Is G-d thought of as a "process" as well as a Being in Catholicism?

[meltzerboy]

In Judaism, this appears to be the case. Yes, G-d is an Entity, the Supreme Being. But, at the same time, G-d is regarded as a process. That is, G-dness or G-dish as a continuous moment outside of time. IOW, G-d is the eternal process of being itself, not only a unique Being, an Entity, a Thing. This almost sounds pantheistic but it is not, because G-d is outside of nature, time, and place, yet He also incorporates nature, time, and place. It is hard to explain with mere words.

Does Catholicism have a similar concept of G-d?

 

[Sarcelle]

Hmm, it’s hard for me to think of a process or envision a process without the dimension of time. God is a being that exists outside of time so there is no time dependent process to speak of. That was what I was taught.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hmm, it’s hard for me to think of a process or envision a process without the dimension of time. God is a being that exists outside of time so there is no time dependent process to speak of. That was what I was taught.

Perhaps dynamic presence would be a better description of what I mean than process. But a presence not exclusively in the sense of static being.

 

[John_Martin]

No.
A process is movement from one state to a completed state (has an end in mind).
Being itself “is”, fully complete.
Perhaps there is a mixup of the type of movement in God, the movement of process versus the movement of operation.
God is called the “unmoved mover” by some, with the thought that he is fully stationary, does nothing.
But some things that are complete do actions, not to become complete, but because that is the nature of their being. They move in their operation.

There is no continuous moment outside of time, but all “moments” in one knowing.

In the New Testament, Jesus goes up a mountain with Peter, James, and John, three of his disciples. And there they see Moses and Elijah speaking with Jesus.
What you don’t see there is that Moses went up a mountain several thousand years earlier, and Elijah likewise went up a mountain.

Moses saw God, Elijah saw God, and Peter, James and John heard God say, “This is my beloved Son, listen to him”. Moses also heard this. Coming down the mountain he later told his people of a prophet that would come, “Listen to him”.

On the mountain was God’s knowing - he knows one mountain, he knows Moses, he knows Elijah, he knows Jesus, Peter, James, and John, in one knowing. On the mountain they were in the presence of God’s knowing, knowing what he knows, therefore knowing Moses and Elijah, and the shining countenance of Jesus. All of God’s knowing is a single knowing, yet there is movement, yet one-ness. It was the actual Moses on the mountain, the actual Elijah, and the actual Jesus.

We, being material, actualize the single knowing in matter, which requires time to inform the matter. But to God there is no time separating the actual from the actual.

 

[pianistclare]

No. He lives. He is.
I AM

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In Judaism, this appears to be the case. Yes, G-d is an Entity, the Supreme Being. But, at the same time, G-d is regarded as a process. That is, G-dness or G-dish as a continuous moment outside of time. IOW, G-d is the eternal process of being itself, not only a unique Being, an Entity, a Thing. This almost sounds pantheistic but it is not, because G-d is outside of nature, time, and place, yet He also incorporates nature, time, and place. It is hard to explain with mere words.

Does Catholicism have a similar concept of G-d?

No, not in traditional Catholicism. But some progressives write about similar things. I know of one book titled The Emergent Christ that is similar. It’s not an orthodox or popular idea, though.

 

[Beryllos]

I beg to differ. Thomas Aquinas wrote that God is not “a being,” but rather “being” itself. This is very similar to what meltzerboy wrote in the OP. Perhaps this is what God meant when he described himself to Moses as “I am.” (Exodus 3:14).

Father Robert Barron speaks at length of this in his video series, Catholicism (and the companion book of the same title). Here is a quotation from the book:
Following the prompting of this conversation between Moses and God, the mainstream of the Catholic theological tradition has tended not to refer to God as a being, however supreme, among many. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition, rarely designates God as ens summum (the highest being); rather he prefers the names ipsum esse (to be itself) or qui est (the one who is). In fact, Aquinas goes so far as to say that God cannot be defined or situated within any genus, even the genus of “being.” This means that it is wrong to say that trees, planets, automobiles, computers, and God—despite the obvious differences among them—have at least in common their status as beings. Aquinas expresses the difference that obtains between God and creatures through the technical language of essence and existence. In everything that is not God there is a real distinction between essence (what the thing is) and existence (that the thing is); but in God no such distinction holds, for God’s act of existence is not received, delimited, or defined by anything extraneous to itself. A human being is the act of existence poured, as it were, into the receptacle of humanity, and a podium is the act of existence poured into the form of podium-ness, but God’s act of existence is not poured into any receiving element. To be God, therefore, is to be to be.

 

[Convert1]

I think God sees me as a process.
I do not see him that way, however.

 

[pianistclare]

I think God sees me as a process.
I do not see him that way, however.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In Judaism, this appears to be the case. Yes, G-d is an Entity, the Supreme Being. But, at the same time, G-d is regarded as a process. That is, G-dness or G-dish as a continuous moment outside of time. IOW, G-d is the eternal process of being itself, not only a unique Being, an Entity, a Thing. This almost sounds pantheistic but it is not, because G-d is outside of nature, time, and place, yet He also incorporates nature, time, and place. It is hard to explain with mere words.

Does Catholicism have a similar concept of G-d?

When he was five years old Thomas Aquinas is reported to have asked, “Quid est Deus?”

“What is God” is indeed the greatest of all questions to ask about God.

In his book *God and Philosophy *Etienne Gilson has a chapter titled “God and Christian Philosophy” which may interest you.

He traces the various notions of God from the Jews and the Greeks through Augustine to Aquinas. It is a brilliant expose or history of the attempt to answer a five year old boy’s question.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

(from post #7) but God’s act of existence is not poured into any receiving element.

Well that confuses me, because I would have said that that is exactly what
He did in the Conception of Jesus…

 

[meltzerboy]

I beg to differ. Thomas Aquinas wrote that God is not “a being,” but rather “being” itself. This is very similar to what meltzerboy wrote in the OP. Perhaps this is what God meant when he described himself to Moses as “I am.” (Exodus 3:14).

Father Robert Barron speaks at length of this in his video series, Catholicism (and the companion book of the same title). Here is a quotation from the book:
Following the prompting of this conversation between Moses and God, the mainstream of the Catholic theological tradition has tended not to refer to God as a being, however supreme, among many. Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition, rarely designates God as ens summum (the highest being); rather he prefers the names ipsum esse (to be itself) or qui est (the one who is). In fact, Aquinas goes so far as to say that God cannot be defined or situated within any genus, even the genus of “being.” This means that it is wrong to say that trees, planets, automobiles, computers, and God—despite the obvious differences among them—have at least in common their status as beings. Aquinas expresses the difference that obtains between God and creatures through the technical language of essence and existence. In everything that is not God there is a real distinction between essence (what the thing is) and existence (that the thing is); but in God no such distinction holds, for God’s act of existence is not received, delimited, or defined by anything extraneous to itself. A human being is the act of existence poured, as it were, into the receptacle of humanity, and a podium is the act of existence poured into the form of podium-ness, but God’s act of existence is not poured into any receiving element. To be God, therefore, is to be to be.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to point out. G-d is the ESSENCE of being, not being itself in the sense of a thing or entity. Things, as we know them on earth, are ephemeral and fleeting. Essences of things remain and are dynamic processes or presences. The focus in “I am” is on the verb “am” rather than on the pronoun “I.” In both the Hebrew and Latin languages, the verb takes precedence over the subject–noun or pronoun–if there even is a noun or pronoun. This is a Jewish theme, perhaps not held by all Jews, but one I have read about. Apparently it is also, in part, a Catholic theme. Thank you for the information.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to point out. G-d is the ESSENCE of being, not being itself in the sense of a thing or entity. Things, as we know them on earth, are ephemeral and fleeting. Essences of things remain and are dynamic processes or presences. The focus in “I am” is on the verb “am” rather than on the pronoun “I.” In both the Hebrew and Latin languages, the verb takes precedence over the subject–noun or pronoun–if there even is a noun or pronoun. This is a Jewish theme, perhaps not held by all Jews, but one I have read about. Apparently it is also, in part, a Catholic theme. Thank you for the information.

God is being itself, not a being among other beings.

For the reasons we examined then, on Aquinas’s view there can in principle be only one being whose essence and existence are identical, and thus which is Pure Being. Hence it is necessarily one and the same being on which all five proofs converge. This would obviously entail, for the same reason, that there is and can be only one God. For there to be more than one God, there would have to be some essence that the distinct “Gods” all share, each with his own individual act of existence. But since God is that being in whom essence and existence are identical, who just is existence or being itself, there is no sense to be made of the idea that he shares an essence with anything else, or has one act of existing alongside others (ST I.11.3).

For as we have also seen, on Aquinas’s account there is no distinction between essence and existence in God. Unlike everything else that exists, he just is his own existence, and just is his own essence, for these are identical. For this reason, there can also be no distinction between genus and difference in God, since being, the only candidate genus for something whose essence and existence are identical is (as we saw in chapter 2) no genus at all, and since for there to be a member of a genus, it must have an act of existence which differs from the essence it shares (at least potentially) with other members of the genus, and, again, there is no distinction between essence and existence in God. Hence, again, “it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple”

.

• Feser, Edwar. ‘Aquinas’

I am not sure what you mean by describing God as a process or by saying - “Essences of things remain and are dynamic processes or presences.” ?

 

[Beryllos]

Well that confuses me, because I would have said that that is exactly what
He did in the Conception of Jesus…

Well, God exists eternally without regard to the conception. The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, tells us that the Word, which is Jesus, existed/exists eternally.

 

[Purgatory_Pete]

Well, God exists eternally without regard to the conception. The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, tells us that the Word, which is Jesus, existed/exists eternally.

Thanks, I think I’m a little clearer on it now.