L
Linux
Guest
If Etienne Gilson said that and mean’t in in the same context you intend, then Etienne Gilson is wrong.
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
Linux
Guest
Its self evident what he means. There is no secret interpretation which you happen to be privy to. Creatures cannot exist without being conjoined to the the esse of God. If God is not the esse of creatures then in what meaningful sense can it be said that Creatures participate in Gods perfection. God either literally shares his perfection by conjoining his esse to the essence of creatures, or God does not share his perfection at all.
L
Linux
Guest
You’re assuming that i haven’t.Why don’t you read him and find out.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
See my response to Peter in the thread, " Do we exist in the Mind of God? "Number 3 refers specifically to the divine substance, wherein esse and essence are identical. The use of “substance or essence” is also ambiguous, as it could be read as signifying the interchangeability of the terms on a general level or in the sense that any of God’s nominal properties are synonymous in His being, and thus whether considering his essence or being, the same principles apply.
I would argue that it is being applied in the latter sense, for the following reason. I quote from the IEP (a peer reviewed online philosophical encyclopedia), in its article on Aquinas’ metaphysics:
"Given that essence is that which is said to possess existence, but is not identical to existence, substances are essence/existence composites."
“…a substance is that whose nature it is to exist not in some subject or as a part of anything else, but what exists in itself. Thus, a substance is a properly basic entity, existing per se (though of course depending on an external cause for its existence).”
As I have just shown, substance and essence are not synonymous (substances are essence/existence composites). Nevertheless, there is no distinction between the two in God, so it is irrelevant in any case. To “emanate” means to flow out or proceed from. If God’s esse (the divine substance) is the act of existence of created things, then they indeed “emanate” from the divine substance. Number 4 addresses 3 separate heresies; this is one of them.
The quote you cited as supporting Linux’s argument cannot be understood in isolation. God’s sharing of His nature is a matter of His creation of things that reflect certain of his perfections in differing degrees, much as two people may share similar facial features or voices. We participate in the Divine Nature first by those degrees of perfection which are inherent to our being and secondly by further gifts of grace which enable us to become more like God. From the Catechism:
"Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness."
Note that the participation is in the form of likeness, not union.
But, ultimately, as regards Linux’s argument, any reference participation in the divine nature lends no support, as he denies that being conjoined to God’s esse would have anything to do with us taking on God’s nature.
As I have just shown, Aquinas does indeed define a substance as a composite of essence and esse: “According to Aquinas, substances are what are primarily said to exist, and so substances are what have existence but yet are not identical with existence.” (IEP; Aquinas: Metaphysics)
And it would seem that the Council, perhaps to avoid just such confusion, deliberately referred in this instance to “the WHOLE substance.”
I hope that this hurried response has been helpful.
The IEP article I sourced can be read in its entirety here: iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/#H4
Also: I will add that the Church’s Dogma is absolutely clear. It is " unclear " to those who want to nuance it to secure them in some ideological opinion they hold ( for unspecified reasons ), and if the Church meant, implicitly, to include such nuances, then it has to be admitted that the Truth of Divine Revelation is not open to the " unwashed " masses, since it can only be obtained through the kind of study and effort and intelligence available only to a select elite. This amounts to the " special knowledge " of Gnosticism.
Linus2nd
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I can think of three reasons to support this.
- When Jesus says I am the vine, you are the branches. The image of being cut off (or, more precisely, cutting oneself off) from the vine as a separation from the vine implies a dependency or conjoining “in being.”
- Sin as a separation from God. In what sense are we “separated” from God when we sin if we have our own esse? Sin would then be a matter of separating ourselves from our own perfection since we would subsist as our own beings.
- The first version of the Nicene Creed from the Council of Nicea in 325 is very particular about the wording concerning the Son.
It uses the words “essence” and “substance” to describe the unity of our Lord Jesus Christ with the Father and avoids the word “being” as a descriptor. Later versions of the Creed use the phrases “being of one substance with the Father,” “consubstantial with the Father” or “one in being with the Father,” which seems to support Linus’ view that other “beings” have a distinct esse from the Godhead. I am not clear that this is the intent, however.
I do think this is a contentious point because the relationship of God to creation is a mysterious one and not easily settled by the definition of one word.
My own intuition - and I fully admit that I might be wrong on this - is to go with the idea that created things participate in an aspect of God, his being or esse, to the extent that they have been created to. Our essential nature limits the extent of our participation and sin further delimits that participation. We become lesser beings when we sin because we separate ourselves from that which makes us real and actual, our true being in God.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I am not clear what you are getting at here.
If human beings are intimately in contact with God through their very existence that means each individual, no matter how “unwashed” participates through their own being in God. No “special” or Gnostic knowledge is required because by virtue of being a “creature” we have intimate access to the creator. It is a matter, then, of simplicity of heart, humility and purity of being who you are that brings you closer to God. No study, effort or elite gnosis is required.
Why do you insist on adding on these fearful cautions? Simply address the points if you disagree. Show where the teaching of the Church disagrees in a clear and concise manner. Why assume others, merely because they don’t agree with you, are mistaken? This could be an opportunity for all of us to learn something, but let’s not contaminate the process with fearmongering.
U
utunumsint
Guest
As far as I can tell, the particular philosophical developments that break out esse from essence, substance, and accidents did not exist at the time of Nicea. This idea comes from Avicenna (Ibn Sina 900 AD) and reworked in Aquinas in a Christian context.
I have to say that I agree with this. I would also add that there is always a tension in discussing these points between emphasizing God’s transcendence as opposed to his immanence. This problem applies to many other areas of philosophy and theology,
I agree with this, but what I would add is that whatever we share with God’s being, we share with him out of his free and gratuitous will. God could have chosen to not create us and that would have not impoverished his being in any way. God’s will is completely free and sovereign. And if we exist in his being, we in no way add or subtract to that being. We are because God allows us to be. That is why I balk at the idea of sharing something with God that is** intrinsic to his nature**, such as his esse, because it implies (to me anyway) that we are somehow necessary as well. Which is why I like the language of causation instead. Because then we depend on something external to God and not essential to him. He could have chosen not to cause us and it would not have changed him in the slightest.
To put it another way, if we share in God’s nature as a natural part of our own nature, then God is immanent in nature in a way that seems to break down the barrier between God and his creatures. I prefer to emphasis the otherness of God. The idea that, yes, in some way, the perfections we find in existence somehow reflects the existence of God, by analogy, but God always remains infinitely more than what nature itself expresses about him. - and so we must have revelation to get any greater insight into his being and grace to achieve a union with God that gets beyond what we can naturally attain to.
I hope this makes sense.
God bless,
Ut
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, they have a mind of their own, but they are not supposed to prefer their " philosophical or scientific " speculations to the obedience of faith and mind they owe to the Truth of Divine Revelation as revealed to the Church through the Holy Spirit and determined and enuciated by the Church in her Defined and Ordinary teaching. In other words, they are not allowed to nuance their Faith.
You cannot make " plausible " and " understandable " that which only God can know, and which has not been revealed to the Church.
Is the true understanding of the Faith restricted to a highly technical, special understanding, available only to a very few highly educated elite, from which are excluded the masses in the pews? This sounds a lot like some kind of Gnosticism.
And in my view and in the view of the Church, for learned men and women to broadcast nuanced arguments far and wide amongst the general population ( and I include in such forums as this) not only causes confusion in their minds but it shows a certain disloyalty to the Church who has repeatedly said that such notions should be debated within the lawful confines of Church administrative bodies and structures.
Sure mathematics has explicative value. But we are talking here about " theories " only a handful of people understand or claim to understand. Shall we place our Faith in this special elite rather than the Church?
I mean that God created the universe from no prior existing beings or substances, not even out of God’s own substance. And that is exactly what the Church means, for we cannot assume that the Church is hiding some nuanced meaning. For if that were so, the Church cannot claim to be passing on the unadulerated, unvarnished Word of God, which God promised was available only through the teaching of the Magisterium.
You seemed to be pointing to something existing prior to the creation event which was definable by mathematics. And since it was definable by mathematics, it would have to have been based on some type of matter ( no matter how undefinable or inaccessable ) which was assumed to exist, based on some mathematical theory. If I am wrong, say so plainly, just say you are not implying any prior existing being of any kind, not even the being of God. And if that is the case, why all the mathematical rigmarole?
I think I have adequately explained my objection above. And I’m afraid I will always be ignorant of your : " mathematical " explanation. If it amounts to what I have explained by creation ex nihilo, then just say so. And if it does, your attempt, no matter how laudable, will certainly cause confusion among the masses in the pews. So it is best unsaid.
If the universe was created from the Substance of God, wouldn’t that mean the universe was God? No, the universe was not created from the Substance of God. Don’t you think that if that was the case the Church would have said so in its solemn Definitions from Vatican 1?
The universe was created by the Will of God from no prior existing substance or being of any sort. That is what from ex nihilo means. If it meant anything else, the Church would have made that clear in its Definitions.
The substance of God is not divisible. This is also the Defined Dogma of the Church. That is what the Church meant when it Defined the nature of God as " Simple. " And there are ample references in Scriptures for this and for all the Church’s Definitions. God told Moses, " I am. " By which the Church understands that God is utterly simple and thus undivisable.
End of Part 1 of Response
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Part 2 of Response
I apologize for seeming harsh. I don’t mean to be, I am just straight foreward and direct. I admire you for your family and loyalty to the Church and for you understanding of mathematics ( I could never get beyond College algebra !! )
Linus2nd
Yes, Linux has claimed just that, and one or two others are leaning that way. If I implied you claimed that, I certainly apologize.
Yes, that is correct - from the power of God. But I think it would be better to say " by His Will, because in God power is the same as His Being or Existence. In God, all the attributes we applie to Him are really just His Existence. This is as true of His power as of His Intellect and Will. In God all is One Substance or One Bing, utter Simplicity.
I agree totally in the context of what I have already said. I read it too!
No, it is not a contradiction, although it is hard to understand. God is everywhere His causality operates ( so he is present throughout His creation in the minutest aspects and in the most grand aspects, in all its movements and changes, in all its forms and matter, in all its beings.). He is present by His very Substance as a Cause is present in its effects and God is the immediate cause of the existence of it all. But He is present in His Infinite Eternity, while we are present in our contingent, limitations, in time and space and matter, ( except for Angels, and this is a special topic ). According to Thomas Aquinas it is better to think of the Presence of God as surrounding every partical of created being but not so as to be mixed with it. And it certainly is not to be interpreted in such a way as to say the universe or any of the Blessed exist in His Mind.
No. I am saying that " from ex nihilo " means neither from God’s Being or Substance nor from any other prior existing substance or being. Zero anything!! If He created from His Substance we would be Divine and that is a heretical notion. " non/existence is not part of God. Non-existence is absolutely no-bing, substance, wave, matter, space - nothing, period. ( Your pharsing was a little confusing, I hope I understood what you were saying? )
I apologize for seeming harsh. I don’t mean to be, I am just straight foreward and direct. I admire you for your family and loyalty to the Church and for you understanding of mathematics ( I could never get beyond College algebra !! )
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
God meant Divine Revelation to be available to the masses, not only a special elite, whose special knowledge of the " truth " is unavailable to them. That is a kind of Gnosticism. If the Church is " hiding the Truth, then the Church is not a reliable instrument of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, since the Church is the only instrument of the Holy Spirit on this earth, we must assume that the Church has transmitted the entire truth of Revelation in terms understandable to all. It does not require any special knowledge to know the Truth of Divine Revelation.
The kind of stuff Linux and others are peddling amount to special knowledge - besides being illogical and contrary to Church teaching…
Not ontologically. That is what you and Linux are saying. The kind of participation you mean involves an invalid mixing of the finite substance of creatures and the Infinite and Eternal Substance of God. That is not the kind of presence the Church has defined. If it were, don’t you think the Church would have made that absolutely clear? That seems to me a point of rather huge importance.
Fiddle sticks and fiddle faddle. Mysticism is fine, just don’t mix it with the ontological structure of finite and Infinite, Eternal beings. To get where you and Linuix want to go it does require special knowledge, because neither I nor quite a few others agree with it. It certainly is not plain in the teachings of the Church.
Your language is a little over embellished. However, people should understand that the Truth is at stake.
Linus2nd
L
Linux
Guest
St. Thomas teaches that the name substance cannot properly be applied to God
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
And that is absolutely wrong. You have confused the meaning of what you read. He does say that God does not fall under the genius of substance. I can show you multiple examples where Thomas calls God a substance. Show me what you read. I remember reading something like that too, but I can’t remember where. At any rate, Thomas certainly refered to God as a Substance.
Linus2nd
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
No, I don’t believe it does. I already understand that, and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
No, it is not. You are equivocating specific definitions of “sharing” and “participation” with metaphysical senses of the words to which they do not apply. I already provided several sources, among which were some definitive Church statements, to Peter Plato which clarify the meaning of God’s sharing of/our participation in his perfection. For your benefit, I will provide it again:
*“Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness.”
The key word is likeness. Likeness, not union.
, which provides the real reason for saying that they have a limited participation in the perfection of God. That is what is meant by degrees of being or perfection.
No, it is not. The reason we say that they have a limited participation in the perfection of God is because the essences of all created beings possess degrees of the perfections found in God. Per Aquinas:
The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being.
That is what is meant by degrees of perfection. To pursue Aquinas’ analogy, two flames possess different degrees of heat, but it does not follow that their heat flows from a shared source (Heat itself.)
So, no, what you said is not what is meant by degrees of perfection.
No, it is not.
have “parts” of perfection in their nature, since perfection has no parts.
This has nothing to do with degrees of perfection.Degrees are not parts. Degrees are measurements of the intensity of a given property. For example, one animal’s eye may possess a greater degree of vision than another’s. Or one pane of glass may permit a greater degree of penetration by light than another. Similarly, a statement which contains some truth contains a greater degree of truth than a statement which is completely false.
Your equivocation of degrees with components is erroneous.
representing the relationship between the essence of creatures and the esse that is God.
No, it is not. It is a measurement of the limited presence in creatures of those transcendental properties whose perfections are found in God. That which is more true, more good, etc. is more like God (remember that line from the Cathechism: participated likeness.) And as God is perfection, that which more closely approaches him in these qualities possesses greater degrees of perfection.
But there is. Aquinas, Gilson, the Magisterium have all done so. But one matter in which there is no escaping the logical implications is that of what the Council at Vatican I said here (another charge you’ve conveniently failed to address):
*4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual … emanated from the divine substance … let him be anathema.
- 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 <i.e. essence and esse>, have been produced by God from nothing … let him be anathema.*
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
I’m not sure whether you saw my previous reply to you, but since you didn’t respond, I’ll just assume you didn’t and link to it in the interest of preserving the context of my arguments.
Now, as I think I have pretty conclusively demonstrated in my last 3 or 4 posts, the view Linux is expressing is contrary to Catholic teaching. Instead of simply refuting his claims, I would like now to offer a counterpoint as to how something can have its own act of existence. I will say I think you and Linux are close to the truth, but not quite.
As I see it, an act of existence can be separate from God only insofar as it has its own essence. The essence is what distinguishes that act of existence from God. As I have been repeating throughout this thread, an esse is shaped (limited) by its essence.
It is, of course, meaningless to speak of an independent act of existence without an essence. In such a case, yes, it is a logical absurdity. God is pure existence (having no parts or potency or limitations) and thus any other pure existence would be indistinguishable from God. But an act of existence that is limited (shaped) by an essence is not pure existence. It exists, but only to the degree that its essence permits. This does not mean that its act of existence is one and the same with God; it does mean that if stripped of its essence it would cease to exist.
I believe the mistake being made here is to imagine the conjunction of essence and esse in created things to be a temporal act, as though there is at one time this esse and this act of existence independent of one another which are then conjoined. But that is not the case. The essence is prior, not temporally but ontologically, to the esse. The limitations set by an essence allow for the creation of an esse. These matters always elude perfect expression, but for lack of a better phrase, you might say that an esse is created within an essence. Or, better yet, God infuses an essence with its own existence.
P
prodigalson2011
Guest
Your interpretation of this verse is a good reminder of why we have a Magisterium. The Church definitively teaches (as the passage from the Catehcism I quoted previously illustrates) that this union is one of grace, not nature.
This, to be sure, is one of the major appeals of this argument and one I gave ample consideration as I pondered this perspective. But I think there’s a simple solution to this question which could be summed up in a few points:
a) our esses are contingent, relying on God’s sustaining power.
b) we are only united to God insofar as we are like Him; this is accomplished to a lesser degree by the exercise of virtue and the avoidance of sin (which diminishes our own “degrees of perfection”), and to the greatest extent by grace. This is why Jesus says we must be “perfect as our Heavenly father is perfect,” and also explains the necessity of purgatory: “nothing unclean (imperfect) may enter heaven.”
Now, on the other hand, if God’s esse were our esse, then we would already be perfect. The very paper you cited said as much: to paraphrase, “wherever the Divine Esse is found, so is His infinite goodness, truth, etc.” Insofar as a being is a composite of esse/essence, it necessarily follows that anything which truly possesses the Divine Esse would manifest, to an unrestricted degree, the perfection of God. Only one such creature has ever existed: Jesus Christ.
“Participation” does not mean “possession.” In this sense, it is more akin to emulation.
God does make us real and actual, but not by conjoining our essences to his esse. We exist in Him, inasmuch as He is everywhere, but our being is not his being. Really, you raise an interesting point here, because, in fact, if God were our esse, sin would not simply separate us from God, it would totally annihilate us. Separation from one’s esse results in nonexistence.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Excellent, you have introduced something I hadn’t thought of too.
And you say things much better than I do.
Linus2nd
T
tdgesq
Guest
I admit to being guilty of unclear writing, which misled you to equivocate my actual position. I did post:
“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence outside of God.”
What that proposition meant to convey is:
“If there is no ‘substance’ then there is no existence, except for the existence of God.” I wasn’t commenting on how created being participates with God’s existence. I only meant to demonstrate that the formula from the First Vatican Council does apply to all created being.
I see. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that created things must participate in existence. This thread then seems to have evolved into the question of how created being participates in existence vis a vis God. There is an active thread in this forum where I posted what I believe is Aquinas’ answer to this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10989243&postcount=85
I believe that God is the ever-present continuous cause of all created being, which is how it participates in God’s existence. A causal explanation avoids the problem of created being becoming “part” of God, yet still preserves the participation of all created things with existence.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Well put. One must use the imagination to advantage. It is something difficult to put into words as you say.
Linus2nd
- Status