Explain why panentheism is/is not heresy

[dostoyevskyfan]

From mobile device… If someone could point me in direction of official church documents…appreciated. I am well aware that pantheism in the sense of Spinoza is no no. Panentheism is different…see standford online encyclopedia of philosophy for clarification. Thx

 

[steveb1]

Just a guess: panentheism means that God is both “here” (immanent) and “more than here” (transcendent). That seems to jibe exactly with classic Catholic teaching, although sorry, I can’t provide any documentation.

But it would seem that taking “the heavens and the earth are full of the Glory of God” text and other such scriptures seriously would tend to support a theology which posits that God is indeed “in” the world, as well as outside the world “in heaven”… also, the testimony of Christian mystics seems to “locate” God in heaven, in the soul, and/or in Nature -thus describing a universe-permeating God who is at the same time beyond the limits of spacetime. Like I said, just a guess

 

[Raawwly]

Just a guess: panentheism means that God is both “here” (immanent) and “more than here” (transcendent). That seems to jibe exactly with classic Catholic teaching, although sorry, I can’t provide any documentation.

But it would seem that taking “the heavens and the earth are full of the Glory of God” text and other such scriptures seriously would tend to support a theology which posits that God is indeed “in” the world, as well as outside the world “in heaven”… also, the testimony of Christian mystics seems to “locate” God in heaven, in the soul, and/or in Nature -thus describing a universe-permeating God who is at the same time beyond the limits of spacetime. Like I said, just a guess

Very admirable. But it might be more accurate to say all that with substituting “as” for “in.” The subtlty of that implication is what makes many recoil without a significant investigation of this way of understanding. While it is ancient, it is only now comming to the fore. Many have been confused about the experiences that lead to the conclusion that panentheism experientially offers becasue it has had few well known proponents until recently. Panentheism is more commonly known as non dualism in the West and Advaita in the East. It is astoundsingly simple in its premise and therefore many, especially the religious, tend to dismiss it without due consideration. Nevertheless, many havbe gone beyone “mere” religion to this standpoint. Many dismiss it despite the claim of some that it is actually the foundaton of Christianity itself, but misunderstood due to lesser minds than Jesus adopting it and adapting it for public consumption. And yes, His Identity claims and some of the OT tend to support this. A great tragedy if true, yes?

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

That seems like a reasonable guess, and I am glad someone chimed in about the fantasy religions of the east, but I’m trying to eliminate guesswork and I’d really prefer this thread not degenerate to a discussion of fairy tales conjured up in Asia.

Can anyone provide an authoritative answer? If you cannot reference church documents, then some sort of proof of credibility would be fantastic. Thanks.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Very admirable. But it might be more accurate to say all that with substituting “as” for “in.” The subtlty of that implication is what makes many recoil without a significant investigation of this way of understanding. While it is ancient, it is only now comming to the fore. Many have been confused about the experiences that lead to the conclusion that panentheism experientially offers becasue it has had few well known proponents until recently. Panentheism is more commonly known as non dualism in the West and Advaita in the East. It is astoundsingly simple in its premise and therefore many, especially the religious, tend to dismiss it without due consideration. Nevertheless, many havbe gone beyone “mere” religion to this standpoint. Many dismiss it despite the claim of some that it is actually the foundaton of Christianity itself, but misunderstood due to lesser minds than Jesus adopting it and adapting it for public consumption. And yes, His Identity claims and some of the OT tend to support this. A great tragedy if true, yes?

There is no dualism in terms of esse, “that is the act of real or existence”. You cannot have many existences. Only God is existence. But there is dualism in the sense of “essence”. There are in existence essences other than God. God, according to his intrinsic attributes, is evidently not the essence of a cow and a cow is not God. However, God permeates the essence of cows given that God is the existential act by which a cow is real and is an essence. We participate in the nature or rather the existential act of God, and perhaps a saint in heaven can say that we are God by participation or adoption, and this can only mean that God has made us good, and that God has made us perfect. But this identification with God cannot ignore that we are not what God is intrinsically or essentially. If we were intrinsically God, then it would be impossible for us to be evil and for anything to be finite; we would be timeless with out change or potentiality, without beginning or end. We would be absolutely perfect, all powerful, and all knowing. But anyone with eyes to see, will understand that our essences fulfil none of those things. Insofar as our distinct essence is concerned, we are not God, and so long as panentheism fails to make this important distinction, it is heretical, irrational, and anti-science.

Sorry.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

In panentheism, God is not necessarily viewed as the creator or demiurge, but the eternal animating force behind the universe, some versions positing the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism#Panentheism_in_Christianity

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity
See also: Omnipresence

In Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, creation is not considered to be a literal “part of” God, and the Godhead is distinct from creation. There is, in other words, an eternal difference between the uncreated (i.e., God) and the created (i.e., everything else). This does not mean, however, that the creation is wholly separated from God, because the creation exists by and in the Divine Energies (workings). These energies are the operations of God and are God, but the created is not God in the Divine Essence. God creates the universe by the Divine will, using His Energies, that are not identified with His Essence. It is not an “emanation” of God’s own essence (Ousia), a direct literal outworking or effulgence of the Divine, or any other process which implies that creation is part of or necessary to God in His Essence. The use of panentheism as part of Orthodox theology and doctrine is “problematic” to those who would insist that panentheism requires creation to be “part of” God.

God is not merely creator of the universe; His active Presence is necessary in some way for every bit of creation, from smallest to greatest, to continue to exist at all.[11] That is, God’s Energies (activities) maintain all things and all beings, even if those beings have explicitly rejected him. His love of creation is such that He will not withdraw His Presence, which would be the ultimate form of slaughter, not merely imposing death but ending existence, altogether. By this token, the entirety of creation is good in its being and is not innately evil either in whole or in part. This does not deny the existence of evil in a fallen universe, only that it is not an innate property of creation. Evil results from the will of creatures, not from their nature per se (see the problem of evil).

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Thx but linking us to wikipedia isn’t authoratative or evidence of credibly. Unfortunately it is the opposite. I’ve read that panentheism is cosidered “hetereodox” but last time I checked that does not make it grounds for excommunication and the source was dubious. I haven’t found any official documentation on the matter.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Thx but linking us to wikipedia isn’t authoratative or evidence of credibly. Unfortunately it is the opposite. I’ve read that panentheism is cosidered “hetereodox” but last time I checked that does not make it grounds for excommunication and the source was dubious. I haven’t found any official documentation on the matter.

My refutation of what seems to be panentheism in post five is authoritative in so far as any attempt to make the universe a part of Gods nature or an intrinsic aspect of Gods nature is logically irreconcilable with rationality and the theological understanding that God created the universe exnihilo. Emanation is unacceptable. Documents or no documents it is logically unacceptable. I merely posted the wiki quotes in-order emphasise my understanding of what panenthesim is and why I still hold to my argument in post five.

If heterodox views doesn’t necessitate excommunication, then that is another issue, but that doesn’t change the fact that panentheism contradicts the nature of Gods attributes as understood by Christians.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Now we are getting a little deeper into the dilemma. Not on my phone anymore and I have some free time so here we go. Keep in mind I don’t care either way if panentheism is true or not. I’m not a panentheist per say.

My refutation of what seems to be panentheism in post five is authoritative in so far as any attempt to make the universe a part of Gods nature or an intrinsic aspect of Gods nature is logically irreconcilable with-] rationality /-]and the theological understanding that God created the universe exnihilo.

I agree completely except your highly subjective word choice with the term “rationality”, but let’s look into implications of our agreement.

1. Creating something from nothing(exnihilo) is a logical contradiction and is not compatible with the logical laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. (you may argue against this)
2. Either A) creation exnihilo is flat out wrong, or B) God has the ability to defy the laws of formal logic.

If A is true then Panentheism has the possibility of being true. Panentheism CANNOT be true if A is false. So one of the implied questions of this thread is…** Has the church ever infallibly taught that creation exnihilo is true? Or is it more of just theological speculation?** I don’t think everything in the Catechism is infallible and obviously the writers of the Old testament opted to use riddles, allegory, and metaphor to describe the story of creation. To my knowledge I don’t think there have been any “ex-cathedra” declarations by any pope on the subject. I’m hoping someone could clarify /fact check this.

I’m always told that the church is infallible on faith and morals, but aside from infallibility of the church being really nebulous, does creation exnihilo really fall under the category of “faith”?(obviously doesn’t fall under “morals”) I don’t see how it has anything to do with John 3:16…for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that man may not die but have eternal life…which is a basic summary of our faith in a single sentence or the aspect of faith that we believe Jesus rose from the dead which is the most important. The story of creation does not seem like a matter of faith at all, but more of a matter of fact.

As for B… for someone like yourself who values logical consistency…that doesn’t seem like a tenable position. It happened to be Descartes position on God’s omnipotence…he believed that God could accomplish tasks that are logically impossible (in a formal logical sense…not in the vernacular sense…ie my girlfriend’s behavior is illogical.) Meaning God can draw square circles, create something out of nothing, divide by zero, and simultaneously exist and not exist if he so chooses.

I believe logically impossible tasks are just synonyms for non-being or non-existence. So I find myself disagreeing with Descartes. We can discuss this further if you would like, but to me… the position of A seems a little fideistic which is not what the church claims to be.
MindOverMatter2;7663849:

If heterodox views doesn’t necessitate excommunication, then that is another issue

No it is not another issue. This is precisely the point of this thread. If John Smith is a member of the Catholic church and he holds heretical views then he is guilty of self-excommunication. Just like Hitler was never formally excommunicated, he excommunicated himself and separated himself from the mystical body of Christ (the church) by abandoning the teachings of Jesus and holding heretical views. Either heterodoxical views should warrant excommunication or they should not. All the grey areas in church teaching really bother me even if they have to relevance to the matter of salvation and the requirements to achieving salvation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. Creating something from nothing(exnihilo) is a logical contradiction and is not compatible with the logical laws of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. (you may argue against this)

Please, read this all the way through before commenting.

I agree, if creation exnihilo refers to getting “existence” from absolutely nothing. But that is not my understanding. I have always said that creation exnihilo can only be referring to the fact that God doesn’t create the universe out of any pre-existing physical material. Creating a new existence is synonymous to creating a new God which is rationally unacceptable. God certainly creates new “essences” which are born out of self knowledge, but these are nevertheless distinct from his intrinsic nature. However, God does not create new “existences” if by that we mean the “act of reality”.

No potential being has its own act of reality. A potential human person is not a person because he or she has the nature of a person, but rather a human person becomes actual only if that nature is aloud to participate in the act of reality. Potential people are not synonymous in nature to the act of being real, for if existence was an intrinsic expression of being a human person then that person would have never had a beginning or an end; that person would be timeless because it is in his or her intrinsic nature to exist; existence would be his or her nature. This is obviously not the case.

This makes more sense if we come to understand that there is a nature that doesn’t just have existence but is existence. We do not become existence, but rather we literally come “into” existence. This nature is not possessed by any potential reality, but rather human persons are nothing without being united with that distinct nature we call “esse” or existence. Existence is already real, perfect and eternal, and this is why I say that there is no dualism in esse, but rather there is only “essential dualism”. Thus ontologically speaking, each creation is not the creation of new existences, but rather it is a union between the actuality of esse and a creative idea in the divine persons. These ideas become manifest through self reflection or rather self knowledge of divine perfection, and thus there is knowledge of all potentialities that are true of that perfection, and the will to express that knowledge in finite representations. If we further add that God is love and recognise that love by its very nature is creative, then we can further understand why new essences become manifest.

To clarify, potential beings are not real by there own nature, but rather they are real by their participation in the “act of reality” which we understand to be God.

God has the ability to defy the laws of formal logic.

It is not easy to grasp how God creates, but it is never acceptable to presume that just because God is all powerful that therefore God can do the opposite of what he is. God is supreme rationality.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I appreciate all (name removed by moderator)ut but still looking for an answer to the bold faced question in my last post. Thank you take care.

 

[FrancisMonica]

** Has the church ever infallibly taught that creation exnihilo is true? Or is it more of just theological speculation?**

I am just a simple Catholic but I have been wrestling with the idea of panentheism for some time now, hence my interest in this thread.

In answer to your question I would say that the Church teaches that creation ex nihilo is true.

According to: catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma19.php

1800 [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed] .For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. "Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.’’ *

Canons (of the Catholic Faith)*

1. God the Creator of all things

1801 T.[Against all errors about the existence of God the Creator] . If anyone shall have denied the one true God, Creator and Lord of visible and invisible things: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1782 ].

1802 2. [Against materialism]. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that nothing exists except matter: let him be anathema [cf. n. 1783].

1803 3.[Against pantheism] .If anyone shall say that one and the same thing is the substance or essence of God and of all things: let him be anathema [cf. n.1782 ].

1804 4. Against special forms of pantheism]. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least the spiritual, have emanated from the divine substance, or, that the divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things, or, finally, that God is universal or indefinite being, because by determining Himself, He created all things distinct in genera, in species, and in individuals: let him be anathema.

1805 5. Against pantheists and materialists].If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing [cf. n. 1783 ],

[Against the Guentherians] , or,shall have said that God created not by a volition free of all necessity, but as necessarily as He necessarily loves Himself [cf. n. 1783],

Against the Guentherians and the Hermesians],or, shall have denied that the world was created to the glory of God: let him be anathema.

 

[Danize]

A thoughtful question on your part. Best to deal with this issue in as few words as possible. In Pantheism, God is considered to be all that is, ie, creation and everything in it. This concept accords with Classical annd Hindu notions of eternal and uncreated matter going through endless cycles of creation and destruction. It’s a self-contained unit you see. If this is so, how could we say that God created the universe? If God IS the material universe in all its generalities and particulars? Can you see the problem? There is a serious problem regarding the notion of creation at a particular moment in time. By way of anology,can a human being create him or herself?

So, if creation did in fact arise from nothing, as the Big Bang Theory maintains, (Did you know the Big Bang Theory originated with Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre in 1931?) of necessity we cannot accept a Pantheistic perspective. Furthermore, if creation arose out of nothing, it follows that we need a creator to set it into motion. In addition, in this universe, things happen only ONE time. There is only one unique individual that asked this question on his cell phone. The other alternative sees things repeated over and over again, with you likely going through many recycles.(reincarnation) As you can see, if there is only one you and one forward moving life for you, you are called upon to make wise and responsible decisions in order to bring your one and only life to fulfillment.

To sum it up, the Church rejects Pantheism. Does this help? I hope so.

 

[Biff_Hooper]

Panentheism gets some things right. For example, all created things are in God. There is scriptural backing for this: see Acts (We live and move and have our being in God) and also Colosians 1.

But it goes wrong in holding that God depends on and is conditioned by the principles governing nature. God is ultimate, not nature.

Biff