this topic.
Dn. RobertFr. Deacon, I posted a link to this article earlier in this thread, but perhaps you did not have time to read it. The article was written by a Ukrainian Catholic priest, and -- unlike you -- he does not seem to have a problem when it comes to criticizing and even denying aspects of Western Scholastic theology. Here is the article (the link is below): Glory to Jesus Christ!
The first thing that you need to keep in mind when you are asking questions concerning the positions held by Eastern Catholics is to remember that we are identical to the Orthodox except that we are in communion with Rome. As a matter of fact, this is really the only way that the communion of the Catholic Church works, when all of the Churches are free to be themselves, with their own law, their own liturgy, and yes, their own theology.
We do believe in the doctrine of the Holy Fathers of the Church that is usually referred to as "everlasting growth in the Lord" or "epektasis." We understand this belief to be essential to our faith. The problem is essentially epistemological. I would remind your Latin friend of the realistic epistemological principle established by Aristotle, that is that the intellect becomes what it intends. In other words, things that we know acquire intentional existence in our minds. The same object that exists in reality, exists intentionally in our minds. This epistemological principle is helpful to us in understanding how it is that we come to know finite objects, but it also teaches us concerning the way that we come to know the Infinite as well. It is a truism to say that only God can know God in the way that God knows God (that is to say completely). Other intellectual creatures know God in proportion to the capacity of their intellect. The human intellect is finite, and always will be. Nevertheless, the very finitude of the human intellect is continuously susceptible to increase through grace (the action of the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, the finitude of the human intellect is what makes experience of God everlastingly interesting. Generations upon generations of Roman Catholics have been bored to tears with the scholastic prospect of the Beatific Vision, because they did not sufficiently understand that God is everlastingly interesting, and although our intellects are everlastingly satisfied in Paradise, nevertheless the capacity of our intellect is continuously increased, so that we possess God completely, and yet, at the same time chase God with longing and desire because of the attenuation of the power of our intellects.
One important point that must be insisted upon is the fact that the intellectual capacity of the blessed in Paradise is increased by grace, and not by anything else. Grace, as we have noted above is the Holy Spirit. The Latin distinction between created and uncreated grace is ersatz and has no place in patristic theology. Because the capacity of the intellect is increased by grace, the prayers of the living are efficacious for increasing the experience of God enjoyed by those in Paradise. For this reason, in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom we affirm that "we offer this spiritual worship for those who have gone to their rest in faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and every righteous soul made perfect in faith, especially for our Most Holy, Most Pure, Most Blessed and Glorious Lady the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary." In the terms of Latin theology, St. John Chrysostom would seem to be suggesting that the Mother of God and all of the other saints mentioned are in Purgatory. But this is not what is meant at all. St. John is praying that the experience of the blessed in Paradise grow in response to the sacrifice of the Liturgy.
There is the category in Latin theology that is called "the light of glory" (lumen gloriae). According to the Scholastics the light of glory is the grace that is given to the blessed that allows them to behold the essence of God. Presumably, what the intellect beholds, it also intends, therefore, aided by the light of glory the human intellect according to this schema becomes the essence of God (because it is the nature of the intellect to become what it intends). This concept is offensive to patristic thought. Rather, according to the Fathers, in the experience of the blessed in Paradise, the blessed have real knowledge of God, but they do not know God the way that God knows God. Herein is the basis between the distinction (found first in the Cappadocian Fathers) between the essence (ousia) and energies of God. The essence of God is known only to God. Nevertheless, He makes Himself known through His energies, and He gives us a participation in His very life that is susceptible to infinite growth.
As to the doctrine of epektasis being "approved," point out to your Latin friend that it is approved. It is found in many places in the writings of the Holy Fathers of the Church. Further, when the Holy Fathers speak with consensus, they participate in Divine Revelation, just as the Ecumenical Councils and the Popes of Rome do.
I hope that this somewhat lengthy explanation is some help.
Wishing you a blessed and joyful Pascha,
Fr. Matthew Link: Epektasis [ christianforums.com]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
Fr. Deacon,
I posted a link to this article earlier in this thread, but perhaps you did not have time to read it. The article was written by a Ukrainian Catholic priest, and -- unlike you -- he does not seem to have a problem when it comes to criticizing and even denying aspects of Western Scholastic theology. Yes, I read it when you originally posted it.It's an opinion. Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
If you read the books that Photios (Augustini) recommended you will see that the causal sequence is: ousia, dynamis, energeia, erga (See Michel Rene Barnes, The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology, pages 237 and 295). Dear Todd, Hoping not to offend a budding student of holy things, but I am indeed familiar with those texts and with the corrective work done in the 20th century by Catholic Scholars who managed to rescue St. Thomas from some of the nonsense of the post-Reformation period and this contemporary modern period as well. As I said to you earlier, you are mistaken as, of course, are your sources. You don't think that I think you make all these things you say up out of your own good ideas do you? No. I recognize the source of your opinions which do not comport either with Aquinas nor with Catholic teaching. Dynamis is a capacity, while energeia is the activation or actualization of that capacity. Who taught you this? An additional problem arises in the Thomist system, in that "power" can be reduced to the moral virtues, which would imply that divinization merely involves a mimicking of Christ, rather than an ontological participation in God's own uncreated life and glory. I have already corrected this falsehood by indicating that potens subsists in the essence of the divine nature and we share directly in that power of the divine nature by grace. This has always been Catholic teaching. Who taught you that false teachings that you offer above? Also you do a gross injustice to the balance in Father J. Gill's book on the Council of Florence, and you cannot substantiate your claim to anyone who has actually done a close reading of the text. I can't help but wonder if you are young or just determined to spread false teaching. Perhaps a little of both. I suppose it is necessary to have this. But I don't see any point in pursuing much more with you. Just remember that there are true Thomist scholars and theologians among the Dominicans who can help you if you ever choose to take the scales from your eyes. Who knows. They might just fall off one day. And remember that no matter how many books you read, you will always find one or more persons who actually do know more and better than do you. The true test of the scholar is humility, and the true test of the theologian is humility and the discipline of daily prayer. Also when you genuinely have mastered the truth, you will need all those references to support your lessons. It will all come out in small words and very clearly. You'll know when it happens. So will your audience. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Also when you genuinely have mastered the truth, you will need all those references to support your lessons.
Eli [/QB] Pardon, It was meant to say that you will no longer need to point to all those other references once you have mastered the theological truths that you seek. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft: Dynamis is a capacity, while energeia is the activation or actualization of that capacity. Who taught you this? Since you have read Dr. Barnes' book, you should already know who taught this, because that is one of the fundamental elements covered in his more than 300 page book. Blessings to you, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft:
I have already corrected this falsehood by indicating that potens subsists in the essence of the divine nature and we share directly in that power of the divine nature by grace. This has always been Catholic teaching. Who taught you that false teachings that you offer above? Give me your definition of grace, is it created or uncreated?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by Apotheoun: Originally posted by Elitoft: Dynamis is a capacity, while energeia is the activation or actualization of that capacity. Who taught you this?
Blessings to you,
Todd This is not a clear reading of Aquinas and begins long before Dr. Barnes was a twinkle in his father's eye. I was wondering if you were following the earlier threads of those who have mis-represented Aquinas over the centuries in the originals or if you were depending on secondary sources and synthetic sources such as Dr. Barnes. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft:
Also you do a gross injustice to the balance in Father J. Gill's book on the Council of Florence, and you cannot substantiate your claim to anyone who has actually done a close reading of the text. I own and have read the book, and so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the polemical nature of the text. Nevertheless, Fr. Gill does make it clear that he -- and the West in general -- rejects what he calls the "Palamitic" doctrine of divine energies, which, as he puts it, "Mark [of Ephesus] with most of the Greeks held to be really distinct from the divine essence, an opinion that the Latins both then and now consider wrong." [Fr. Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, page 206] For more information on this issue you may want to consult the excellent books written by Aristeides Papadakis entitled, Crisis in Byzantium and The Church in History: The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Elitoft: Originally posted by Apotheoun: [b] Originally posted by Elitoft: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Dynamis is a capacity, while energeia is the activation or actualization of that capacity. Who taught you this?
Blessings to you,
Todd This is not a clear reading of Aquinas and begins long before Dr. Barnes was a twinkle in his father's eye. I was wondering if you were following the earlier threads of those who have mis-represented Aquinas over the centuries in the originals or if you were depending on secondary sources and synthetic sources such as Dr. Barnes. Eli [/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Come now, Aquinas did not even read Greek, so he may not have understood this necessary distinction, but his ignorance on this issue does not mean that his theology is compatible with Byzantine tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon: Fr. Deacon,
I posted a link to this article earlier in this thread, but perhaps you did not have time to read it. The article was written by a Ukrainian Catholic priest, and -- unlike you -- he does not seem to have a problem when it comes to criticizing and even denying aspects of Western Scholastic theology.
Dn. Robert Fair enough. You certainly are free to reject his opinion on these issues, just as I reject your opinion on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 75
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 75 |
Eli,
Are you going to keep trodding out over and over that Todd doesn't know what he's talking about, or are you actually going to give an argument? You haven't made one argument yet that you know what you are doing. If he is wrong, then walk him through it point-by-point, or hell give him a book recommendation that you think is representative as I did you. But don't keep sniding and insulting him.
As I mentioned before Barnes isn't a book about Aquinas AT ALL (for some reason you don't seem to grasp that). It traces the concept of dynamis from the Pre-Platonists and Pre-Socractics up to the controversey of Eunomius and Gregory.
Photios
|
|
|
|
|
