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

Thank you. I hope you will continue to share your theological insights in this thread, and in many others at the Byzantine Forum.

God bless,
Todd

Likewise, I apologize, if I have offended. Todd, you have not offended me. I think we disagree about what the Fathers of the East actually held, but your arguments do not offend me. May we all experience one day that vision of the uncreated Light and become partakers of the Divine Nature.

Now that we've all apologized, and love reigns supreme, everyone here is wrong except me.

And I apologise for getting under Mary's skin.

However, did not Aquinas say that it was a virtue to become angry in a good cause?

O.K. back to work and I'll see you people!

Alex

Hah! Karl, you rascal! I have to say that your timing on this post was impeccable.

Hey, Joe, I'd like a compliment too! What about my praying Todd's prayer which speaks of vision (beatific perhaps) and partaker of Divine Nature (not Energies)!

Though I generally don't like them, group hugs can make the truth (seen and unseen) to be more easily perceived!

Forgiven and will be forgiven again!

Believe me I know a little something about emotion in the pursuit of the good.

And if you will forgive me for actually drawing the attention of the Moderators rather than threatening to, I'd like to not have to do that again, and would rather work things out between and among us, more often than not.

And I surely welcome your substantial contributions to this or any other topic.

And just for the record, I have no interest in seeing anybody be given the boot. That is the last thing on my mind.

Mary

Do I sense a western bias here. Substantial not essential?

Dear Mary,

May Our Lady of Mt Carmel keep you enfolded in the Mantle of her Protection always!

Just for the record, I'm not afraid of the Administrator or the Moderator!

At least, not any more . . .

A good Eastertide to you!

Alex

Just a little clarification: Both St. Gregory Palamas and St. Maximos hold that we are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) through the gift of the uncreated energies. That is why, as I said in an earlier post:

"The problem for a Western Christian is that Western philosophical theology has reduced God to His essence alone, but this idea has been rejected by Byzantine tradition as false, as St. Gregory Palamas said, 'Essence is necessarily being, but being is not necessarily essence' [St. Gregory Palamas, Contra Akindynum, II, 10; ed. Contos, page 89], and in the Capita Physica he said, 'Not all things spoken of God betoken His essence' [St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 127]. Thus, God (and man as well) is more than His essence [cf. St. Basil, Epistle 235]."

In other words, the gift of theosis involves a real participation in the divine nature through the uncreated divine energies, which are God Himself as He is manifested outside of His ineffable essence, but the divine essence itself remains beyond any kind of participation, as does the subsistent being of each of the three divine persons. Essence and hypostasis are incomminicable realities, while energy can be shared.

God bless,
Todd

I only give that much of myself back to my Redeemer King, and even then I can only open myself to be received for even that much is not mine to give, nor is it possible.

Mary

I think Pseudo-Athanasius' point about the different understanding of Essence in the West is very important here. Since the West doesn't necessarily understand Essence in such a way that participating in it would involve absorbtion or pantheism, collapsing Energy into the Essence doesn't lead to the same heretical dangers as it does in the Byzantine theological system. (see the Ascent of Mt. Carmel quote at the bottom for an example of how real participation with the Essence is understood without absorbtion).

These differences are critical in inter-tradition dialogue, because what can appear to be the same term isn't necessarily so. What you would have to do to demonstrate serious error in Latin theology is not simply repeat that they believe in partaking of the Divine Essence, but that in doing so they collapse the distinction between the creature and God in such a way as to lead to pantheism, or at least to countless new members of the Godhead.

Elijiamaria's point about later Schoolmen is dead on, IMO. Luther and Calvin derived much from the Scholastics, all while utterly rejecting St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas was a part of the Scholastic stream, he didn't define it. Later Scholastics and their "descendents" owe much more to Ockham and his ilk, and many of the more nominalistic approaches arise from that influence.

In saying this it isn't an attempt to reduce the differences to symantics, but rather to accurately and honestly represent St. Thomas Aquinas as opposed to certain of his later interpreters. There has been no concensus in the West on how to approach these mysteries, so to say "the West has understood it this way" is a bit limited; has the West understood Grace in terms of the Molinists, or in terms of the Banezian Thomists? The answer is neither and both, since neither has defined the West, but both approaches have been accepted.

If I accept the approach of St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila in understanding Aquinas, two Doctors of the Church, over that of Fr. Hardon, I'm hardly stepping outside of Latin tradition. On the contrary, I'm relying on its greatest luminaries, and the same understanding taught to me by Dominican instructors.

St. John of the Cross sums up this matter most beautifully, IMO, in The Ascent of Mt. Carmel, the work that made him a Doctor of the Church:


Nothing St. John says is out of line with Aquinas. In fact, he received his theological training from Dominicans. It is simply his representation, which can be found directly in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, that I'm putting forward. That there are other Latin views like Fr. Hardon's I don't dispute, but I do dispute his view on its merits, and in that it steps so far from the Doctor he's trying to draw from. I'm hardly rejecting Latin tradtional theology by upholding St. John of the Cross against Fr. John Hardon

I pray this discussion can continue on its charitable course!

Peace and God bless!

I'd just like to interject here that the continued discussion of differences in understanding is an essential prologue to reconciliation. However, as a thought on which all might ruminate, I have long since learned that the bandying about of terms such as "uncharitable" and "nonsensical" does little to promote dialogue of a civil and charitable nature - hallmarks of discourse in polite society.

Returning you now to the regularly scheduled discussion.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Todd,

It appears that Metropolitan John is not the only one who teaches that the Glory of God is not the exact equivalent of his energies.

As you can see from the quote below, God's Glory through eternity is his generation of the Son and Holy Spirit, while his energies abide in His creatures.

This is ultimately an important distinction and Saint Philaret of Moscow is not the only one to make the distinction.

The eternal God shines forth in his generative essence in all eternity. His energies shine forth in creation.

So I will say again that your claim above that His energies flow out through all eternity is something that is not held in universal orthodoxy, rather there is a distinction made between the glory of the eternal generative Trinity and the energies which shine through creation....Mary

Dear Elijahmaria,

I posted the following under the heading of 'Bishop Kallistos Ware:

I recall about a week ago, discussing intercommunion with a speaker that had attended the meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch at Constantinople. I asked him about intercommunion, and he said that everything is solvable, as did Bishop Kallistos about the Filioque. I recall Bishop Kallistos saying that the problems seems to be samantics.

The hindrance is the status of the Pope. If his status is not established, with whom will the problems be solved.

God Bless,

Zenovia