Is Hesychasm prayer approved by the Catholic Church?

[Wandile]

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…

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…

Knowing in the scholastic model entails the additional concept of comprehension. That is to say, as scripture says, we partake of the divine nature/essence for God will reveal himself to us and we will come to know him but we will not fully comprehend him. But scripture makes very clear that this is the divine nature, not a divine operation/energy. It say we will see him face to face as he is.

 

[George720]

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”).

Which affirms the view that from the perspective of creation, we do not have the basis for the Divine View… If we call what is done as identical to the one doing them, then God is His Deeds, and Creation has no other basis for existence that the deeds themselves, which ARE God’s Essence…

And one reply to THAT is that God repented at Ninevah…

eg That God is Persons, not deeds, and that He DOES His Deeds, but that DOING is not the same as BEING… You are affirming Owen’s reading of Aristotle’s doctrine… “The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics”, at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, a long time ago… eg Being as Act… And while it can be understood in that manner, from the pov of the Christian Faith, it is no proof whatsoever… Our “proof” is martyric, not propositional, and knowledge is being…

Knowing in the scholastic model entails the additional concept of comprehension. That is to say, as scripture says, we partake of the divine nature/essence for God will reveal himself to us and we will come to know him but we will not fully comprehend him. But scripture makes very clear that this is the divine nature, not a divine operation/energy. It say we will see him face to face as he is .

Nature includes essence and energy… Face to Face is only in the Age to come…

Do you deny knowing as being??

geo

 

[George720]

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

That is the point - Divinization gives Divinity, in measure, to man…

It was not a we-you comparison…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

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”).

Which affirms the view that from the perspective of creation, we do not have the basis for the Divine View… If we call what is done as identical to the one doing them, then God is His Deeds, and Creation has no other basis for existence that the deeds themselves, which ARE God’s Essence…

And one reply to THAT is that God repented at Ninevah…

eg That God is Persons, not deeds, and that He DOES His Deeds, but that DOING is not the same as BEING… You are affirming Owen’s reading of Aristotle’s doctrine… “The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics”, at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, a long time ago… eg Being as Act… And while it can be understood in that manner, from the pov of the Christian Faith, it is no proof whatsoever… Our “proof” is martyric, not propositional, and knowledge is being…

Knowing in the scholastic model entails the additional concept of comprehension. That is to say, as scripture says, we partake of the divine nature/essence for God will reveal himself to us and we will come to know him but we will not fully comprehend him. But scripture makes very clear that this is the divine nature, not a divine operation/energy. It say we will see him face to face as he is .

Nature includes essence and energy… Face to Face is only in the Age to come…

Do you deny knowing as being??

geo

George this has been a very edifying discussion and hopefully we can speak about this more in the future but I’m about fatigued right now. Forgive me.

At this juncture I wish to sign out from the thread.

God bless you brother

 

[George720]

Back at ya!

What a Joy!

There are limits!

geo

 

[CathBoy1]

the energies are the essence and only appear different from a nominal consideration of God.

If we look at the above statement, and then your answer:

Which affirms the view that from the perspective of creation, we do not have the basis for the Divine View… If we call what is done as identical to the one doing them, then God is His Deeds, and Creation has no other basis for existence that the deeds themselves, which ARE God’s Essence…

This makes absolutely perfect sense to me (I think), I haven’t seen this answered so eloquently before.
Getting into the metaphysical of all of this is very difficult and hard to wrap one’s head around, but the way that you have answered with the above statement is easy to read in layman‘s terms.

In other words if we are to call God’s energies/operations or perhaps best understood to western ears “works” such as God’s act of creation itself, equal to God’s essence (God’s very being), we are saying that God Himself has made His very being (essence) that which He has created (creation/energies)? Which then leaves open the possibility of us as creatures (part of his creation) being God?
(again metaphysics can be very difficult to the unlearned layman)

This is how I have understood your answer and, if I am understanding your answer correctly, I totally get how it is wrong to say that God’s essence and God’s energies are exactly the same.
(If I am making any mistakes in my understanding, please help, as I am trying to understand)

Perhaps it is better understood to our western ears as: We as creation can participate in God’s energies/operations but not His essence, yet God does not divide Himself between His essence and His energies, we just simply do not participate in His essence, only His energies, inso far as being creatures we cannot possibly participate in His essence.
Idk if that’s, the best way to explain this in layman‘s terms but it my best attempt.

Long story short, God is not divided between His essence and his energies, simply we as finite creatures can only participate in His energies.

Please @George720, or anyone with a better understanding than me (on essence/energies distinction), go over my work point by point and make corrections as I truly wish to learn more on this subject.

 

[Wandile]

… Which then leaves open the possibility of us as creatures (part of his creation) being God?

That’s the logic of his answer as far as it seems. From my view it doesn’t follow because just as God does not stop being God in anything he does, God does not do anything apart from his essence so where his actions are his essence is also. The mistake made by the above quote is believing creation is an action rather than the consequence/output of an action. We are not the action nor an energy of God but rather the output of Gods operation and thus even if his essence and operations are the same thing, we still aren’t God.

Bare in mind that in palamism the energies are still considered divine like the essence.

Long story short, God is not divided between His essence and his energies, simply we as finite creatures can only participate in His energies.

Your two underlying positions do not line up. If God is not divided between essence and energy then essence and energies are one and the same so indeed creatures do encounter the essence of God in deification. For example when we receive sanctifying grace it’s the life of God imparted in a soul. The life of God is the essence of God which is life itself and brings life to a soul. Hence Catholics believe it’s is not a mere operation/energy but the actual person of God the Holy Spirit when we receive sanctifying grace. Palamites on the other hand would say the Holy Spirit does not dwell in us but only his energies which seems to go against scripture which says the Holy Spirit (Who is God in essence) will be given to us and find a house in us:

“Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” - 1 Corinthians 3:16

“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” - 1 Corinthians 6:19

“Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” - 2 Corinthians 6:16

“Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.” - 2 Timothy 1:14

Lastly the catholic dogma concerning the fate of the blessed (Decreed at the Council of Florence) indirectly renounced Palamism in declaring that it is to be believed that the souls of the saints in heaven have a vision of God’s essence (not his mere energies). This confirms the scriptures when they say:

“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

LOL now this is my final post. Just wanted to put clarity over the two positions.

 

[George720]

Long story short, God is not divided between His essence and his energies, simply we as finite creatures can only participate in His energies.

Thank-you for your thoughtful post - I think it is important to pare down the arguments to what is and can be simply said, and you have grasped the essence of the matter as I understand it… This is the understanding that is at the base of the two “theologies” we encounter so regularly - eg cataphatic and apophatic… God in His Energies is cataphatic according to human created capability to understand… In large part the ability of man to know God is a function of his degree of repentance… And God in His Essence is absolutely unknowable to created man at all…

When this understanding is departed from, you will find what to the EOC is a lot of delusional blather by “theologians” about affirming on the one hand the ultimate unknowability of God while then launching into endless discussions about the Christian’s so-called “participation” in God’s Essence…

An amazing divergence in theological understanding and discourse…

geo

 

[George720]

If God is not divided between essence and energy then essence and energies are one and the same so indeed creatures do encounter the essence of God in deification.

I love the direct and head-on way you take on this issue - Thank-you… You are addressing human understanding directly, and not fleeing to the authority of Peter as it is imparted to us in the online Catholic Catechism! I salute you!

So my question to you is as follows - When you are committing some sin, is that sin your essence? And when you commit a good deed, is that good deed your essence? I mean, IF you are going to even use the term Energy of God, or the term Essence of God, then HOW can you conflate them without rendering the terms themselves empty of content?

Similarly the term “Nature of God”… The Nature of God must include ALL that is God’s Nature, which includes not only God’s Essence, but also the Actions of God that come forth from His Essence… And these actions are existence creating, and life creating, and soul/spirit creating… God as Persons is included in these Energies of God… And remember that the Person is the basis, that which stands under, the hypo-stasis, the Substance, that under-girds the Essence of Being in man… And this is the only basis we have for understanding God, and is, as I understand it, God’s Revelation to man…

Hope you got some rest! I am glad you ran into som Orthodox folks who managed to sweep you into the “swirl”, as you called it!

geo

 

[George720]

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 we shall be like him, for we shall SEE him as he is
2 Peter 1:4

These two quotes clearly affirm that when we SEE God we shall BE like Him… I should add that now we SEE God darkly, as in a reflection, and this gives us the Divinization on this earth in this fallen creation that is known to us as Theosis… That thereafter we should walk in the Illumination of the Nous… As Paul wrote, we are given an EARNEST… A DOWN PAYMENT, of the Life of the Age to Come…

Which is what Peter, John and Iakobos received in the Vision on Mt. Tabor at the Transfiguration of our Lord…

geo

 

[Wandile]

So my question to you is as follows - When you are committing some sin, is that sin your essence? And when you commit a good deed, is that good deed your essence?

Firstly I take issue with this analogy, as I see it, is that where God is simple, I am composite. Gods divine simplicity is why there can’t be a distinction between essence and energy. It’s not comparing apples with apples.

Secondly, with regards to the sin aspect: No sin is not my essence as sin itself is the consequence of an action. Actions aren’t properly called sinful but rather are those means which result in sin. Actions are associated with sin and called “sinful” not in reference to the nature of action but rather in reference to the outcome of the action (sin).

An example to illustrate this would be: A boy throws a ball and breaks a window. The window is now broken. The throwing of the ball and the broken window are two different things. The the throwing of the ball is operation while the broken window is sin.

…HOW can you conflate them without rendering the terms themselves empty of content?

This leads us back to the underlying principle of divine simplicity. That is, in God no composition exists whatsoever. So when we creatures speak of essence vs operation we do so only as a mental distinction to help us understand God better. That is to say when we speak of operations they give us a picture of God that can help us know more about him, or that God truly is composure of essence and operation.

An example of a nominal distinction would be the distinction we make in saying a line is long. This distinction is only a mental projection of ours on the line. The line is neither actually long nor short. It is simply a line. Now even though the longevity of the line is a mental projection of the line, the word long is not empty of content as it serves a purpose; to help make sense of the line relative to something else.

Similarly the term “Nature of God”… The Nature of God must include ALL that is God’s Nature, which includes not only God’s Essence, but also the Actions of God that come forth from His Essence…

God is not a totality but a simplicity. He is one and one thing only, God. Nature and essence are synonymous as they look at the same reality from different perspectives:

• Essence is that which makes a thing what it is
• Nature is that which makes a thing act as it does

It can be gleaned from the definition of nature that what makes a thing act as it does is its essence. Thus nature and essence are synonymous.

The actions of God are the divine essence for the divine essence is pure act. For from whence does creative power come from except the essence which is power itself. When we call God the Creator, attribute (an energy) comes from his action of creating. Yet God is his attributes, as he is simple, therefore this creative power is identical with the divine essence and not external from it.

Hope you got some rest!

I had a decent rest and I hope you got some rest too

 

[Isaac14]

That is, in God no composition exists whatsoever

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is God not composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? This is but one example of why I have a really hard time wrapping my head around all this discussion.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

That is, in God no composition exists whatsoever

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is God not composed of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? This is but one example of why I have a really hard time wrapping my head around all this discussion.

This is not actually a dumb question at all but a very good one which St Thomas tackles.

When we say God is not composed we speak of the divine essence not the personages. The persons do not each contain a third of the divine essence (which would render it composite) as if God we’re made up of three parts. Rather they each encompass fully the one same simple divine essence. Thus though there are three, there is still one simple divine essence of God. As a result each person is fully God and simple.

The Fourth Lateran ecumenical council taught beautifully on this in refuting the error of the abbot Joachim:

“We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since **each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial.”

 

[Wandile]

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 we shall be like him, for we shall SEE him as he is
2 Peter 1:4

These two quotes clearly affirm that when we SEE God we shall BE like Him.… I should add that now we SEE God darkly, as in a reflection, and this gives us the Divinization on this earth in this fallen creation that is known to us as Theosis… That thereafter we should walk in the Illumination of the Nous… As Paul wrote, we are given an EARNEST… A DOWN PAYMENT, of the Life of the Age to Come…

As St Thomas teaches, the physical eyes do not see the beatific vision, since they can only see magnitude and proportion, and God is beyond both. The soul is the body’s substantial form, and a person is not fully a person without the union of soul and body. As the body’s substantial form, the soul/intellect has the beatific vision as its substantial form.

“Seeing” God is an intellectual act not a physical one.

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Actions aren’t properly called sinful but rather are those means which result in sin. Actions are associated with sin and called “sinful” not in reference to the nature of action but rather in reference to the outcome of the action (sin).

Forgive me, but actions are the final stage of sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas who is elaborating upon St. Augustine:

"For Augustine ( De Trin . xii, 12) describes three stages of sin, of which the first is “when the carnal sense offers a bait,” which is the sin of thought; the second stage is reached “when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought”; and the third stage, “when consent is given to the deed.”–Summa Theologica

Also for further reading see St. Maximus the Confessor On the Virtues and the Vices. There he goes into greater detail about what constitutes a sinful thought, i.e. once you begin to play with a temptation mentally you are at the beginning of culpability.

Love this discussion by the by, although I fear it is a bit too heady for my feeble philosophical intellect. I lean more towards the Western view of divine simplicity as making more sense, especially since palamism seems to make an unnecessary distinction between energies and essences, then turns around and says both are God (to maintain divine simplicity). Too much of a mental loop-de-loop.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

Actions aren’t properly called sinful but rather are those means which result in sin. Actions are associated with sin and called “sinful” not in reference to the nature of action but rather in reference to the outcome of the action (sin).

Forgive me, but actions are the final stage of sin, according to St. Thomas Aquinas who is elaborating upon St. Augustine:

"For Augustine ( De Trin . xii, 12) describes three stages of sin, of which the first is “when the carnal sense offers a bait,” which is the sin of thought; the second stage is reached “when one is satisfied with the mere pleasure of thought”; and the third stage, “when consent is given to the deed.”–Summa Theologica

Hey @PilgrimMichelangelo

I dont think this is saying actions are sinful in themselves but rather this is detailing the course that leads to a physical sin. That is, thought—> pleasure of thought—> deed —> Sin

Now the deed itself can be distinguished from the sin for a deed is simply that, a deed. Sin refers to a state of being or corruption. Deeds aren’t corruption but cause corruption if that makes sense.

An example would be how we become dirty from playing in the mud. You first think about it, entertain the thought gladly then play in the mud which results in making you dirty. The act of playing in the mud (the deed) is not what corruption of cleanliness is. This is merely the corrupting agent. Rather the dirt on you after playing in the mud is corruption of cleanliness (sin). Thus there exists a distinction between action and result

Also for further reading see St. Maximus the Confessor On the Virtues and the Vices. There he goes into greater detail about what constitutes a sinful thought, i.e. once you begin to play with a temptation mentally you are at the beginning of culpability.

Thanks for this reference . Now we can go into thoughts also which can lead to sin without physical deed but the logic still applies. That the thought is separate from the state of corruption which it causes. The thought is the corrupting agent but not the corruption itself.

Love this discussion by the by, although I fear it is a bit too heady for my feeble philosophical intellect. I lean more towards the Western view of divine simplicity as making more sense, especially since palamism seems to make an unnecessary distinction between energies and essences, then turns around and says both are God (to maintain divine simplicity). Too much of a mental loop-de-loop.

It’s a very interesting discussion and feel free to contribute whenever you want. More minds are greater than two

 

[George720]

Good grief Charlie Brown…

Perhaps a definition of sin might help…

Everything that is not of God is sin…

All consequences of sin (broken windows and divorces and corpses) are of God for the sake of our Salvation…

Sin has consequences…

geo

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

Now the deed itself can be distinguished from the sin for a deed is simply that, a deed. Sin refers to a state of being or corruption. Deeds aren’t corruption but cause corruption if that makes sense.

Hi @Wandile

Oops, my bad. I thought from your earlier post that you kinda implied that actions could not be sinful, but I see from your above post that deeds in and of themselves are not sinful until united to sinful intent? Correct me if I’m getting it all confused, please.

There are sinful deeds, and sinful thoughts, there are good deeds and good thoughts. We sin in “thought, word and deed, in knowledge and ignorance, both voluntarily and involuntarily” (General Confession of St. Dmitri of Rostov).

You can have a good messenger (thought) which causes the good King (action) to wage just war (good deed), and you can have a bad messenger (thought) which causes the bad King (action) to send forth his hordes to pillage his neighbor’s kingdom (sinful deed).

That the thought is separate from the state of corruption which it causes. The thought is the corrupting agent but not the corruption itself.

Yes. Except there are thoughts that are corrupt (united to sin).
I think that St. John Climacus kind of outlines this in his stages of passion:

1. Provocation ( Temptation)
2. Coupling
3. Assent
4. Captivity
5. Struggle
6. Passion

Thoughts in and of themselves are not sinful, but when we couple with them (playing with them according to St. Maximus) that is the very seed of culpability, because there are sinful thoughts (temptations) that ought to be ignored, or pushed aside, or prayed away etc. Not all thoughts originate from ourselves, and all the time we are tempted by our own fallen human nature (the old man) which we have to struggle against as the new man who has been refashioned through Baptism and the Sacraments.

 

[George720]

“Seeing” God is an intellectual act not a physical one.

It is a noetic event given by God and utterly bypasses and transcends intellection…

John and Peter both use the term SEE, and one of these at least is the verb opthalmo, as in seeing with the eyes… The other may be the same or may be a form of eidomai, which is noesis… And the basic point is that it is the divine encounter that transforms us, which is what the two “see” verbs denote…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

“Seeing” God is an intellectual act not a physical one.

It is a noetic event given by God and utterly bypasses and transcends intellection…

Noetic means relating to mental activity or the intellect. So saying it bypasses and transcends intellect but is noetic is self contradictory in a sense.

John and Peter both use the term SEE, and one of these at least is the verb opthalmo, as in seeing with the eyes…

Yes but I think we can both agree that our physical eyes only see magnitude and proportion, and God is beyond both? So it can’t logically be physical eyes lest in saying so we reduce God.

The other may be the same or may be a form of eidomai, which is noesis… And the basic point is that it is the divine encounter that transforms us, which is what the two “see” verbs denote…

If you think seeing means neosis then you imply that seeing is intellectual. Noesis is simply a classic philosophical term that is equated to intellect or intelligence. Thus in your objection it seems you actually agree with St Thomas Aquinas.