The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
LionHippo44, Evan Gallagher, Lizzy VH, thomisticgamer, DesertPrayer
5,708 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 74 guests, and 77 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,958
Posts413,424
Members5,708
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,071
Likes: 5
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,071
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by lm
Quote
"[F]or there was nothing else before the ages except Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," three persons

1.) , one essence.
2.) , one essence, and energies.
3.) , one essence, only.
4.) , one essence, only. (but the "only" as theological opinion)
5.) , one essence, and energies. (but the "and energies" as theological opinion)

or something else?

The distinctions this attempts to highlight are that: 4 and 5 are in accord with 1; 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive of each other and add to [as in 2] or limit [as in 3] 1; 3 makes 1 sufficient (the Creed makes it necessary) and excludes 4 and 5.


5 destroys God's Simplicity while 4 preserves it.
True, they would (on the basis of what I understand as your interpretation), but why not then use (a fortiori) 2 and 1&3, i.e.:

2 destroys God's Simplicity while 1&3 (emphasized in 3) preserves it?

Originally Posted by lm
Preserving the Simplicity is in accord with Basil and the Kontakion cited by Todd:

Quote
The Fathers of the Councils proclaim to us today that the eternal Trinity is one God and one Lord, explaining to us that it is of one nature, consubstantial, of one Will and one Act (energeia), not divided nor shared but existing in the simplicity of God's being

This does seem to subordinate (perhaps not the best word) Will and Act (energia) to consubstantial->homoousious->ousios. Also,(not referring to this post) later interpretations of Energy should not be read back into every prior use of the word energy as a demonstration of the new interpretation's validity.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
True, they would (on the basis of what I understand as your interpretation), but why not then use (a fortiori) 2 and 1&3, i.e.:

2 destroys God's Simplicity while 1&3 (emphasized in 3) preserves it?


That's fine.

After thinking about this I went back to review The Triads and this caught my eye:

Quote
[The human mind] will attain to that light, and will become worthy of supernatural vision of God, not seeing the Divine Essence, but seeing God by a revelation appropriate and analagous to Him.


I.iii My emphasis.

Aquinas, when he considers the knowledge of God that is attainable by human reason, considers the importance of analogical meaning of words derived from man's knowledge of sensible things.

See the ST Prima pars Q. 15 art 5:

Quote
I answer that, Univocal predication is impossible between God and creatures. The reason of this is that every effect which is not an adequate result of the power of the efficient cause, receives the similitude of the agent not in its full degree, but in a measure that falls short, so that what is divided and multiplied in the effects resides in the agent simply, and in the same manner; as for example the sun by exercise of its one power produces manifold and various forms in all inferior things. In the same way, as said in the preceding article, all perfections existing in creatures divided and multiplied, pre-exist in God unitedly.

Thus when any term expressing perfection is applied to a creature, it signifies that perfection distinct in idea from other perfections; as, for instance, by the term wise applied to man, we signify some perfection distinct from a man's essence, and distinct from his power and existence, and from all similar things; whereas when we apply to it God, we do not mean to signify anything distinct from His essence, or power, or existence. Thus also this term wise applied to man in some degree circumscribes and comprehends the thing signified; whereas this is not the case when it is applied to God; but it leaves the thing signified as incomprehended, and as exceeding the signification of the name. Hence it is evident that this term wise is not applied in the same way to God and to man. The same rule applies to other terms. Hence no name is predicated univocally of God and of creatures.


My emphasis.

Aquinas continues:

Quote
Neither, on the other hand, are names applied to God and creatures in a purely equivocal sense, as some have said. Because if that were so, it follows that from creatures nothing could be known or demonstrated about God at all; for the reasoning would always be exposed to the fallacy of equivocation. Such a view is against the philosophers, who proved many things about God, and also against what the Apostle says: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20). Therefore it must be said that these names are said of God and creatures in an analogous sense, i.e. according to proportion.


Emphasis added.

JPII gives a good example by considering what Fatherhood in God must be:

Quote
In itself, [God's] "generating" has neither "masculine nor "feminine" qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since "God is Spirit" and possesses no property typical of the body, neither "feminine" nor "masculine". Thus even "fatherhood" in God is completely divine and free of masculine bodily characteritistics.


Mulieris dignitatem

While I appreciate Palamas' point that it is impossible to comprehend God, and hence for theosis there must be some "revelation" analogous to Him by which man attains to theosis, Aquinas is not unaware of the difficulty. In Q. 12 art. 7 ST, Prima pars he states:

Quote
I answer that, It is impossible for any created intellect to comprehend God; yet "for the mind to attain to God in some degree is great beatitude," as Augustine says (De Verbis Domini, Sermon 37).


In the Summa Contra Gentiles Bk Three, Part I he states:

Quote
Now, the final limit to which contemplation can reach is the divine substance. Hence, the mind which sees the divine substance must be completely cut off from the bodily senses, either by death or by ecstacy.


Palamas states:

Quote
And what am I to say of this union...disengaged by ecstacy from all perception of the senses or intellect, admitted to the true vision because they ceased to see...


The difference between Palamas and Aquinas seems to be in this:

One says that God is utterly incomprehensible and we reach God in theosis by an analogy. The other says that through analogical terms, man can come to some very limited knowledge about God in this life, and yet in final union man "sees" the essence of God, without comprehending it. No that's theosis!

Aquinas has this in his favor:

Quote
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.


1 Corinthians 13.

And don't forget the distinct praise given to Aquinas by
Gennadios Scholarios which I have mentioned in other threads.

I would also argue that Aquinas has The Canticle of Canticles in his favor which is about the real union of the lover and the beloved. Finally, I would say that he has the Incarnation in his favor.

Interestingly enough, Aquinas himself shortly before his death, was taken up into this ecstacy. After his vision which was purportedly on the Feast of St. Nicholas, he gave up writing and said that compared to what he had seen, everything he had written was but straw. How amazing for one who, as man with great faith, holiness and learning, understood so much about Scripture, theology and philosophy.





Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3
Respectfully, I found John Meyendorff's "Living Tradition" clear and easy to share with others.

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5