Divinization?

[AugustineH354]

DeaconEd wrote:

We can experience the energies of God (grace is one of those) but we cannot experience the nature of God.>>

And Fr. Ambrose quoted John of Damascene:

<<By nature God is above being and knowledge. What we say of God affirmatively does not indicate His nature, but His energies." St. John Damascene (cf. Ch.IV, PG.94, col.800)>>

And hence the gulf between Catholic and Orthodox theology—the Catholic Church has specifically affirmed in two OFFICIAL documents (not merely the speculation of theologians, no matter how great) that it is the very essence of God that will be seen (and known) by the saints in heaven; and it is this teaching that is categorically denied by the Orthodox. Of course, post Nicaea II councils are not authoritative for the Orthodox, but they are for us Catholics; and this is why many Catholics are more than a little bit uneasy with the conclusions of some of our modern theologians (e.g. Fr. George Maloney, S.J.) on this issue.

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Deacon_Ed]

David,

I’m curious, what might those two “OFFICIAL documents” be?

Deacon Ed

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Deacon Ed,

I posted one of the two documents, BENEDICTUS DEUS (On the Beatific Vision of God) Pope Benedict XII - Constitution issued in 1336, in post #21 in this thread.

The other is from the XVII Ecumenical Council (The Council of Florence 1438 – 1445) in the “Decree for the Greeks” in which we read:

“And that the souls of those , who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.” (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated from the 13th ed. of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, p. 220.)

Grace and peace,

David

 

[Deacon_Ed]

AugustineH354:

Hi Deacon Ed,

I posted one of the two documents, BENEDICTUS DEUS (On the Beatific Vision of God) Pope Benedict XII - Constitution issued in 1336, in post #21 in this thread.

The other is from the XVII Ecumenical Council (The Council of Florence 1438 – 1445) in the “Decree for the Greeks” in which we read:

“And that the souls of those , who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself, just as He is, yet according to diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another.” (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated from the 13th ed. of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, p. 220.)

Grace and peace,

David

David,

Thanks, I wanted to be sure that you were not speaking of some other documents. Let’s look at Benedictus Deus first:

Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense 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.

I have highlighted the salient porition of the document (and, actually, only copied a part of it). Tht the “divine essence manifests itself to them” does not mean that the see the divine essence but, rather, that they see a manifestation of if. This is certainly true, and is the uncreated energies that have been the topic of discussion (even though it’s slightly off the topic of the thread). The second reference to the “divine essence” is simply to indicate that those who, for whatever reason, are not brought immediately into the divine presence, will eventually see the same manifestation.

The Council of Florence never says they will see the divine essence, but, rather, that they will “see God as He is.” What is it we see? Do we see the essence (ousia) of God? Or do we see the energies of God? I think the latter, and so do most of the Greek Fathers of the Church.

So, I don’t think the documents you cite say what you think they say, but I can see why you would believe that.

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes, God’s energies are God and they are not created, but they are not His essence. I think this distinction is what troubles you?

Deacon Ed has said in his post # 18 that the energies of God are NOT God, and this has been my stumbling block. He asserts that there can be something that is uncreated that is not God.

Now you say that the Orthodox believe that the energies of God are God. And I assume that the Orthodox believe that the essence of God is what makes God, God. Is that correct? How is it then that we can know the energies of God, and not his essence?

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

For a moment let’s shift to the use of Latin terms substance and accidents. If I see a rose and it’s red, I know it’s a rose because the accidents of a rose are present, but “red” is not a rose, it’s an accident of the rose.

The “energies” of which we are speaking may, in a sense, be thought of as the accidents of the essence, the nature.

A scholastic would argue that God has no accidents, so the analogy that you are drawing between accidents and energy doesn’t really work when speaking about God.

… God is pure form, He has not his Godhead; He *is * His Godhead. In Him, that which is and that which He is are identical.

Etienne Gilson, The Elements of Christian Philosophy

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

A scholastic would argue that God has no accidents, so the analogy that you are drawing between accidents and energy doesn’t really work when speaking about God.

… God is pure form, He has not his Godhead; He *is *His Godhead. In Him, that which is and that which He is are identical.

Etienne Gilson, The Elements of Christian Philosophy

The purpose of an analogy is to use something to help explain something else. There is nothing that says they have to be identical since, if that were the case, there would be no analogy.

The problem is that I cannot find a way to explain the truth of what both Orthodox and Eastern Catholics believe without using terms as the Eastern do, and which hold different meanings for the Scholastics.

While it is absolutely true that God is infinitely simple, it is equally true that He has works that are not God. Both Fr. Ambrose and I have shown you writings from the Church Fathers that distinguish between the essence of God and the energies of God. Yet you seem to reject out of hand their writings, or to reinterpret them in terms of scholasticism – and that won’t work.

So, let’s try another equally flawed analogy. When you look at the sun you do not see the thermonuclear reactions that are taking place, you see the energies produced by that reaction – light, heat, etc. That is, we do not see the *ousia *of the sun, we see the *energies *of the sun. Now, these are all created, so they do not exactly correspond to God.

But, should we enjoy the Beatific Vision we will see the energies of God, not His essence.

As for the “energies are not God” – let me see if I can clarify.

God is God, His nature is that of God. His energies, however, are the works of God. They are, if you will, the perceivable aspects of God. Yet the energies are not God, they are of God. They are not separable from God and so, can be considered God – but they are not His nature. Since, according to Thomistic theology, a person is defined by the individuated nature, it follows that God is His nature, and not His energies. The energies are the product of the nature, but not the nature itself.

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

While it is absolutely true that God is infinitely simple, it is equally true that He has works that are not God.

Creation is a work of God. I have no problem with that – the created is not the creator. But what would be an example of a work of God that is uncreated? And how would that uncreated work be apart from the life of God? God’s essence is his life.

• Both Fr. Ambrose and I have shown you writings from the Church Fathers that distinguish between the essence of God and the energies of God. Yet you seem to reject out of hand their writings … *

I don’t reject out of hand the idea the writings of the Church Fathers that speak of God’s energies. But the word “energies”, as it is used by the Eastern Fathers, is not a term that is commonly used by the western Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not speak about the energies of God. I can’t find the term “energies” or “energy” in any theological handbook, dictionary of religious terms, concordance, or religious encyclopedia that I own. I can find all sorts of material written on the essence of God, that nature of Grace, etc., etc. But “energies” - nothing at all (except one passing reference to the heresy of monoenergism, whatever that is). Certainly there must be some connection between the western conception of uncreated grace and the uncreated energies of God, but what that connection is, is not clear to me.

What exactly are the Eastern Fathers talking about when they speak of the uncreated energies of God? Father Ambrose says the uncreated energies are God, and you say, on the one hand, the uncreated energies are not God, and on the other hand, they can be considered to be God. This is why I always get a headache trying to understand what the Eastern Church is talking about when they speak about uncreated energies of God.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

What exactly are the Eastern Fathers talking about when they speak of the uncreated energies of God? Father Ambrose says the uncreated energies are God, and you say, on the one hand, the uncreated energies are not God, and on the other hand, they can be considered to be God. This is why I always get a headache trying to understand what the Eastern Church is talking about when they speak about uncreated energies of God.

Believe me, I understand the problem. That’s why I used the example of looking at the sun. When we do, we see the sun, but not it’s essence, we see its energies. The same is true of God – when we do get to see Him we will not see His essence, His nature, but we will see His energies.

I know the term is not part of Western theology – it’s very specifically Eastern. This is why your attempts to fit it into a Western pattern of thought is doomed to failure – it doesn’t fit.

In George W. Grube’s book The Complete Book of Orthodoxy he writes this:

Energies – the acts of God in this world**, **i.e., the revelation of Himself to mankind. Through His energies we see God working in a close and personal relationship with all men and women. A distinction is always made between God’s energies (His ways of working in the world) and His essence (what He is) which we can never know in this life.

In a sense, what this discussion is doing is the same as trying to explain why the person of the Son is not the Father since each fully possesses the divine *ousia *but they are different *hypostasis *which, in Eastern thinking refers to “person.”

So, in that sense, the “energies” God, but they are not his nature.

Deacon Ed

 

[3DOP]

I have a question for Deacon Ed, or one of the other Catholic supporters of the Eastern position on the question of whether the saints see in the Beatific Vision, God’s energies, or God’s essence.

Deacon Ed says the following, in response to two documents cited by Augustine H354, which Aug suggested supports an affirmative answer to the question, “Do the saints see God’s essence in the Beatific Vision?”:

The council of Florence never says they will see the divine essence, but, rather, that they will “see God as He is.” What is it we see? Do we see the essence (ousia) of God? Or do we see the energies of God? I think the latter, and so do most of the Greek Fathers of the Church.

So, I don’t think the documents you cite say what you think they say, but I can see why you would believe that.

When promulgated and since, how have these documents been understood? Historically have those who hold to the position of Gregory Palamas and most of the Greek Fathers, been relieved to see that Benedict XII in his apostolic constitution and the Council of Florence allowed their viewpoint, or have they seen it as Aug351 does?

Thanks,

3DOP

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

Believe me, I understand the problem. That’s why I used the example of looking at the sun. When we do, we see the sun, but not it’s essence, we see its energies. The same is true of God – when we do get to see Him we will not see His essence, His nature, but we will see His energies.

When I look at another person, do I see their human nature, or their human energies???

The problem that we are discussing is not really a question of seeing, it is a question of knowing. Can I come to a knowledge of what human nature is? Can I come to a knowledge of what the nature of God is?
Deacon Ed:

I know the term is not part of Western theology – it’s very specifically Eastern. This is why your attempts to fit it into a Western pattern of thought is doomed to failure – it doesn’t fit.

I think that you are being far too negative in your assessment of western theology. If you were to read Etienne Gilson’s The Elements of Christian Philosophy, I believe that you would find that western thinking arrives at very similar conclusions to what you believe.

Let me quote a few snippets from chapter 5 of this book that should interest both you and Fr. Ambrose: **The Essence of God

I. Whether the Human Mind Can Arrive at the Knowledge of God**

“Knowledge is in us the result of an action exerted upon us by some object. In knowing an object we are, in some way or another, impressed by it. … In the case of sense knowledge, this is the whole truth. As cognitive powers, the senses are essentially passive. Sight and hearing cannot feel or experience anything unless they receive impressions from some objects. On the contrary, intellectual knowledge seems to require a twofold power. First, a passive one similar to sense, for if nothing is acting upon it, the intellect has no object to know; next, and active power which enables the intellect to combine and distinguish its own concepts after it has formed them, and to do so in an active way, so to speak, at will.

… the natural knowledge of God cannot exceed what can be known of Him from the quiddities of material things that are the objects proportioned to our own cognitive powers. In Thomas’s own words, “in this life, our intellect has a determinate relationship to the forms that are abstracted from sensations.” Such objects are finite. Consequently, no natural knowledge thus formed by the human mind can represent God; His immaterial essence cannot be obtained by means of abstraction from material things. …

Since to know God by his essence is not naturally possible for man, the only knowledge of God still accessible to us it the kind of knowledge that is obtained when a certain form is known from its effects. …

The third way in which human understanding can progress in its knowledge of God as a cause is the progressive elimination of our illusions on the true nature of such knowledge. It consists in knowing God as more and more removed from all that which appears in His effects. … The negative [apophatic] theology is a fight relentlessly carried on by the human intellect against the always recurring illusion that, despite all that is said to the contrary, man has a certain positive notion, limited though it may be, of what the essence of God really is. Everything in man’s intellect rebels against such an attitude. It is not natural for man to busy himself about its objects in order to make sure he does not know them. …

In deep agreement with the most radically imageless mysticism there ever existed, that of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Thomas invites us to transcend all representation and figurative description of God. If we can imagine what something is, then God is beyond it; if we can grasp the definition of a certain thing, then that thing is not yet God. Nor is this enough to have said this only once; the aim of the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas on this crucial point is to invite us to a sort of intellectual asceticism calculated to rid our intellects of the delusion that we know what God is. This requires such an effort on our part that the grace of God and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are here required to help our intellects in this, their highest undertaking.

Perhaps we shall ourselves find it hard to realize fully that the summit of human knowledge of God is to know that we do not know. … Here is [a quote] by Thomas [Aquinas] … deserving of our attention, as it says absolutely everything Thomas wanted to understand on this point:

”They say that, on reaching the term of our knowledge, we can know God as unknown, because our mind is found to have made its supreme progress in knowledge when it knows that the essence of God is above all that it can apprehend in this life, and thus although what God is remains unknown, that He is, nevertheless is known.”​

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

In George W. Grube’s book The Complete Book of Orthodoxy he writes this:Energies – the acts of God in this world, i.e., the revelation of Himself to mankind. Through His energies we see God working in a close and personal relationship with all men and women. A distinction is always made between God’s energies (His ways of working in the world) and His essence (what He is) which we can never know in this life.

I have no problem understanding that definition of energies; i.e. energies are the acts of God in this world. I believe that Aquinas would agree that a knowledge of God derived through his actions in this world is not the same thing as having knowledge of God’s essence. I believe that Aquinas agrees that we can never come to knowledge of the essence of God “in this life”.

But what about in the life of the world to come? In the world to come, can the human intellect have a knowledge of God’s essence, when that intellect is aided by the infused supernatural gift of knowledge that comes with the beatific vision of God? This is where Catholic theology and Eastern Orthodox theology seems to part company.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

I have no problem understanding that definition of energies; i.e. energies are the acts of God in this world. I believe that Aquinas would agree that a knowledge of God derived through his actions in this world is not the same thing as having knowledge of God’s essence. I believe that Aquinas agrees that we can never come to knowledge of the essence of God “in this life”.

But what about in the life of the world to come? In the world to come, can the human intellect have a knowledge of God’s essence, when that intellect is aided by the infused supernatural gift of knowledge that comes with the beatific vision of God? This is where Catholic theology and Eastern Orthodox theology seems to part company.

First, we have to realize that beyond the Scriptural staement that we will see Him as He is, we don’t have any direct revelation of this. We don’t even know what the Scriptural passage is supposed to mean. Therefore, both East and West have approached this with an attempt to derive a valid theology.

The Eastern approach has been that the Essence of God is unknowable. By that term is meant that the essence of God is not accessible to us, but His energies are. Since the West does not make the distinction between the energies of God and the essence of God, they have used terms like “the essence will manifest itself.” This, too, indicates that the essence probably is not accessible, but that God will make Himself “visible” to us in some fashion.

So, while it appears that they are far apart, I don’t think they really are – especially since we are dealing with a theologumenon anyway.

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

Since the West does not make the distinction between the energies of God and the essence of God, they have used terms like “the essence will manifest itself.”

When you define “energies” as you have in your post # 89, I think that the west definitely does make a distinction between God’s actions in this world and God’s essence. Certainly Aquinas does.
Deacon Ed:

First, we have to realize that beyond the Scriptural staement that we will see Him as He is, we don’t have any direct revelation of this. We don’t even know what the Scriptural passage is supposed to mean … So, while it appears that they are far apart, I don’t think they really are – especially since we are dealing with a theologumenon anyway.

I don’t believe that western theologians would say that seeing the beatific vision bestows a *complete * comprehension of God. In that sense that “incomprehensible” means not able to completely comprehend, I believe that the East and the West would agree that God is incomprehensible even when one gazes directly on the face of God. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
1Cor. 13:12-13

 

[Deacon_Ed]

So, does it appear that we have arrived at a point where you can find that both teachings are at least not inconsistent with each other, even if not fully harmonized?

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

So, does it appear that we have arrived at a point where you can find that both teachings are at least not inconsistent with each other, even if not fully harmonized?

This has been a good thread for me, since it has forced me to delve deeper into these issues. I see that both Eastern and Western theologians agree that God’s essence cannot be known in this world. I also see that the apophatic mysticism of the East is not really any different from the via negativa of the West.

I am surprised to learn that the East considers the uncreated energies of God to be God. That is something that I didn’t know, and I will have to ponder more on what that means.

We still haven’t discussed much about what it means to be divinized, which is the topic of this thread. The Catechism says that Adam and Eve were predestined for divinization.**Man’s first sin

397** Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
**
398** In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Divinization or theosis is the process of “becoming God” – St. Athenasius tells us that “God became man so that man might become God.” Clearly we do not become a god, but we join with God. That is the goal of divinization. Perhaps this will help. It’s written by Abp. Joseph Raya, a Melkite bishop:

Because of the real union of the Person of God with our nature, every power and passion of the human body is, in its essence, a noble, holy, and sacred melody. God the Father gave a human nature to his Son. The human body is, therefore, the most precious gift God can offer – besides his own Self. “We saw his glory” in the naked body of a Baby. For Christians, human flesh is a present and a reward, a divine instrument by which God saved and divinized the whole universe. When he ascended into heaven in that very same flesh, he carried us and the universe to the Father, our source and origin. This is our divinization.

This most important teaching of our Christian religion has been forgotten or neglected "because of our preoccupation solely with our own salvation: or, rather, union with God is seen only negatively, in contrast with our present wretchedness. (Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God, page 99).

In uniting with our nature God did not change himself, and he did not obliterate humanity either. He offered himself as a grace and a gift to our humanity and elevated it to a higher level of being. He divinized us, which means that he gave us the grace and capacity to love and to live his own love and life.

Does that help?

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Yes, thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Truly Amma Sophia has found the way for she has said: I do not know.

One day some old men came to see Abba Anthony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test them, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, “You have not understood it.” Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, “How would you explain this saying?” And he replied, “I do not know.” Then Abba Anthony said, “Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said: 'I do not know.”
The Desert Fathers

Anthony of Egypt
members.tripod.com/~chippit/anthony.html

With very few changes that could easily be a Zen anecdote - which is not a criticism, by the way ​

Which set of texts is that from, incidentally ? St. John Klimakos ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Deacon Ed:

Matt16_18:

If I show mercy to someone, is that God or is that *of God? *If I show love to someone is that God or is that of God?

Or, to make it a little easier, is creation God or is it of God? The attributes of God are not God, they are attributes. God is. Period. I refer you again to the citation from St. Augustine:I am saying *exactly *the same thing. St. Clement of Alexandria puts it in perspective by telling us that these are attributes of God.

The fact that God is infinitely simple and not divisible ought to lead you to a correct understanding. If God were divisible then we could say God is Mercy, God is Love, God is Creator, God is Source of the Son – but God is simple, not divisible so these must be attributes rather than essence.

BTW, this discussion would be a lot better if you would refrain from attacking me and address the issues. I don’t think that ad hominems serve any purpose at all. You could have said “Your argument makes no sense to me, it seems irrational” but to accuse me of being irrational doesn’t address the issue.

Deacon Ed

Agreed, that God is altogether simple and in no way composite. Yet also Triune.​

Does it follow that God’s attributes are not God ? As to this - maybe the answer differs according to whether one thinks of God’s attributes “from God’s side”, or, “from the side of creation”; given that God is the Source of His activity, and that creatures are acted on, and that God is not a creature, nor to be classed among creatures, but is “wholly other” than creatures.

Since we are on the “receiving end” of God’s activity - why can’t it be said that God’s attributes are God Himself, but are seen as multiple and diverse by us, simply because we are multiple and diverse ? IOW, this distinction would be a sort of economy allowed to us because we are neither God, nor yet fully conformed to Christ. If other ways of speech about Divine things can be a condescension to our weakness and ignorance - why not this also ? We receive other things in the measure of which we are capable - why not apply this saying to how we experience the God Who is wholly and simply One and Triune ?

Just a thought ##