Divinization?

[AugustineH354]

**BENEDICTUS DEUS (On the Beatific Vision of God) **Pope Benedict XII

---

****Constitution issued in 1336

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ—provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death—and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence. Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.

(Taken from “The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church”, published by Alba House.)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B12BDEUS.HTM

 

[Exporter]

All of you “hight-brows” are going to laugh now.

Divinization : A man who has a green stick walks about. When the stick dips toward the ground, dig!..there is water there. He is a diviner.

Sometimes there is a person, usually an old lady, who can discern evil spirits in another person.

In South Texas East of Falfurrias on a ranch during the 1800s an old Mexican Cowboy was known the have the gift of discenment and healing. His first name was Juan. If someone tried to fool him they got a stomach ache for about 12 hours.

 

[AugustineH354]

I would like to submit further evidence that the EO distinction between God’s “essence and energies” is a false development of doctrine.

St. Irenaeus stated:

…the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.(Adv. Her. 5.Pref - ANF 1.526)

This echoes the words of St. Paul:

2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

This teaching is also in the Tridentine Mass:

Deus, qui humanae substantiae dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti: da nobis per hujus aquae et vini mysterium, ejus divinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps, Jesus Christus Filius tuus Dominus noster: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus. per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

O GOD, Who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, who has condescended to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord: Who with You lives and reigns in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, world without end. Amen. (Saint Joseph Daily Missal, 1961, pp. 660, 661.)

Now, I ask, when our Lord became a partaker of our humanity, was it our “essence” He assumed, or merely our attributes/energies?

I think the answer is clear; and given the clear answer to the above, is it proper to divide God’s nature into “essence and energies”? I don’t think so, and Western theologians have been pretty clear on this. And if the Western theologians are correct, then, to partake of the divine nature means to partake of the divine essence.

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Deacon_Ed]

David,

The information you posted from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia repeats the condemnations of Barlaam without understanding that Barlaam never got hesychasm right! That information is both dated and incorrect.

Barlaam went to learn about hesychasm and, unfortunately, was taught the end-stage of process. He missed out on the years of formation that would normally lead to a correct understanding. As a result, he condemned it as a form of quiteism – which it is not. If you really want to know what hesychasm is, you need to read the works of St. Gregory Palamas who pulled together an understanding and wrote in a way that can be followed, even by those without years of background.

There is also a difference between seeing and participating in. I can see childbirth, but I can’t participate in it because I’m not a woman. I can see God, but I can’t share His nature because I am not God. Since, after death, we are joined to God we have to understand what that joining is. Since is not a joining of nature it must be a joining of energy – that is, of the actions of God.

We cannot participate in the nature (ousia) of God. Three persons, and only three person participate in that: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the creed says they are “of the same substance” – homoousias). They do not share in that nature, euch fully possesses the nature unlike human beings who share a common nature.

Scripture tells us we will “see God as He is” – not that we will be God as He is.

Deacon Ed

 

[HagiaSophia]

AugustineH354:

these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence

.

Bears out exactly what I hear Deacon Ed Saying.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Hesychios:

Interestingly, many of the very same types of devotions that help us to interiorize our faith are used in the western sense too. Devotions we use to dispel sinful thoughts can be common to east and west. There is a lot of overlapping in practice, and historically there has been a lot of borrowing both ways between the east and west.

Western monasticism has been greatly influenced by eastern theology and spirituality (through people like St John Cassian), therefore much of what I have said about the east will sound like familiar material to anyone who has read the works of monks, nuns and hermits in the western contemplative tradition.

I hope that this helps somewhat, like I said it’s hard to capture in a couple of posts.

Yes, it helps immensely. So as not to hijack this thread which I am enjoying so much - I’m going to start another one “spiritual practices” and I’d like to learn more about WHAT these consist of for the Easterns.

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

The “essence (ousia) of God” is what makes God God. It is, in effect, His Nature. We have a human nature and can never participate in the **Divine nature ** because that would mean changing us from what we are into God Himself.

The scriptures say that Christians do indeed partake of the divine nature.May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.
2Peter 1:2-4 RSVCE

**Catholic Encyclopedia ** comment on 2Peter 1:4 from the article: Supernatural Gift

A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers (vires) of created nature. …

As a consequence of … Divine adoption and new birth we are made “partakers of the divine nature” (theias koinonoi physeos, II Pet., i, 4). The whole context of this passage and the passages already quoted show that this expression is to be taken as literally as possible not, indeed, as a generation from the substance of God, but as a communication of Divine life by the power of God, and a most intimate indwelling of His substance in the creature. … The Fathers have not hesitated to call supernatural union of the creature with God the deification of the creature. This is a favorite expression of St. Irenæus (“Adv. Haer.”, III, xvii, xix; IV, xx, etc.), and is frequently used by St. Athanasius (see Newman, “St. Athanasius”, II, 88).

 

[Hesychios]

AugustineH354:

I would like to submit further evidence that the EO distinction between God’s “essence and energies” is a false development of doctrine.
…

I think the answer is clear; and given the clear answer to the above, is it proper to divide God’s nature into “essence and energies”? I don’t think so, and Western theologians have been pretty clear on this. And if the Western theologians are correct, then, to partake of the divine nature means to partake of the divine essence.

Grace and peace,

David

Dear David,

I have neither the time nor the ability to address all of the scholarship you have posted here, and frankly Father Deacon Ed has done a marvelous job, so there is no need. I do believe that you two are talking past each other though, it may have something to do with the terminology.

I just wanted to say I appreciate all of the effort that went into your discerning this issue but you are wrong here.

Father Deacon Ed is associated (I believe) with the Melkite church. This has been the important element of the Melkite spirituality and theology since the beginnings of the church at Antioch, no doctrinal change ever aside from legitimate developments in the tradition. Likewise for the Ruthenian church to which I belong, first established in the ninth century in central Europe by Greek missioners and no change whatever except for the deeper understandings in the Greek tradition everywhere.

The Ruthenians have been in communion since 1649 after the interlude beginning around 1054 and have never changed their theology, the Melkites since 1709 approximately. These churches came into communion with Rome intact and with their own theology. I can assure you that if they had been expected to adopt the Latin understanding of the Trinity it would have been a deal breaker, and there would be no Melkite Catholics or Ruthenian Catholics.

However, if you are intent upon proving that our theology is heretical I invite you to do as much research on the churches as you can to find evidence of Rome ordering the Byzantine rite churches to repudiate their own theology and adopt the Latin understanding of the Trinity. They have had 350 years to try.

Rest assured, the Paraclete is in charge, there are no heresies coming from this direction.

Michael
+T+

 

[prodromos]

Matt16_18:

How can God be divided into parts, i.e. how can one conceive of a division that separates God’s *uncreated * essence from his *uncreated * energy? God is simple and not divisible into parts - all the Church Fathers taught this truth.

Matt, God’s energy is inseperable from His essence. The analogy usually used is that of a sunbeam and the sun which like all analogies is limited since light travels at a finite speed and we may be receiving light from stars which have long ceased to exist. However, imagine if you will that light travels at infinite speed such that the light from the sun is received instantaneously. What happens if you try to seperate the light beam from it’s source? Simply put, you cannot, because the instant a ray of light is cut off from it’s source it simply ceases to be.

John

 

[Matt16_18]

prodromos:

Matt, God’s energy is inseperable from His essence. The analogy usually used is that of a sunbeam and the sun which like all analogies is limited since light travels at a finite speed and we may be receiving light from stars which have long ceased to exist. However, imagine if you will that light travels at infinite speed such that the light from the sun is received instantaneously. What happens if you try to seperate the light beam from it’s source? Simply put, you cannot, because the instant a ray of light is cut off from it’s source it simply ceases to be.

John

A sunbeam has the same essence as the sun itself, so the sunbean/sun analogy is not a good analogy for teaching about the difference between God’s uncreated energies and God’s essence. Is there another analogy that the Orthodox use that sheds some light as to what they mean by God’s “uncreated energies” and how God’s uncreated energies are different than God’s essence?

God, in his essence, is love. How can the Orthodox claim that a Christian cannot know God in his essence? It seems to me that the Orthodox are claiming that we cannot know that God is love when they assert that we cannot know God in his essence.

 

[prodromos]

Matt16_18:

God, in his essence, is love. How can the Orthodox claim that a Christian cannot know God in his essence? It seems to me that the Orthodox are claiming that we cannot know that God is love when they assert that we cannot know God in his essence.

Love is an action not an essence, and you’ll get yourself into a lot of trouble trying to define God in such simplistic terms.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt,

You write:

A sunbeam has the same essence as the sun itself, so the sunbean/sun analogy is not a good analogy for teaching about the difference between God’s uncreated energies and God’s essence. Is there another analogy that the Orthodox use that sheds some light as to what they mean by God’s “uncreated energies” and how God’s uncreated energies are different than God’s essence?

But it doesn’t! The sun is a fusion plant while a sunbeam is an emission of that fusion plant in the form of photons. There is a substantial difference between the sun and its eminations just as there is a substantial difference between the nature of God and His energies.

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

Matt,

But it doesn’t! The sun is a fusion plant while a sunbeam is an emission of that fusion plant in the form of photons. There is a substantial difference between the sun and its eminations just as there is a substantial difference between the nature of God and His energies.

Deacon Ed

The sun is indeed a fusion plant. Einstein proved by his famous equation that there is an equivalence between matter and energy (E= MCC). Matter is being turned into energy by the fusion process in the interior of the sun, and the photons that are emanating from the sun are parts of the sun traveling outward into space. There is no essential difference between the photons traveling from the sun and the photons in the sun.

What the sun analogy shows is that the sun is divisible into parts - the sun can be considered to be composed of matter and energy. God, however, is not divisible into parts, and that is why there is a problem in asserting that God’s uncreated energy is distinguishable from his uncreated essence.

 

[Matt16_18]

prodromos:

Love is an action not an essence, and you’ll get yourself into a lot of trouble trying to define God in such simplistic terms.

You are saying that God is loving, but the Apostle John teaches that God IS love.

God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1John 4:16

prodromos:

Love is an action not an essence …

God’s goodness is synonymous with his being.
God is Simple

**Catholic Teaching: **
God is not composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means. Simplicity of God refers to the fact that he has no parts. The simplicity teaching extends to the entire nature of God. His substance, nature, and very being is that of utter simplicity. The properties usually attributed to God such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence do not contradict the teaching of simplicity because each property is a different way of looking at the infinite active being of God from a limited perspective. One consequence of this teaching is the fact that since God is simple, he must be a pure spirit.

**Definition of the Dogma: **
The dogma of simplicity follows from the teachings of the 4th Lateran Council and the first Vatican Council which stated that God is an absolutely simple substance or nature. The basis of this De Fide dogma can be found within the gospel of John, “God is a spirit” (John 4:24).

God is Perfect

**Catholic Teaching: **
God is absolutely perfect in the order of all things. God is perfectly just, merciful, powerful, wise, and loving. He does not lack any perfection found in the created order because he is the first efficient cause and creates all perfection. God’s perfection is grounded in the fact that he is synonymous with existence itself and thus encompasses all being.

The Scholastics realized that since God is the first efficient cause and exists in complete actuality there can be found nothing wanting in him. Since God has no potentiality he encompasses all that is. Essentially, being is synonymous with goodness in the eyes of the Scholastics, and God, as absolute being, is also absolute goodness. Now it might seem strange that goodness is synonymous with being, but one must realize that perfection is impossible without existence. A perfect being is one that exists fully realized and actualized with no deficiencies. Deficiencies cannot exist in a perfectly actual being and thus God is perfect.

Definition of the Dogma:

The First Vatican Council explicitly taught the dogma of the perfection of God. Additionally, the doctrine is based on Matthew 5:48, “be you perfect as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” The doctrine is a De Fide dogma of the faith and must be believed with divine and Catholic Faith.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

The sun is indeed a fusion plant. Einstein proved by his famous equation that there is an equivalence between matter and energy (E= MCC). Matter is being turned into energy by the fusion process in the interior of the sun, and the photons that are emanating from the sun are parts of the sun traveling outward into space. There is no essential difference between the photons traveling from the sun and the photons in the sun.

No,m the photons are the result of a process, they are not the process itself. Therein lies one difference, but there are others.

What the sun analogy shows is that the sun is divisible into parts - the sun can be considered to be composed of matter and energy. God, however, is not divisible into parts, and that is why there is a problem in asserting that God’s uncreated energy is distinguishable from his uncreated essence.

I disagree, what the analogy shows is aspects of a process. God is infinitely simple, not divisible, but also not comprehensible. His nature is unique and we cannot assume His nature, although He could assume ours – and did so without confusion. We remain creatures, never becoming the creator and, therefore, do not acquire His nature. We do not become God. The uncreated energies of God can be considered as the visible aspects of God. Those aspects include love, goodness, mercy, justice, etc. We can participate in those “energies”. They are not separate from God, but they are not God.

Deacon Ed

 

[prodromos]

Matt16_18:

so the sunbean/sun analogy is not a good analogy for teaching about the difference between God’s uncreated energies and God’s essence.

On reading your post again I realised we are talking at cross purposes. My analogy (weak as all analogies about God are) was solely to demonstrate that God’s energy is inseperable from His essence and had nothing to do with the difference between energy and essence. I’ve been looking on rather bemused as you guys have been going into detail about what the sun is made of etc. when my analogy had nothing to do with that aspect.

 

[AugustineH354]

Deacon Ed and Michael,

Thank you both for your continued dialogue with me (and others) on this topic of divinization and the related issues of the “essence and energies” distincition, and the beatific vision. Please allow for any ignorance on my part of what you two believe personally, for I know next to nothing about the Melcite and Ruthenian churches.

However, I am fairly well read on the theology of the Greek Orthodox Churches, and of my own church the RCC; but certainly have much to learn. From my readings, the general tone and content of RCC theologians commenting on the Palamas/post-Palamas teaching of the real distinction of the “essence and energies” God has been quite negative. And on the flipside, RCC theologians have been quite adamant in affirming that God’s essence and attributes are identical (following Augustine and Aquinas). [See my next post for a good example.]

Now, with that said, is the Palamite doctrine reformable? I ask this because the doctrine does not exist in any of the Ecumenical Councils.

Moving on to the beatific vision, once again, a significant difference between Orthodox and RCC theologians exists; the RCC theologians are quite adamant that it is the very essence of God that will be seen by the glorified saints in heaven, while the Orthodox are just as adamant that the Divine essence is both unknowable and cannot be seen by the saints.

Grace and peace,

David

 

[AugustineH354]

As promised in my last post, the following is representative of the stance RCC theologians have taken on the “essence and energies” distinction:

Two centuries later [the 14th century] there arose among the schismatic Greeks the heresy of the Palamites—so called from its author, Gregory Palamas. This heresy two Constantinopolitan synods (A.D. 1341 and 1347) did not blush to proclaim as schismatic dogma. The quintessence of the Palamite error may be stated as follows: Between the essence ( ούσίά ) and activity ( ενέργια ) of God there is a real distinction, inasmuch as the latter radiates from the former as something inferior, though still, in a sense, divine ( θεότης ). God’s different attributes are merely radiations of the Divine Essence, and they solidify as it were by taking on the shape of uncreated but visible light, which the Blessed in Heaven perceive by means of bodily vision. It is the same light that the disciples beheld on Mount Tabor. Here on earth this heavenly bliss is possible per anticipationem

only, as the fruit of severe mortification, in the ησυχία, that is, the repose of contemplative prayer. Hence the name Hesychasts…

The dogma that God’s Essence is absolutely identical with His attributes, is taught, at least by implication, in all those passages of Holy Writ which the divine attributes are conceived substantively rather than adjectively. Cfr. 1 John XIV, 8: “Deus caritas est—God is charity.” John XIV, 6: “Ego sum via et veritas et vita—I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The Fathers never took these passages for rhetorical figures of speech, but interpreted them literally. Augustine condensed the entire dogmatic teaching of the Church on this subject into one pregnant axiom, viz.: “Deus quad habet, hoc est—God is what He has.” (Pohel-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 1941, pp. 146-148.)

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

No,m the photons are the result of a process, they are not the process itself. Therein lies one difference, but there are others.

If there is some helium and some hydrogen confined in space without fusion taking place, is there a sun? No, there is no sun until there is a sufficient mass of hydrogen that self ignites the fusion process. When the fusion process is initiated, there is a sun, and until then, there is only a cloud of gas in space. The process of fusion is essential to a sun.

God is infinitely simple, not divisible …

Agreed.

His nature is unique and we cannot assume His nature, although He could assume ours – and did so without confusion. We remain creatures, never becoming the creator and, therefore, do not acquire His nature. We do not become God.

Agreed. We do not become God though theosis.

The uncreated energies of God can be considered as the visible aspects of God. Those aspects include love, goodness, mercy, justice, etc. We can participate in those “energies”. They are not separate from God, but they are not God.

You still haven’t defined what you mean by uncreated energies, and how the uncreated energies of God are not the same as God’s essence. The statement that the uncreated energies of God “are not separate from God, but they are not God” is irrational. That which is uncreated is God!

The “essence (ousia) of God” is what makes God God. It is, in effect, His Nature. We have a human nature and can never participate in the Divine nature because that would mean changing us from what we are into God Himself. We do not do that. Rather, we participate in the uncreated energies of God. That is, we can see God as He is, but we cannot be God (even though St. Athenasius said “God became man that man might become God.” What he was referring to here is the sharing of those energies which are an integral part of God, but are not God. We become, in effect, god-like in that we participate in the Divine Life of God.

You have divided God into integral parts. You are asserting that there is a part of God that is his uncreated energies and a part of God that is his uncreated essence, and that the uncreated energies of God are not God. If the uncreated energies of God are not God, then they must be separate from God. You contradict yourself when you assert that that the uncreated energies of God are not separate from God.

St. Peter tells us that we are “to share in the divine nature” (2 Pt 1:4) This sharing is the result of theosis – we share, not in the essence of God, but in the uncreated energies of God.

Peter says that we share in the divine nature of God. You assert that the “essence (ousia) of God" is … in effect, His Nature” and that humans “can never participate in the Divine nature.” Surely this is a contradiction of what Peter is saying.

 

[Matt16_18]

prodromos:

My analogy (weak as all analogies about God are) was solely to demonstrate that God’s energy is inseperable from His essence and had nothing to do with the difference between energy and essence.

If “God’s energy is inseparable from His essence”, and if God is simple and not divisible into parts, then it follows that God’s uncreated energy is synonymous with his uncreated essence.