Is Hesychasm prayer approved by the Catholic Church?

[Wandile]

Wandile:

…as long Thomism exists and the western view of divine simplicity exists.

What is the western view of divine simplicity

The western (and actually the dogmatised catholic view) view is called absolute divine simplicity. It means that God has no parts and is completely and utterly simple. There is no composition in him at all. We say God is his attributes for example. When we give God attributes like benevolence, omnipotence, justice, love, mercy etc we don’t mean that these actually exist as different attributes in God. That is; God is made up of the totality of these attributes together. Rather, God is Love itself personified. Love is not just a concept but is actually a being (God). God is Justice, God is Mercy etc. Since these are all different attributes and yet God is all of them, then clearly these attributes aren’t really distinct realities but are one and the same reality … God. The complexity (how many attributes we see) exists on our end, not His. We are just seeing the one same reality (God) from different perspectives.

and how was it derived?

Scripture and the fathers. The fathers teach divine simplicity (That God is not composed of parts).

 

[George720]

George720:

Wandile:

…as long Thomism exists and the western view of divine simplicity exists.

What is the western view of divine simplicity

The western (and actually the dogmatised catholic view) view is called absolute divine simplicity . It means that God has no parts and is completely and utterly simple. There is no composition in him at all. We say God is his attributes for example. When we give God attributes like benevolence, omnipotence, justice, love, mercy etc we don’t mean that these actually exist as different attributes in God. That is; God is made up of the totality of these attributes together. Rather, God is Love itself personified. Love is not just a concept but is actually a being (God). God is Justice, God is Mercy etc. Since these are all different attributes and yet God is all of them, then clearly these attributes aren’t really distinct realities but are one and the same reality … God. The complexity (how many attributes we see) exists on our end, not His. We are just seeing the one same reality (God) from different perspectives.

and how was it derived?

Scripture and the fathers. The fathers teach divine simplicity (That God is not composed of parts).

Thank-you…

What does that look like in terms of human experience?

geo

 

[Wandile]

Thank-you…

What does that look like in terms of human experience?

geo

What do you mean? Like how do we interact with God in terms of divinization (Theosis as easterners would call it)?

 

[George720]

What do you mean? Like how do we interact with God in terms of divinization (Theosis as easterners would call it)?

Well, you had written that the doctrine of Divine Simplicity is derived from Scripture ant the teachings of the Holy Fathers, yes? And my question is, what does it look like? It is an experiential question… You said the doctrine states that God is utterly simple, without parts… So what does THAT look like? eg How does a penitent come to KNOW God as absolute Simplicity?

I must confess, I find the very idea baffling, for it rules out complexity, and the Author of Creation us the Origin and Sustainer of all manner of complexity, yet is Himself Absolute Simplicity…

So while I am not here to argue against the Fathers, and they are not being cited exactly, my question might be better framed as: “What occurred with the Fathers who affirm Divine Simplicity such that they KNOW God is Absolute Simplicity?” I mean, did God visit them in a dream? Or give them a Revelation? Or just tell them He is absolutely Simple?

Or is there some other experiential basis for this knowledge which God afforded them that He has not so far afforded me?

And the reason it is important is because right now, Divine Simplicity feels to me like a floating concept without content… A kind of a-priori ‘given’ that I suspect has, were I to be a better theology student of the Fathers, a much more specific meaning…

For instance - Of those Fathers who are God Seers, do their encounters with God all overwhelm them with God’s Absolute Simplicity? Or only some of them? Or just one or two? I hate being such a pest, but I utterly have no idea what Divine Simplicity actually means…

geo

 

[Wandile]

The simplicity of God is predicated from scripture (which teaches it openly) and philosophical truths about God that logically follow. For God to be truly transcendent he has to be beyond everything. His simplicity is the the hall mark of His transcendence. Composite beings (creatures) are lesser beings as they are limited by what makes them up (their components). Complication is not something that reveals greatness but rather lowliness. Where as men and all creatures are a concoction of things that allow us to differentiate one man from another and creature from creature, God simply is what he is [God]. This is also why God does not change. That is why when Moses asked God who shall he say sent him to the Israelites, and asked for Gods name this is how God replied:

“ And God said unto Moses, “I AM THAT I AM” and he said, “Thus shall you say unto the children of Israel, I AM has sent me unto you.”
- Exodus 3:14

Here are the fathers:

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity (Ad Hermiam) , book V; SC 237 (de Durand, ed.), p. 290; PG 75, 945 C.

“Cyril : Therefore, since, in your view, the divine is simple and exists above all composition (and this view of yours is correct), his will is nothing other than he himself. And if someone says “will,” he indicates the nature of God the Father”

St Athanasius of Alexandria in Ad Gentes 3.41

“For men, composed of parts and made out of nothing, have their discourse composite and divisible. But God possesses true existence and is not composite,”

and in Against the Arians 2.18.34

“are they not mad again in seeking and conjecturing parts and passions in the instance of the immaterial and true God, and ascribing divisions to Him who is beyond passion and change”

St Augustine City of God Book 11 chapter 10

“There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is [God]… According to this, then, those things which are essentially and [truly] divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or [blessed] in themselves, and without extraneous supplement.”

 

[George720]

Divine simplicity in all these writings is essentially apophatic - eg Creation is a combination of parts, but God is NOT… He is NOT changeable… NOT, NOT, NOT… Some kind of pure existence without parts, when all existence known to man is OTHER than God…

God is asked for His Name, and replies to created man: hO ON [ὁ ὤν]… The existing one… The BEING…
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν·
Almost “I am that which IS…” eg His fundamental Nature is to exist…

And from this we must observe that this is only for the Children of Israel to be told… eg It is a condescension on God’s part… But understood as unconditional self-existence… The existential “buck” stops at God - There is no ‘beyond’ of God…

So I get all that…
And I get that God IS Love…
That the Love God IS is the Power of God that created and is creating all of the Kosmos… It is God directed toward His Creation… Some folks run into THAT…

But what I do NOT have is any sense of God in relation to Himself, rather than His creation… And the Church Fathers do not have such a sense of Him either… Instead, they are only able to describe this facet of God in negative terms - God is not an existent, but is the SOURCE of all existence, and can then only be called SUPRA-existent… And in this, we are invited to participate with Him in relation to existence - As Christ noted: “But be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world…” And in this endeavor, Saints test their faith in ascetic endeavors and attained;n Spiritual heights… Or fall into delusion…

Apophatic theology, in terms of the uncreated God, is quintessentially UN- He is known only in His Love for the Kosmos - fin His Love for His creation… Few people know Love as the Creative Power of God in relation to all existent things, visible and invisible… Fallen mankind’s understanding of love is tinker toys…

Well, thank-you for your reply… I have a small kiss of experience of God as Love Creating the whole universe… I have absolutely NO experience of God in relation to Himself, to God… Which is why I get really wary of any who say the Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son… It suffers terminal smarm…

geo

 

[Wandile]

The idea that we can speculate about Gods essence is something even the scholastics say we can’t do. They said (as do you and you are right) We only know what he is not.

The idea of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son is more analogy to explain the mystery of how the persons are distinguished from each other and yet divine simplicity in the divine essence still exists. It derives origin in St Augustine of Hippo who simply applies old Nicene theology.

God bless you brother

 

[George720]

The idea that we can speculate about Gods essence is something even the scholastics say we can’t do…
The idea of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son is more analogy to explain the mystery of how the persons are distinguished from each other and yet divine simplicity in the divine essence still exists.

Thank-you…

I have seen Roman Catholics argue that God is ALL essence… eg That there is nothing that IS God that is NOT Essence… Their rejoinder is along the lines of: “Which PART of God do YOU vainly opine is OPTIONAL?” So perhaps you can see my concern…

Nor do we practice “analogizing” our theology as Rome sees so central to theology, on the overarching theme that REALLY, because of the UNKNOWABILITY of God, we ONLY can speak ANALOGICALY…

Instead, the Orthodox regard Theology as an EMPIRICAL enterprise, where the terms are DESCRIPTIVE of Spiritual phenomena as REVEALED by God to His Holy Ones, the God-Seers… And we acknowledge that MOST who know neither speak nor do they write about it… Personally, I regard the rest of us, and me especially, as Theo-philosophical blabber-mouths having no grounds on which to promote out views on what others have written…

Elder Aimillianos of recent Blessed Memory, wrote the following in a book titled “The Mystical Marriage”:

"If you intend to speak about God, he (St Maximos the Confessor) says, don’t search after the principles of God’s being, which means don’t seek to understand the Essence of God, which is beyond comprehension. In ordinary language, “to theologize” means to speak or talk about God. But in fact the word means to enter into communion with God.

This book is a commentary on St Maximos’ Century on Love - And this Blessed Elder had a disturbing propensity to show up helpfully in far flung places, and is speaking from first hand experience about the writings of another man’s writings also written from the same… The value of the writing is that the works of St. Maximos are highly condensed and almost cryptic, whereas Aimilianos explicates their compaction…

Nor does he say a word about any of this ever - I alone bear sole blame for being the blabbermouth, OK? When St. Thomas stopped writing and teaching, having had an encounter with God that wiped out the value of all that he had written, he remained pretty much in silent communion with God… Had he taken up words after that event, he might have spoken or written much as we find Elder Aimillianos did across some 3000 recorded homilies on Mt Athos, of which only a handful have been translated into English and published…

Christ is Risen!

We are in Bright Week!

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The idea that we can speculate about Gods essence is something even the scholastics say we can’t do…
The idea of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son is more analogy to explain the mystery of how the persons are distinguished from each other and yet divine simplicity in the divine essence still exists.

Thank-you…

I have seen Roman Catholics argue that God is ALL essence… eg That there is nothing that IS God that is NOT Essence… Their rejoinder is along the lines of: “Which PART of God do YOU vainly opine is OPTIONAL?” So perhaps you can see my concern…

Well… yes…God is all essence for that is what divine simplicity implies. The quotes of the fathers I posted earlier make that very clear too. We just can’t speculate what this divine essence is, we only know what it isn’t. But it is essence.

Nor do we practice “analogizing” our theology as Rome sees so central to theology, on the overarching theme that REALLY, because of the UNKNOWABILITY of God, we ONLY can speak ANALOGICALY…

Well Many church fathers make use of analogies. It’s not a Roman thing. It’s a theology thing. Even in the Byzantine east Gregory Palamas made use of analogies and also used the analogy of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son. He also makes ananlogy of his essence energies distinction but using the analogy of the Sun an it’s rays. Analogies help readers understand but nobody claims they are perfect.

 

[George720]

Well… yes…God is all essence for that is what divine simplicity implies.

Well, at least we have identified another theological difference between the Latin West and the Greek East!

Thank-you…

So how do Latin theologians deal with the idea of empirical theology?

The prickly, of course, is knowledge as being…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Well… yes…God is all essence for that is what divine simplicity implies.

Well, at least we have identified another theological difference between the Latin West and the Greek East!

This is most likely because of Gregory Palamas and his doctrinal developments in the 14th century which the Byzantine orthodox now all accept. The Catholic Church teaches nothing other than what the fathers taught on this issue.

So how do Latin theologians deal with the idea of empirical theology?

Assuming empirical theology means understating theological truths from the lived faith rather than through speculative means:

Why must they be opposed? There is a big misconception in the east that the west is purely rationalistic. Even the most devoted of scholastics like St Thomas prided prayer and life over theological and philosophical reasoning. They were first and foremost men of prayer and spirituality. So in short; they would not be opposed to it as they too embraced it and lived it.

The prickly, of course, is knowledge as being…

I don’t understand this last point. Could you explain what it entails so I may reply accordingly?

 

[George720]

St Thomas prided prayer and life over theological and philosophical reasoning.

Well, at the last year or so of his life, he stopped writing and teaching, did not finish the Summa, and said by explanation: “All I have written is straw…” Straw fit for burning… That was, imo, his entry into real theology… I know that when I read this as a sophomore atheist in college, it staggered me, for he was the best of the philosophical Christians, and I was majoring in philosophy…

The prickly, of course, is knowledge as being…

If knowing is being, then to know is to be…
“And this Eternal Life IS: To be KNOWING the One True God and His Son, Jesus Christ.”
So to KNOW God as Creator is to HAVE Life Eternal…
And to KNOW God as His Essence is to BE God…

This is the Palamite understanding, and is nothing new…
Nobody claims to BE God…

Psalm 82 is a future history, yes?

ὁ θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν,
God is in the synagog of gods

ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρίνει
in it’s midst gods is He judging

Do you know when it happened?

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

St Thomas prided prayer and life over theological and philosophical reasoning.

Well, at the last year or so of his life, he stopped writing and teaching, did not finish the Summa, and said by explanation: “All I have written is straw…” Straw fit for burning… That was, imo, his entry into real theology… I know that when I read this as a sophomore atheist in college, it staggered me, for he was the best of the philosophical Christians, and I was majoring in philosophy…

He said that after having a vision of God, which obviously once he saw what he had been writing about the whole time, made his writings look like nothing to God,who is infinite in all ways.

He did receive divine confirmation of his writings when God said as much on two occasions in two ecstasies:

The Doctors of the University of Paris consulted him one day about a difficult question regarding the Eucharist. He wrote his reply and placed it on the altar, submitting it to the judgment of God. His companion and several other brothers were there and watched him. Suddenly they saw Christ standing above the copy-book, and they heard these words:

“Thou hast written well of the Sacrament of My Body, and thou hast well and truthfully answered the question that was put to thee, so far as it is possible to know these things on earth.”

Another time, at the convent of Naples, the sacristan saw him lifted up quite a distance from the floor of the chapel. He stayed a long time to look. Saint Thomas, turned towards the Crucifix, prayed and wept. And suddenly a voice came from the Crucifix:

“Thou hast written well of Me, Thomas,” said the voice. “What reward wilt thou have?”

“None other than Thyself, Lord!” replied the Saint.

And to KNOW God as His Essence is to BE God…

I’m aware of what a Palamism teaches.

This is wrong for 2 reasons:

1. Scripture says we will see God as he is (His essence) and partake of his divine essence :

“* Beloved, now are we children of God, and what we shall be has not yet been manifested; we know that if it is manifested we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.*”
——— 1 John 3:2

“* By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature…*”
——— 2 Peter 1:4

1. To partake in the divine essence does not necessarily mean we become God as to become God we must participate in him infinitely/comprehend him fully. As man is naturally finite our participation in the divine essence is limited to our finititude thus preventing us from fully comprehending God and participating in him infinitely.

We have to partake of his divine essence to be truly deified as God is his essence. The essence is that which makes a thing what it is. In relation to God it’s what makes God, God. Thus outside of the essence there can be no God hence the only way to be truly divinised is to partake of the divine essence of God as in this way we truly are deified and yet still don’t become God as we are finite in our participation.

 

[George720]

We have to partake of his divine essence to be truly deified as God is his essence. The essence is that which makes thing what it is. In relation to God it’s what makes God, God. Thus outside of the essence there can be no God hence the only way to be truly divinised is to partake of the divine essence of God as in this way we truly are deified and yet still don’t become God as we are finite in our participation.

Best reply I have seen, thank-you… eg “We do not become God because we are finite in our participation.” Yet the Jews were gods, yes? (Ps 82) Or at least those of the Synagog in that Psalm… And yet were not God, Who judged them…

So the argument you put forth can argue either way, because it is predicated on the simple fact of our creature-hood… We might argue that it is because of our creaturely nature that we cannot BE God… Same with Angels, Thrones, Powers and Principalities… Yet Christ in the flesh was both… Both God and man… Both created and uncreated… So that the simple fact of Creation does not rule out God in His Essence within created creation…

It is hard to escape the fact that because we are created, we can only know God insofar as God is turned toward Creation as its Creator… We CANNOT know God in any other way, and the action of creating creation is, you see, an action - Indeed a work and a labor, from which God rested on the 7th day… It is not God in relation to God, but is God in relation to His creation, that we know… A labor is an energy, and not the Essence, of the laborer…

Interesting discussion…

geo

 

[George720]

We have to partake of his divine essence to be truly deified as God is his essence.

And the problem with that is that we cannot partake of His Divine Essence BECAUSE to do so, to partake of that which makes God to be God, would make us become God… And this, empirically, we do not do…

But we prophesy and cast out demons and heal the sick and raise the dead…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

We have to partake of his divine essence to be truly deified as God is his essence.

And the problem with that is that we cannot partake of His Divine Essence BECAUSE to do so, to partake of that which makes God to be God, would make us become God… And this, empirically, we do not do…

This is mistaken because it makes the assumption that mere interaction with his essence makes us God which it does not. God is an infinite being and for a creature to become God it too would need to be infinite so it can infinitely interact and participate in his essence and thus become God. Creatures are finite and thus the mode of our participation is finite and even though we interact with the divine essence we never become God as we participate to the extent of our finite capability, limiting/excluding the possibility of us becoming God.

Now this is the problem for Palamism: If we don’t participate in the divine essence which is what makes God, God then how can it be said that we are deified for interacting with anything outside of the divine essence is NOT God and thus deification (Theosis) in the Palamite model is nothing more than elaborate hoax.

But we prophesy and cast out demons and heal the sick and raise the dead…

So do we.

 

[Wandile]

Yet the Jews were gods, yes? (Ps 82) Or at least those of the Synagog in that Psalm… And yet were not God, Who judged them…

The judges were only said to be gods figuratively, not literally, in relation to the people they were set up to judge as judging men was a role reserved for God which he bestowed upon a select few; the judges. It’s in this point of view they are analogically called gods by scripture.

Yet Christ in the flesh was both… Both God and man… Both created and uncreated… So that the simple fact of Creation does not rule out God in His Essence within created creation…

The difference is Christ assumed/took on a second human nature which is different to mere participation. In our case we participate in the divine nature but do not assume the nature.

It is not God in relation to God, but is God in relation to His creation, that we know… A labor is an energy, and not the Essence, of the laborer…

This distinction is only a mental projection of ours which doesn’t really exist in God because divine simplicity presupposes that God is pure act. Secondly if God were truly composed of essence and energies then that leads to two problematic issues :

• God is no more simple as he is composed of two fundamental realities; his essence which is unreachable from anyone besides him and his energies which are communicable which results in a violation of divine simplicity
• Since essence is that by which a thing is what it is; then outside of God’s essence there cannot be anything said to be God or divine. If the energies (which are numerous) are said to be uncreated and divine but yet are not the essence; we run into the problem of having additional divinities outside the essence which logically results in polytheism.

Interesting discussion…

Indeed it is

 

[George720]

George720:

Yet the Jews were gods, yes? (Ps 82) Or at least those of the Synagog in that Psalm… And yet were not God, Who judged them…

The judges were only said to be gods figuratively, not literally, in relation to the people they were set up to judge as judging men was a role reserved for God which he bestowed upon a select few; the judges. It’s in this point of view they are analogically called judges by scripture.

Do you know when that event took place?

It does say, very literally in the Greek at least:

ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες·

I (Myself) said: “Gods you are. And sons of the Most High all (of you).”

Are you really going to say that God is speaking analogically? I mean, He began that statement with the words EGO EIPA - I HAVE SAID… The BIG I… EGO I… He did NOT want to be misunderstood… When He said EGO EIMI in the Garden, the whole mob come to arrest him fell to the ground…

It is not God in relation to God, but is God in relation to His creation, that we know… A labor is an energy, and not the Essence , of the laborer…

You read Joseph Owens? (Being as Act in Aristotle?)

God acts, and His Actions toward Creation are known by Creation, and His Actions toward Self are known by His Self… We are Creation… We are not God… As Christ is recorded in John: “ONLY the Son knows the Father…” (My paraphrase from memory - a very fallible reliance, I say!).

The whole point is that we cannot know God as God knows God because we are not God…

We are created… We have no means of knowing God as God knows God…

A Model A Ford cannot know Henry Ford as Henry ford knows himself…

And for us, God is Other, and we CAN KNOW God, but not as God does…

We know Him - Become Him - As He is Creator, and not as He is in Himself…

Erecting a human understanding of Divine Simplicity that rules this fact out almost by (all too human) DEFINITION is, from the EOC point of view, an error, because it subjects God to human cognition…

Since essence is that by which a thing is what it is; then outside of God’s essence there cannot be anything said to be God or divine. If the energies (which are numerous) are said to be uncreated and divine but yet are not the essence; we run into the problem of having additional divinities outside the essence which logically results in polytheism.

Well, you make my point here, but cannot one reply: “The Divine Energies of Creation are OF - eg Belong to - Are from - Are included in - the Divine Essence…”? You see, as creation, we do not have a basis in reality, an ontological basis, for knowing God in relation to Himself."

Interesting discussion…

So how did you come to be thinking about all this stuff?

geo

 

[George720]

This is mistaken because it makes the assumption that mere interaction with his essence makes us God which it does not.

Good!

So here then is the prickly: Knowledge as being… When you KNOW the one true God, you enter into Life Eternal… As John writes… The Scholastic approach regards knowledge as knowing ABOUT something, and not knowing… It is the difference between the arm-chair quarterback with his remote and a beer in front of the TV, and the quarterback playing on the field…

So yes, we do not become God by knowing Him, but according to our repentance, we do indeed become God by Grace, but only in His Energies… And in these, we will do “Greater Works that He did…” as Scripture records…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Are you really going to say that God is speaking analogically?

Yes for as Christians, it’s a dogma of faith that there is only one God, not many.

You read Joseph Owens? (Being as Act in Aristotle?)
I actually haven’t, is it a good read? Did a quick search on it and seems like something worthwhile to dive into

God acts, and His Actions toward Creation are known by Creation, and His Actions toward Self are known by His Self… We are Creation… We are not God…

This is touching on divine operations which are nominal relaties, not actual realities. That is to say there is no real distinction between essence and operation. God acts fully in his essence. The Eucharist is the full essence of God not a divine operation separate from the essence. It is the true divine nature of God present in the Eucharist.

However, if I’m not mistaken, the participation of as humans in the divine essence occurs in the beatific vision not here on earth.

The whole point is that we cannot know God as God knows God because we are not God…

The western church responds that we can know God but we can’t fully comprehend. Only God fully comprehends himself.

We are created… We have no means of knowing God as God knows God…

Only God knows himself fully but we can come to know God to thee extent of our limited being when opens himself up to us in the beatific vision and we see Him as he is, face to face and partake of the divine nature.

Erecting a human understanding of Divine Simplicity that rules this fact out almost by (all too human) DEFINITION is, from the EOC point of view, an error, because it subjects God to human cognition…

But the EO surely believe in divine simplicity? Its straight from the fathers and scripture itself. It’s not the mere musings of rationalists. A Christian dogma. Palamas many times said he did not violate it although that’s hard to really substantiate as his model seems to clearly do that which is why Paul of Smyrna was so scandalised by hearing what Gregory Palamas was teaching.

Well, you make my point here, but cannot one reply: “The Divine Energies of Creation are OF - eg Belong to - Are from - Are included in - the Divine Essence…”? You see, as creation, we do not have a basis in reality, an ontological basis, for knowing God in relation to Himself."

I don’t think I make your point but contradict it. I’m saying the energies are the essence and only appear different from a nominal consideration of God. For if they were really different from his essence they could not be divine and thus deification does not happen to the Christian pilgrim. Conversely, if they are divine (As Palamism maintains) then they result in polytheism and make the first article of the Nicene creed an error (“we believe in one God”).

So how did you come to be thinking about all this stuff?

It was never really my cup of tea but after discussing (with some other EO) various issues, it came up and it set me on spiral here lol