Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Jo, in haste as I am in the office. The distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energies far predates +Gregory Palamas. I detect in your post a fundamental misunderstanding of what Agrarian and I have been talking about; where did you get the idea that Orthodoxy does not believe that God is One? And where, pray tell, do you get the idea that uncreated Divine Energies are "godlets"? One simple similie to the difference between the Divine Essence and the uncreated Divine Energies is to equate the Divine Essence with the sun and the Divine Energies with the sun's rays. It isn't perfect but I think it will do away with any "godlet" concept. Think also about creation around us. All of it was created ex nihilo through the uncreated Divine Energies. We "know" God not because of His Essence but rather because of His Energies.
Your comment that this idea smacks of Gnosticism is almost funny. Palamas' descriptions were in direct response to the heretical quasi Gnostic ideas of the Western Church as set forth by Barlaam (with, or so he claimed, his source in Thomist theology. Barlaam taught that we humans could know God's Divine Essence and become one with God's Divine Essence through the use of our intellect. If anything, Palamite theology is the antithesis of Gnosticism.
I don't believe I said we have a relationship with an "Essence". We share in the Divine Nature in that we share in the communion of love between the Father and the Son. We enter into this communion because of Christ's Incarnation, which is HOW we come to know the Father. This is not the language of metaphysics, in practical terms. Our relationship with God is personal. But when discussing the terminology of the Godhead, we use such terms as "essence" to more properly describe the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Hence St. Ambrose and St. Hilary, we Orthodox would believe, lived their spiritual lives through participation in the divine energies no less than did St. John Chyrsostom or St. Gregory Palamas -- even if the terminology used did not have the precision and nuances of Palamite theology, which was honed because of facing heresy.
I think that is why I, along with Vatican 2, have recognized that our respective views are complimentary, not contradictory. The distinctions made by St. Palamas are based on the experiences of Eastern Monks saying the Jesus Prayer, identifying the "Light" seen in prayer. The Western Fathers have their own tradition of this "Light" and what it is. We have always considered that God is One, thus, it is difficult for us to see the distinction between God and "uncreated energies" and how it relates to the Doctrines set down at Chalcedon. The only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is in generation within the Trinity, which is eternally "happening". "Uncreated energies", to me, seems to change the meaning of Chalcedon. However, I am probably misunderstanding the idea of "uncreated energies".
In any case, this speculation was not the reason for the Great Schism.
Regards
"I'm only "crying" because this "high regard" detracts from Christ. Every prayer sent to Mary is one less prayer sent directly to God. It is one less chance to communicate with Him. ... It was Christ Himself who said "Who is my mother?", not me. :)"
________________________________________
IMHO, I think Evangelical Christians are concerned about this "lofty" status accorded Mary and special supernatural powers accorded her by Roman Catholics is that it is a product of "Tradition" and not SCRIPTURE. When people fall prey to "Tradition" they are easily led into false doctrine, such as multiple justifications based on works.
Unfortunately, the sun and the sun rays are two distinct and different things and different essences. God the Father and God the Son are ONE. They do not have any differences EXCEPT within the Godhead in regards to the Son's generation by the Father. Thus, they have the same essence. Nicea made that clear and Chalcedon further clarified it.
Palamas' descriptions were in direct response to the heretical quasi Gnostic ideas of the Western Church as set forth by Barlaam (with, or so he claimed, his source in Thomist theology. Barlaam taught that we humans could know God's Divine Essence and become one with God's Divine Essence through the use of our intellect. If anything, Palamite theology is the antithesis of Gnosticism.
That's a paradoy of Thomistic theology, first of all. The Angelic Doctor reconciled reason and mysticism. Perhaps you are thinking of Peter Abelard, whom St. Bernard disputed with in the defense of mysticism that is above reason. It is St. Thomas' metaphysics that was able to reconcile the One and the Many, the paradox of God.
First, Thomas defined Existence - that something is - and Essence - what something is. When we look at the world, we see unity in existence, but a multiplicity of essences. In God, ESSENCE and EXISTENCE are identical. God is the only Being and all other beings participate in His existence.
I AM... Thomas appeals to Exodus, but also to 2 Peter and the participation of the divine nature.
But this is not all. St. Thomas doesn't make the mistake of Dionysius, who places God beyond existence. St. Thomas keeps the paradox. He says that God's existence is so different from other existences that we can say that God doesn't exist. God exists but God doesn't exist...
Such writers as the Cloud of Unknowing counsel his disciples to forget essences and to concentrate on existence. Concentrate on "that you are" and that "God is" Thus, one enters into a great oneness and forgets self. He justifies this with careful Thomistic metaphysics:
"For he is thy being, and in Him thou art what thou art, not only by cause and by being, but also He is in thee both thy cause and thy being...evermore saving this difference between thee and Him, that He is they Being and thou not His."
Bury all essences beneath of Cloud of Forgetting so as to be aware only of existence. Practical useage of Thomistic theology.
Without getting detailed, St. Thomas felt we could know through connaturality (where one co-natures with the something - embodied in oneself) or through love. St. Thomas refers to my tagline "For love is of God and everyone that loves is born of God and knows God". God is love. Thus, when we love, we come to know who God is through experience:
"The one who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" 1 Cor 6:17.
St. Thomas says that Scriptures does not say that "the one who studies theology knows God, but the one who loves."
Thus, it is a faulty understanding of St. Thomas that believes we can know God by some sort of systematic rationalization. You are confusing Peter Abelard with St. Bernard and St. Thomas.
And second, Barlaam didn't think much of the "navel-gazers" because it smacked too close to Oriental practices. IF Barlaam claimed to be Thomistic, he didn't do a very good job of portraying St. Thomas' theology.
Regards
To be precise, the poor Chevalier was executed by the French state (not the Catholic Church) two hundred years after the Council of Trent.I'll try not to bother you with facts in the future.Of course, Canon Law forbid the Church to shed blood herself. For God's sake don't try those God forsaken arguments on me, they're worthless. Nothing personal, mind you, I'm sure you're a fine person, and I say that sincerely, I'm just way past the point of being able to swallow that kind of drink.
Hogwash. Both of you do this everyday. Does this mean you detract anything from God?
When you compliment someone, are you taking away God's Glory? Would I be correct for chastizing you for calling your wife pretty? For it is God who gave that person the gift of whatever you are complimenting. Are you in error for giving someone the credit for something they are not the source of? HOW DARE YOU!!!
Think common sense for a minute...When you eat a lasagna dinner, and you comment "that was the best lasagna I ever had, it was so good", does that mean that the cook receives no credit or does the lasagna take on all the credit while disregarding the cook??? Who thinks that way? Doesn't the cook accept the compliment of his creation as a compliment to HIM??
Any glory given to Mary is glory given to God - as she herself gives credit to. It is a disconnect of our everyday lives that confuses you both to make such an accusation. We understand that Mary is not a "god", but a creation, so anything we say about her reflects in her creator. Don't be afraid to joyfully praise God's greatest creation.
Regards
You do everyday you quote from a Bible given to you by an institution that CLAIMS it is from God...
Regards
You do that.
"Hogwash. Both of you do this everyday. Does this mean you detract anything from God?"
Did you forget breakfast or something? I'm use to you not being on point, but now your going over the top.
__________________________________________
"When you compliment someone, are you taking away God's Glory?"
There is a world of difference between be complimentary of someone who has been truly blessed by GOD and building a false doctrine around that person and even ascribing supernatural powers to that person. If you have failed to see the difference mores to pity.
"You do everyday you quote from a Bible given to you by an institution that CLAIMS it is from God..."
_______________________________
This is so silly. You are implying that the INERRANT WORD OF GOD only became the INERRANT WORD OF GOD because a group of men recognized it as such? I hope you can do better.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean... Does that mean I never address the issue?
There is a world of difference between be complimentary of someone who has been truly blessed by GOD and building a false doctrine around that person and even ascribing supernatural powers to that person. If you have failed to see the difference mores to pity.
Which supernatural powers are attributed to Mary?
Regards
When the community recognized it as such, it became the inerrant word of God FOR THE COMMUNITY. Just because Paul wrote something doesn't make it the infallible word of God! It is the community's recognition that Paul was writing the inspired Gospel given to him by God that made the Sacred Writ inspired Scriptures.
I ask you to tell me how you know that Philemon is "inspired" or "from God" merely on its own basis removed from its binding of the "Bible", without ANY knowledge that it is part of the Bible...
Now that's silly...
Regards
That is San Diego. It was cool all week, so we did not do any beach, but we went to a bunch of museums and the Zoo (where I explained 2 Timothy 3:16 to an appreciative hippopotamus).
Regarding Los Angeles in connection to the Limbo, this is from the Getty Museum:
When you show me you understand the scripture better than a San Diego hippopotamus, we can discuss the Communion of Saints in its relation to the scripture.
Welcome back./
For the record, the Catholic Church disallows any disposal of the body that is intentionally done as a symbolic denial of the resurrection of the body. Such are all the dispersal methods. Of course, no physical act can prevent the resurrection of the body, but any burial whose symbolism aims at denying this truth is sacrilegious.
At the same time, cremation in itself is allowed.
Never got to the beach, -- see 7174 for a vacation report.
I can't read the Greek too clearly on my laptop, but it looks suspiciously like "i ana'stasis." Your Greek is better than mine, Alex. Does that translate into "Descent into Limbo"? :-)
Great to have you back. You have been missed.
Whether children should be baptized?
Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon all" on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said (John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation through Adam so in a second birth they might obtain salvation through Christ.[...]
The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.