How does God create "the act of existing" out of nothing?

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus
I see the source of our communication problem; it is that little word “part”. I think of Pantheism as it is defined in Webster’s New World Dictionary: Pantheism - “The doctrine or belief that God is not a personality, but that all laws, forces, manifestations, etc. of the self-existing universe are God; belief that God is everything and everything is God.”

or as implied in The Catechism of the Catholic Church - Part 1; Section 2; Chapter1; Paragraph 4; I, 285
… Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism)…

In any case, they are all equally condemned.

For me, the operative word in these two excerpts is “everything”. You, on the other hand, apparently believe that “somehow only actual part of God” need be involved before you can accuse others of Pantheism.

That is true. I think you will find that Pantheism is applied equally to any of the concepts mentioned. But the essential point is that they are all equally condemned. If you reread my post 172, you should understand why I have objected so strongly to the notion that God’s esse could be identified with the esse of created essences ( substances or beings ).

" One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism.

I see now why you argue against my belief that the Holy Spirit is involved with man’s spirit and thus our soul, for the spirit is the substance of the soul as implied in the following:

What I objected to was your identification of the Holy Spirit with the human soul. The Church teaches and Thomas taught that God is present in all things by His substance but not so as to mix with or be a part of the substance. This applies to the human soul as well as to Angels.

You cannot treat the presence of the Holy Spirit in such a manner that He is thought of as the soul of man or as a principle of the soul.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on May 18, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1986, the eighth of my Pontificate. John Paul II

DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM
Part I, Paragraph 3
section 14 -The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as the words of the farewell discourse in the Upper Room bear witness. At the same time he is the Spirit of the Son: he is the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the Apostles and particularly Paul of Tarsus will testify. With the sending of this Spirit "into our hearts," there begins the fulfillment of that for which “creation waits with eager longing,” as we read in the Letter to the Romans.

sect 55 - In the texts of St. Paul there is a superimposing- and a mutual compenetration-of the ontological dimension (the flesh and the spirit), the ethical (moral good and evil), and** the pneumatological (the action of the Holy Spirit in the order of grace)… **

sect. 58 - Under the influence of the Holy Spirit this inner, “spiritual,” man matures and grows strong. Thanks to the divine self- communication, the human spirit which “knows the secrets of man” meets the “Spirit who searches everything, even the depths of God.” In this Spirit, who is the eternal gift, the Triune God opens himself to man, to the human spirit. The hidden breath of the divine Spirit enables the human spirit to open in its turn before the saving and sanctifying self-opening of God. Through the gift of grace, which comes from the Holy Spirit, man enters a “new life,” is brought into the supernatural reality of the divine life itself and becomes a “dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit,” a living temple of God. For through the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son come to him and take up their abode with him. In the communion of grace with the Trinity, man’s “living area” is broadened and raised up to the supernatural level of divine life. Man lives in God and by God: he lives “according to the Spirit,” and “sets his mind on the things of the Spirit.”

As a compatriot in the battle against materialism, I hope you don’t think the Pope’s words are Pantheism

Of course not. And I agree with all this. But you have to be careful not to mix the being of man with the being of God. God is most certainly present and moving man by the action of His grace. And He is present in special way in men who are in sanctifying grace.
.

And, by the way, “compatriot” does not mean “enemy” as you educed in your post 132 in answer to my complimentary close in post 120.
Yppop

If I have misrepresented anything you said, I apologize.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The fact that a contingent essence cannot exist without esse does not make the two identical, which is made evident by the fact that essences come in and out of existence. Thus your rebuttal is flawed. You say that you accept a real distinction between esse and essence but in fact you reject it and the evidence that supports it.

I never said they were identical ( show me where I did ! ). What I did say is that created beings and their esse are distinct and cannot be separated. The beings’ esses are principles which make the esses real. You misread what I said. Don’t be in such a rush to respond - consider carefully what I said, then respond.

Once again you are evading the central issue, which is your interpretation of the esse of created essences ( substances, beings, natures ). So I repeat :

" One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism. "

The esse of creatures cannot be the esse of God. That would make creature and God one being. And no one who believes in the One True God can hold that to be true.

Good night.
Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

Esse is Gods essence. The “act of existing”* is* Gods “nature”.

In other-words the act of existing is a nature in and of its self. Thus when a created essence is conjoined to God it is simply conjoined to the act of existing as opposed to being conjoined to an act of existing plus an essence.

God is not two distinct things joined together, one being his nature and one being his esse. That is false. God is simply the act of existing. God is simply esse. You cannot duplicate what God is (the act of existing), and thus it makes no logical sense to say that God creates a distinct act of existing.

I think you are oversimplifying the matter. Existence is the nature of God, i.e. He does not need anything to actualize His existence; it is inherent to Him. Existence does not belong to the nature of created things because they require something outside of themselves to make them actual (namely God).

Making a new act of existence is not duplicating God because that new act of existence is necessarily a contingent actuality, having a causal origin, which God does not. God’s esse is uncaused and infinite; other esses are caused and finite. There is a distinction.

 

[utunumsint]

I get it now. I exist, but I do not exist necessarily. Therefore existence is not a necessary part of my essence. esse is separate from my essence.

I never said they were identical ( show me where I did ! ). What I did say is that created beings and their esse are distinct and cannot be separated. The beings’ esses are principles which make the esses real. You misread what I said. Don’t be in such a rush to respond - consider carefully what I said, then respond.

I was making this claim in error.

Took me a while.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

I never said they were identical ( show me where I did ! ). What I did say is that created beings and their esse are distinct and cannot be separated. The beings’ esses are principles which make the esses real. You misread what I said. Don’t be in such a rush to respond - consider carefully what I said, then respond.

Linus2nd

It is the logical implication of what you are saying. You are saying that esse and essence are identical every-time you claim that a conjoining of essence and esse makes them the same thing. But like I said if the act of existing and the nature of an object are the same thing in creatures (identical) then like God they cannot fail to exist since like God their nature is the act of existing and therefore pure actuality. This evidently leads to a contradictions; regardless of whether Aquinas thought so or not. In fact Aquinas himself and his commentator Edward Feser agree that esse and essence in creatures remains truly distinct and are not identical even after being conjoined and therefore require God to keep them conjoined (God as a sustainer). There could not be change in created things if their essence was objectively the same thing as their actuality (identical).

You are rejecting a real distinction between esse and essence by either rendering esse a purely conceptual/abstract notion or rendering the esse/essence distinction a purely conceptual/abstract notion. But doing such does not make rational sense our experiences and neither does it make sense of why Aquinas would argue for a real distinction if it is just his way of categorising different kinds of nature and was not talking about real objective distinctions.

The esse and essence distinction is what distinguishes Aquinas from Aristotle as a philosopher as opposed to just being a commentator. Its an important philosophical development. If the esse and essense distinction was merely a categorical/abstract distinction such would hardly make sense of its importance. He might as-well have just said that God is always real and creatures are not, and left it there.

 

[Linux]

I get it now. I exist, but I do not exist necessarily. Therefore existence is not a necessary part of my essence. esse is separate from my essence.

In other-words your essence is not the act of existing and does **not **become identical with it as a result of being conjoined; in fact it is not logically possible if we are to agree that there are natures that begin to exist. Therefore, regardless of whether or not my argument is wrong,one thing you can be certain of is that I am not arguing for pantheism, and it is simply dishonest for you or Linus to keep claiming that I am.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I didn’t say it wasn’t real. I said it adds up to nothing. A balloon would look substantial, especially if you are a microbe living just under it’s surface. Compared to the universe, we’re less signifiant physically than a bacterial under the surface of a balloon.

But prick the balloon, and see what happens. It disintegrates. It only stays as it is because of tension between the balloon’s elasticity and the air pressure.

In the same way, the universe exists in a state of tension between gravity and everything else.

But it adds up to nothing. It started as “nothing” ie. formless and empty -

Genesis 1:1 NIV “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

And it will go to nothing -

Revelation 6:14 - English Standard Version - “The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.”

As for whether it’s “zero sum energy” or not, you’ll have to argue with the physicists.

If physicists are saying that the nothing in " God created the world ex nihilo " is a state of " zero sum energy, " , they are wrong. The nothing of the statement, " God created the world ex nihilo, " is absolute non-being, a state of affairs in which not even " zero sum energy " existed.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is the logical implication of what you are saying. You are saying that esse and essence are identical every-time you claim that a conjoining of essence and esse makes them the same thing

I never said " conjoining " them made them the same thing ( please cite where I said that ).
I said, and Thomas said, that the esse of created a substance is the underlying priciple ( cause ) of its existence. It is not a part of its essence but a principle created along with and underpinning its essence, and making it a real thing. Of itself, it is nothing, it is not a thing or a substance, it is more like a power, the power making a thing exist or to be.. It is that which gives a thing actuality.

But like I said if the act of existing and the nature of an object are the same thing in creatures (identical) then like God they cannot fail to exist since like God their nature is the act of existing and therefore pure actuality.

And I agree totally.

This evidently leads to a contradictions; regardless of whether Aquinas thought so or not.

Certainly it would. But that is not what Thomas said, and it is not what I said.

In fact Aquinas himself and his commentator Edward Feser agree that esse and essence in creatures remains truly distinct and are not identical even after being conjoined and therefore require God to keep them conjoined (God as a sustainer).

And I agree completely.

There could not be change in created things if their essence was the same as their actuality (identical).

But I never said they were identical, I made it a point to say they were distinct, I said a creature’s esse is a principle ( an inner cause ) without which it cannot be a real being ( cum essence or substance ). Gilson says it can be likend to a power. Thomas himself never defines the creaturely esse. All he says is that comes to the essence along with its form, that it is not something added to the essence, that it is more likend to an accident, but is nontheless the principle which causes the essence to be a substance. As a being’s underlying principle of existence, Thomas says that it is likened to a verb, the verb **is ** or to be, an act, not a thing.

You are rejecting a real distinction between esse and essence by either rendering esse a purely conceptual/abstract notion or rendering the esse/essence distinction a purely conceptual/abstract notion.

Neither is the case. The problem is that esse is a most difficult concept to grasp. It is trying to grasp what to be is. To be is not abstract, neither is it a concept, it is principle of actuality of all created beings. In God that act is a real Being, in creatures it is a mere principle, or power which is limited by each beings limiting form.. And together, the limiting form and the limited power of to be, compose a limited or contingent essence. And as I said, the grasping of this principle of existence is so difficult that Duns Scotus and others rejected it as incomprehensible. You really need to get " Elements of Christian Philosophy " by Gilson, he explains it all very well.

Gilson says it is like a blinding light, most difficult to see anything when it confronts one. I have meditated on it for 45 years and it is still difficult to understand. Who can really understand is?

But doing such does not make rational sense our experiences and neither does it make sense of why Aquinas would argue for a real distinction if it is just his way of categorising different kinds of nature and was not talking about real objective distinctions.

I have been trying to explain. Get Gilson.

The esse and essence distinction is what distinguishes Aquinas from Aristotle as a philosopher as opposed to just being a commentator. Its an important philosophical development. If the esse and essense distinction was merely a categorical/abstract distinction such would hardly make sense of its importance. He might as-well have just said that God is always real and creatures are not, and left it there.

And I agree totally. I hope I have finally been able to explain sufficiently. Again, order that book by Gilson. I think the hard back is about $20. You may be able to get a used copy.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

In other-words your essence is not the act of existing and does **not **become identical with it as a result of being conjoined; in fact it is not logically possible if we are to agree that there are natures that begin to exist. Therefore, regardless of whether or not my argument is wrong,one thing you can be certain of is that I am not arguing for pantheism, and it is simply dishonest for you or Linus to keep claiming that I am.

I’m getting there, if you can agree that act of being is not a thing, but a power or act, as Linus is explaining. If we can agree on this, then I would suggest that God’s own act of being is totally out of proportion to any created being’s act of existence. Like hooking up the power of the sun to run a battery powered remote control car… If God’s power is infinite, then this analogy applies even to the entire universe.

God bless,
Ut

 

[yppop]

In any case, they are all equally condemned.

That is true. I think you will find that Pantheism is applied equally to any of the concepts mentioned. But the essential point is that they are all equally condemned. If you reread my post 172, you should understand why I have objected so strongly to the notion that God’s esse could be identified with the esse of created essences ( substances or beings ).

"One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism.

If you sidestep physically like you do intellectually you must be some wonderful dancer.
For example, our whole discussion rests on opposing definitions for the word Pantheism. I backed up my definition with a dictionary and with “Defined Dogma”, Catholic Catechism. Your response (“In any case, they are condemned”) is an equivocation that implies that both definitions for Pantheism are acceptable. My challenge to you is to do the same for your definition: “Pantheism is the notion or belief that God is some how an actual part of the world or visa versa, or that the world will gradually " develop " into God”. Back it up with Defined Dogma.

The rest of this response is pure equivocation. I know Pantheism is condemned; I know God is utterly simple; and I sure don’t want to get involved in that esse/essence business. A lot of verbiage to avoid the disagreement about the definition of Pantheism.

What I objected to was your identification of the Holy Spirit with the human soul. The Church teaches and Thomas taught that God is present in all things by His substance but not so as to mix with or be a part of the substance. This applies to the human soul as well as to Angels.

You cannot treat the presence of the Holy Spirit in such a manner that He is thought of as the soul of man or as a principle of the soul.

Of course not. And I agree with all this. But you have to be careful not to mix the being of man with the being of God. God is most certainly present and moving man by the action of His grace. And He is present in special way in men who are in sanctifying grace…

If you agree with all of what John Paul II writes in the excerpts I provided then what does “man enters a new life, is brought into the supernatural reality of the divine life itself and becomes a dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit, a living temple God”, and “for through the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son come to him [man] and take up their abode with him”, mean to you? Seems to me that **man is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit **means exactly that, namely, the Holy Spirit lives (dwells) in us. Go back and read sect 55 and look at the word “compenetration”. It can only mean that there is a sharing of a common spiritual substance (by the way it is an equivocation for you to imply that I treat the Holy Spirit as the soul of man). The alternative to a common spiritual substance is to postulate two forms of spiritual substance. Is this what you are saying, for how else could "the Father and the Son come to him (man) and take up their abode with him and not share their spiritual substance?

Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

( Comment from Ut.) I get it now. I exist, but I do not exist necessarily. Therefore existence is not a necessary part of my essence. esse is separate from my essence.

As long as you exist, your existence is necessary. This is what Thomas calls " being necessary by another, " ( In " Elements of Christian Metaphysics, " pg 74 of hard backed edition, by Etienne Gilson ). Yes, your act of existence is separate from your essence. Yet, it is a necessary principle of your being or substance, it suffusses and underpends your being and substance throughout. As Thomas says, it is first in necessity or importance in any being or substance created - or produced by change. You understand that essence without esse does not exist except mentally. There is no " locker " full of essences, except perhaps in the mind of God.

So while the two are separate and distinct, they compose as principles to make your being or substance.
‘’

( What I said earlier)
I never said they were identical ( show me where I did ! ). What I did say is that created beings and their esse are distinct and cannot be separated. The beings’ esses are principles which make the esses real.( Note Bene: this statement should have read, " The beings’ esses are principles which compose with their essences to make real beings or substances. { sorry for that, hope it didn’t confuse anyone} ) You misread what I said. Don’t be in such a rush to respond - consider carefully what I said, then respond.

Please note the correction I made.

I was making this claim in error.

What claim were you making? Not sure of your reference.

Took me a while.

God bless,
Ut

I hope you do understand what I have been saying. It is a lot to get hold of, it took me decades.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
In any case, they are all equally condemned.

That is true. I think you will find that Pantheism is applied equally to any of the concepts mentioned. But the essential point is that they are all equally condemned. If you reread my post 172, you should understand why I have objected so strongly to the notion that God’s esse could be identified with the esse of created essences ( substances or beings ).

"One final thought. According to Thomas and the Teaching of the Church, God is utterly simple. That means is Essence or Nature is Simple and Perfect and Undivided.

So when you speak ot the " act of existence " of God, you mean God is His Existence or His " act of exitence. " So when you say that the " act of existence " of God is the esse of creatures, you are really saying God is the esse of creatures. Now no being, creature, or substance can exist without an act of existence. But if its act of existence is God, then the creature is God and that is Pantheism.

( RESPONSE from Yppop ) …Your response is an equivocation that implies that both definitions for Pantheism are acceptable. My challenge to you is to do the same for your definition: “Pantheism is the notion or belief that God is some how an actual part of the world or visa versa, or that the world will gradually " develop " into God”. Back it up with Defined Dogma.

( My response )
Yes, I agree. But it was not made to deceive anyone. All the examples are condemned by the Church. So whether you call one Pantheism rather than something else doesn’t seem very important. Originally though I was going by some vague knowledge in my head and I am not sure even now that what I said cannot be allowed. Is there an ultimate authority on definitions of words, are not definitions in a continuous flux?

( Second comment from Yppop )The rest of this response is pure equivocation. I know Pantheism is condemned; I know God is utterly simple; and I sure don’t want to get involved in that esse/essence business. A lot of verbiage to avoid the disagreement about the definition of Pantheism.

( My response ) Isn’t that a little harsh? I assure you my entire objection was based on my knowledge of what Thomas Aquinas actually taught and I wanted to correct the record.
And of course I wanted to point out the dangers to faith that the O.P.'s position could cause. I called it Pantheism. And I think that is at least in the spirit of the truth. After all, whether it is called Pantheism or whether it is known as some other heresy seems small potatoes.

( My statement)
What I objected to was your identification of the Holy Spirit with the human soul. The Church teaches and Thomas taught that God is present in all things by His substance but not so as to mix with or be a part of the substance. This applies to the human soul as well as to Angels.

You cannot treat the presence of the Holy Spirit in such a manner that He is thought of as the soul of man or as a principle of the soul.

Of course not. And I agree with all this. But you have to be careful not to mix the being of man with the being of God. God is most certainly present and moving man by the action of His grace. And He is present in special way in men who are in sanctifying grace…

( Response from Yppop) If you agree with all of what John Paul II writes in the excerpts I provided then what does “man enters a new life, is brought into the supernatural reality of the divine life itself and becomes a dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit, a living temple God”, and “for through the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son come to him [man] and take up their abode with him”, mean to you? Seems to me that man is a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit means exactly that, namely, the Holy Spirit lives (dwells) in us. Go back and read sect 55 and look at the word “compenetration”.

( Continuation of response from Yppop ) f It can only mean that there is a sharing of a common spiritual substance (by the way it is an equivocation for you to imply that I treat the Holy Spirit as the soul of man). The alternative to a common spiritual substance is to postulate two forms of spiritual substance. Is this what you are saying, for how else could "the Father and the Son come to him (man) and take up their abode with him and not share their spiritual substance?

( My response.) No, the Holy Spirit is present by substance as is the entire Trinity, and by grace in some souls. But that is not to be interpreted so that the soul and the Holy Spirit are mixed together as one substance. They share in no common spiritual substance. That notion is heretical ( you name it since you object to Pantheism). Indeed the soul is a form in man and the Holy Spirit, Who is in the Form or Essence of God is a separate form. In God’s case this form is His very Existence. The Trinity comes to us as the substance of the Godhead but not as a part of our substance. This is the teaching of the Church and St. Thomas. If you read my posts 17 and 125 you will find this is what Thomas taught. And you can refer to the Catechism on the nature of man and the Trinity and you find that the Church agrees.

I hope this will clarify this misunderstanding.

In all things of this sort we always begin with the Revealed Word of God as found through the guarantee of the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the standard of Truth with which we compare everything else.

Linus2nd

 

[utunumsint]

As long as you exist, your existence is necessary. This is what Thomas calls " being necessary by another, " ( In " Elements of Christian Metaphysics, " pg 74 of hard backed edition, by Etienne Gilson ). Yes, your act of existence is separate from your essence. Yet, it is a necessary principle of your being or substance, it suffusses and underpends your being and substance throughout. As Thomas says, it is first in necessity or importance in any being or substance created - or produced by change. You understand that essence without esse does not exist except mentally. There is no " locker " full of essences, except perhaps in the mind of God.

So while the two are separate and distinct, they compose as principles to make your being or substance.
‘’

Please note the correction I made.

What claim were you making? Not sure of your reference.

I hope you do understand what I have been saying. It is a lot to get hold of, it took me decades.

Linus2nd

Hi Linus2nd,

Yes. I am learning. Thanks for taking the time to clarify these things.

I bought Etienne’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas on Kobo. I was up late last night reading the first 60 pages. Luckily the first issue he tackles is this subject of esse and essence. Very interesting.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus2nd,

Yes. I am learning. Thanks for taking the time to clarify these things.

I bought Etienne’s The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas on Kobo. I was up late last night reading the first 60 pages. Luckily the first issue he tackles is this subject of esse and essence. Very interesting.

God bless,
Ut

Good for you. How do you get so much reading and posting done with all the kiddies around?

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

I exist as a unity of body and spirit.

My body is alive because of very intricate and controlled processes involving the chemical interaction of sugar and oxygen, which are manifestations of properties/potentials which underlie all physical change.
My physical life rests on the heirarchical reality (forces forming atoms, chemical forces resulting in molecules, etc) of the material structure and laws that constitute this universal dust.
There are discreet properties to matter. (eg: gravity exists because there are events that are not gravity such as the colour red). There is an intrinsic change/difference between things and how they behave.
Ultimately, there must be a cause to this that cannot be a part of the physical.
The cause/ground/foundation must exist “beyond” the heirarchical complexities of matter: He is God, who is the Source and, except in the unique case of Jesus, cannot be part of physical creation.

As spirit, I am a finite manifestation of being.
I am, was, and will be here and now. In this respect, I have no boundaries; there is no edge to this being which contains all my experiences in a particular moment.
Clearly, I am not the universal moment of all eternity; my being does not exist everywhere. I exist because I also do not exist.
I have not and do not generate this being into existence.
I do not understand how I can possibly be; it is miraculous.
It is God who brings this existence out of nothing.

God creates us out of nothing, and it is because of this separation that we are able to love and glorify Him.

 

[yppop]

( My response )
Yes, I agree. But it was not made to deceive anyone. All the examples are condemned by the Church. So whether you call one Pantheism rather than something else doesn’t seem very important. Originally though I was going by some vague knowledge in my head and I am not sure even now that what I said cannot be allowed. Is there an ultimate authority on definitions of words, are not definitions in a continuous flux?

My responses were intended to point out a misinterpretation of the word Pantheism because there is no need to use it to refute the OP. I believe your response is and indication that you will give the Catechism’s definition further consideration; the quote I used is the only time Pantheism is used in the Catechism…

( My response ) Isn’t that a little harsh? I assure you my entire objection was based on my knowledge of what Thomas Aquinas actually taught and I wanted to correct the record.
And of course I wanted to point out the dangers to faith that the O.P.'s position could cause. I called it Pantheism. And I think that is at least in the spirit of the truth. After all, whether it is called Pantheism or whether it is known as some other heresy seems small potatoes.

I agree

( My response.) No, the Holy Spirit is present by substance as is the entire Trinity, and by grace in some souls. But that is not to be interpreted so that the soul and the Holy Spirit are mixed together as one substance. They share in no common spiritual substance. That notion is heretical ( you name it since you object to Pantheism). Indeed the soul is a form in man and the Holy Spirit, Who is in the Form or Essence of God is a separate form. In God’s case this form is His very Existence. The Trinity comes to us as the substance of the Godhead but not as a part of our substance. This is the teaching of the Church and St. Thomas. If you read my posts 17 and 125 you will find this is what Thomas taught. And you can refer to the Catechism on the nature of man and the Trinity and you find that the Church agrees.

One thing I will agree to is that the word “spirit” is fraught with ambiguity. I believe that there is only one spiritual substance, that the Holy Spirit is a person that is indivisible, but whose spirit commingles with our own spirit that forms our individual soul. Apparently we still are not on the same page, but that is okay because I would guess that neither of us knows the whole story. So instead of wasting our time I plan to delve into the matter more deeply. I do have sources: my middle son is a priest , a canon lawyer, and a monsignor. He works in the Chancery as an canon law adviser to our Bishop and I will try to get as much information as possible.

I hope this will clarify this misunderstanding.

It helps

In all things of this sort we always begin with the Revealed Word of God as found through the guarantee of the Holy Spirit via the Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the standard of Truth with which we compare everything else.

I of course agree because, we are compatriots (on the same side) in the battle with the materialistic non-believers.
Yppop

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I exist as a unity of body and spirit.

My body is alive because of very intricate and controlled processes involving the chemical interaction of sugar and oxygen, which are manifestations of properties/potentials which underlie all physical change.
My physical life rests on the heirarchical reality (forces forming atoms, chemical forces resulting in molecules, etc) of the material structure and laws that constitute this universal dust.
There are discreet properties to matter. (eg: gravity exists because there are events that are not gravity such as the colour red). There is an intrinsic change/difference between things and how they behave.
Ultimately, there must be a cause to this that cannot be a part of the physical.
The cause/ground/foundation must exist “beyond” the heirarchical complexities of matter: He is God, who is the Source and, except in the unique case of Jesus, cannot be part of physical creation.

As spirit, I am a finite manifestation of being.
I am, was, and will be here and now. In this respect, I have no boundaries; there is no edge to this being which contains all my experiences in a particular moment.
Clearly, I am not the universal moment of all eternity; my being does not exist everywhere. I exist because I also do not exist.
I have not and do not generate this being into existence.
I do not understand how I can possibly be; it is miraculous.
It is God who brings this existence out of nothing.

God creates us out of nothing, and it is because of this separation that we are able to love and glorify Him.

Certainly wouldn’t argue against your main point that the ground of your being and personality is God. I would say that your detailed explanation is a rather confusing of ultimate metaphysical composition and causality and physical causality and functioning.

I would like to suggest two things. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which gives a very good explanation of the Church’s teaching on the human being. Secondly, get a copy of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser to give you some understanding of the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas. You can buy a copy for around $12 or you can get a copy from a good library.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…

One thing I will agree to is that the word “spirit” is fraught with ambiguity. I believe that there is only one spiritual substance, that the Holy Spirit is a person that is indivisible, but whose spirit commingles with our own spirit that forms our individual soul. Apparently we still are not on the same page, but that is okay because I would guess that neither of us knows the whole story. So instead of wasting our time I plan to delve into the matter more deeply. I do have sources: my middle son is a priest , a canon lawyer, and a monsignor. He works in the Chancery as an canon law adviser to our Bishop and I will try to get as much information as possible.

Congratulations on your Priest-son. Yes, he should be able to clarify the point. Thomas Aquinas explains that God operates innermostly in every " speck " of creation but not so as to " mix " with our natures or with the nature of any other created being.

And the Catechism explains the same thing but not directly. However it does have a very good section on the structure of the human being in which it says the soul is the form of the human being.

Linus2nd

I of course agree because, we are compatriots (on the same side) in the battle with the materialistic non-believers.
Yppop

 

[Aloysium]

Certainly wouldn’t argue against your main point that the ground of your being and personality is God. I would say that your detailed explanation is a rather confusing of ultimate metaphysical composition and causality and physical causality and functioning.

I would like to suggest two things. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church which gives a very good explanation of the Church’s teaching on the human being. Secondly, get a copy of " Aquinas " by Edward Feser to give you some understanding of the Metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas. You can buy a copy for around $12 or you can get a copy from a good library.

Linus2nd

Thanks for the feed back.
The physical universe can be understood as following natural laws/patterns/behaviours, and must have its origin/cause outside the natural order. That origin is God. The word of God creates the earth is basically all I was getting at in my idiosyncratic fashion. I understand that not all agree.
Thank you for your suggestion about the catechism; I tend to frequent its pages on a more-or-less daily basis. As to books on philosophy, it is not that I would prefer to have needles stuck in my eyes (something which I in fact have had to personally endure), but I will undoubtably pass on this recommendation. Not knowing a subject matter has never prevented me from having an opinion in the past and is unlikely to stop me in the future.
I must add that I do enjoy your posts.

 

[Linux]

I’m getting there, if you can agree that act of being is not a thing, but a power or act, as Linus is explaining.
Ut

I don’t know what you mean by being. But If the “act of existing” is not a nature in and of itself, then we are not talking about a “power” or an act. We are talking about nothing at all.