Palamas, Aquinas on Seeing God - Post

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Boy_Lost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Little_Boy_Lost

Guest
Little_Boy_Lost said:
Hey Ya’ll,

I ran across this post and I wanted to know your thoughts. I’ve been told before that both Palamas’ theology and Aquinas can be reconciled and I even ran across a fat book and several articles about their similarities. Does Aquinas really say we can experience the divine essence of God?

cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/03/aquinas-palamas-and-council-of-vienne.html

and another

cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/04/essence-deiformitas-ousia-energeia.html
Click to expand...
Some western scholars believe that St. Gregory Palamas is compatible with Catholic dogma, for example:
  1. G. Philips says the Palamas taught no objective distinction because he “declares that the energies are really identical to the essence” of God, and could be “comparable to the formalis-ex-natura-rei distinction dear to Duns Scotus”.
  2. Also Jurgen Kuhlmann says that energeia “is not God in himself, but God for us, in so far as he is the being of creatures. Since the essence of God neither can be this nor is this, the operation si obviously in some way truly differenct from the essence.”
– Partakers of the divine nature: the history and development of deificiation by Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung, p. 243.

Palamas affirms that God is infinitely knowable and communicable while also infinitely transcendent and incomprehensible, which is also the constant faith of western Church.
 
Forgive me for this small digression, but I hope it adds to this thread, but I was just going to create my own topic and saw this. It is along the same lines. I tend to have a very poitive view of Palamite theology and was reading about Meister Eckhart the other day. It almost seems that Eckhart could bridge the gap between Western Scholasticism and the Palamite energy/essence distinction. I understand Eckharts censure, but what I see in that censure could very easily also be applied to Palamas had he been Catholic rather than Orthodox.
 
Excellent point!

Eckhart has had his censure removed by Rome (if I’m not mistaken) and taught a whole school of great men, including Bl. Henry Suso.

In 1973, Rome acknowledged Palamas as a saint and one can find him on “Catholic Saints Online.” He is in EC calendars as well.

Although this is controversial (and “Eastern types” don’t like me bringing this up), there is some evidence to suggest that Palamas was a stigmatist where, in his Life, it says he was “adorned with the Wounds of Christ.”

Alex
 
I’m going to read the blogs first before I post…In the meantime 🍿
 
Im not at a computer, so a longer post will wait until tonight. The short answer is that Aquinas and Palamas don’t use the term essence in the same way, and they also use ‘see’ differently. For Aquinas the Divine Essence includes what Palamas calls the Divine Energy, and unlike Palamas he doesn’t use ‘see’ as synonymous with comprehension.

More detail later.
 
Alright, sitting at a computer I can give a fuller response. 🙂

Basically this boils down to a different vocabulary and theological approach to the issue of God’s transcendence. Aquinas recognizes that God is transcendent, but also that we partake of Divinity and will “see God face to face”.

In the Latin theological language Essence has a broader meaning than it does in Palamas’ Byzantine theological language, and so the Divine Essence includes things like Divinity, which Palamas excludes from the Divine Essence. For Aquinas, everything that is a “feature” of God is the Divine Essence, and God’s transcendence is preserved because humans can only partake in a “limited” way in Divinity through Grace. Thus we share in Divinity, but we don’t “comprehend” Divinity and we don’t “become” Divinity; in Aquinas’ terms we participate in Divinity.

Palamas gets around the same problem of God’s transcendence by making a distinction between God’s Divine Essence, and Divinity, which is the Divine Energy of that Essence. For Palamas, the uncomprehended, infinite aspect of God is the Essence, and that which is participated is the Divine Energy; the Divine Essence can’t be known or seen, according to Palamas’ use of the terms, because in his definitions to know and see include comprehension. It’s important to understand, however, that this distinction is not any kind of separation for Palamas, any more than the distinction between heat and fire means that fire is separate from heat. Heat is still an integral aspect of fire, and follows on the very essence of fire, but the two can be conceptually distinguished. To experience the fire, we experience the heat; the “essence” of fire touches us by heat.

So when Aquinas says that we experience the Divine Essence, he is basically including the Divine Energy (as Palamas defines it) in the very definition of the Divine Essence, and he is not saying that we comprehend the Divine Essence, merely that we participate in it and experience it, just as we experience fire by heat, and participate in fire by growing warm by the fire. Whereas Palamas would say that we know the heat, but we don’t know the fire, because he makes the distinction between the essential attribute and the fire, Aquinas says we know the fire by sharing in the heat, because he includes heat in the essential definition of fire, but we don’t comprehend the fire because we know it in a limited way.

So they are both getting to the same problem from different approaches: Aquinas makes the distinction in the creature’s experience, and Palamas makes the distinction in God, but the two are not contradictory because they are using terms in different ways and expressing the same mystery, namely that God transcends all creation and is uncomprehended, yet creatures share in Divinity through Grace (and in our very being, according to both Palamas and Aquinas).

Does that help at all?

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Alright, sitting at a computer I can give a fuller response. 🙂

Basically this boils down to a different vocabulary and theological approach to the issue of God’s transcendence. Aquinas recognizes that God is transcendent, but also that we partake of Divinity and will “see God face to face”.

[Lots of great explanation]

So they are both getting to the same problem from different approaches: Aquinas makes the distinction in the creature’s experience, and Palamas makes the distinction in God, but the two are not contradictory because they are using terms in different ways and expressing the same mystery, namely that God transcends all creation and is uncomprehended, yet creatures share in Divinity through Grace (and in our very being, according to both Palamas and Aquinas).

Does that help at all?

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
I enjoy reading posts on this forum for the sheer educational value. This is great stuff. Seriously, consider writing and self-publishing a book about this and related topics.
 
Ghosty said:
Alright, sitting at a computer I can give a fuller response. 🙂

Basically this boils down to a different vocabulary and theological approach to the issue of God’s transcendence. Aquinas recognizes that God is transcendent, but also that we partake of Divinity and will “see God face to face”.

In the Latin theological language Essence has a broader meaning than it does in Palamas’ Byzantine theological language, and so the Divine Essence includes things like Divinity, which Palamas excludes from the Divine Essence. For Aquinas, everything that is a “feature” of God is the Divine Essence, and God’s transcendence is preserved because humans can only partake in a “limited” way in Divinity through Grace. Thus we share in Divinity, but we don’t “comprehend” Divinity and we don’t “become” Divinity; in Aquinas’ terms we participate in Divinity.

Palamas gets around the same problem of God’s transcendence by making a distinction between God’s Divine Essence, and Divinity, which is the Divine Energy of that Essence. For Palamas, the uncomprehended, infinite aspect of God is the Essence, and that which is participated is the Divine Energy; the Divine Essence can’t be known or seen, according to Palamas’ use of the terms, because in his definitions to know and see include comprehension. It’s important to understand, however, that this distinction is not any kind of separation for Palamas, any more than the distinction between heat and fire means that fire is separate from heat. Heat is still an integral aspect of fire, and follows on the very essence of fire, but the two can be conceptually distinguished. To experience the fire, we experience the heat; the “essence” of fire touches us by heat.

So when Aquinas says that we experience the Divine Essence, he is basically including the Divine Energy (as Palamas defines it) in the very definition of the Divine Essence, and he is not saying that we comprehend the Divine Essence, merely that we participate in it and experience it, just as we experience fire by heat, and participate in fire by growing warm by the fire. Whereas Palamas would say that we know the heat, but we don’t know the fire, because he makes the distinction between the essential attribute and the fire, Aquinas says we know the fire by sharing in the heat, because he includes heat in the essential definition of fire, but we don’t comprehend the fire because we know it in a limited way.

So they are both getting to the same problem from different approaches: Aquinas makes the distinction in the creature’s experience, and Palamas makes the distinction in God, but the two are not contradictory because they are using terms in different ways and expressing the same mystery, namely that God transcends all creation and is uncomprehended, yet creatures share in Divinity through Grace (and in our very being, according to both Palamas and Aquinas).

Does that help at all?

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
That is indeed an amazing reply. Stuff like this has been bugging me for a long time and its great to see a lucid explanation. Now if only the Catholic Church and the Orthodox could see things this way we might make some real progress!
 
Of course, the East will always point out that “Grace” is not a created reality, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

This point, more than any other, has been a bone of contention between East and West, not to mention the villification of Palamas by the West for a long time.

It was only in 1973 that the West affirmed Palamas as a saint (I read this in a book on Patriarch Joseph the Confessor and elsewhere) but one can now find him among the list of Catholic saints.

Another interesting difference between the two is that Palamas affirms the Mother of God as “Immaculate” whereas Aquinas, dealing directly with the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, of course, answers in the negative . . .

Alex
 
I keep hearing that Palamas opposed reunion with the western church. Is this true or is this just a myth started by one side or the other to cause further division?
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Of course, the East will always point out that “Grace” is not a created reality, but the Holy Spirit Himself.

This point, more than any other, has been a bone of contention between East and West, not to mention the villification of Palamas by the West for a long time.

It was only in 1973 that the West affirmed Palamas as a saint (I read this in a book on Patriarch Joseph the Confessor and elsewhere) but one can now find him among the list of Catholic saints.

Another interesting difference between the two is that Palamas affirms the Mother of God as “Immaculate” whereas Aquinas, dealing directly with the Immaculate Conception as a dogma, of course, answers in the negative . . .

Alex
Click to expand...
The whole “created” thing is, of course, another bit of linguistic difficulty. For Aquinas, who popularized the “created” terminology, it’s not that Grace is a creature (Aquinas adamantly argues that no creature can elevate another creature to the experience of God), but rather that our participation in Grace is “created”, and that the creature is remade in reference to God. This is the same sense as when we say that something is “made hot” by exposure to fire; the heat itself obviously exists with the fire prior to the new item receiving it, but never the less we say that the item is “made hot”. In English, even if the heat and fire were eternal, we would not say that an item newly made hot by an eternal heat source was “unmade eternally hot”, we would still say that it was “made hot” at the time of its exposure to the eternal flame. As Aquinas says in the Summa:
And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”
Click to expand...
Aquinas, and Latin theologians, never denied the eternity of the “heat” of Grace, only the eternity of our participation in it. For them, saying that our experience of Grace is “uncreated” implied that we were always in a state of Grace, and thus was Pelagian. Obviously this is not at all what Palamas was saying (he was simply stressing the Divine nature of Grace against those who did believe that Grace was a creature, something the Latins never held to), and over time this was understood in the West. 👍

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
Alright, sitting at a computer I can give a fuller response. 🙂

Basically this boils down to a different vocabulary and theological approach to the issue of God’s transcendence. Aquinas recognizes that God is transcendent, but also that we partake of Divinity and will “see God face to face”.

In the Latin theological language Essence has a broader meaning than it does in Palamas’ Byzantine theological language, and so the Divine Essence includes things like Divinity, which Palamas excludes from the Divine Essence. For Aquinas, everything that is a “feature” of God is the Divine Essence, and God’s transcendence is preserved because humans can only partake in a “limited” way in Divinity through Grace. Thus we share in Divinity, but we don’t “comprehend” Divinity and we don’t “become” Divinity; in Aquinas’ terms we participate in Divinity.

Palamas gets around the same problem of God’s transcendence by making a distinction between God’s Divine Essence, and Divinity, which is the Divine Energy of that Essence. For Palamas, the uncomprehended, infinite aspect of God is the Essence, and that which is participated is the Divine Energy; the Divine Essence can’t be known or seen, according to Palamas’ use of the terms, because in his definitions to know and see include comprehension. It’s important to understand, however, that this distinction is not any kind of separation for Palamas, any more than the distinction between heat and fire means that fire is separate from heat. Heat is still an integral aspect of fire, and follows on the very essence of fire, but the two can be conceptually distinguished. To experience the fire, we experience the heat; the “essence” of fire touches us by heat.

So when Aquinas says that we experience the Divine Essence, he is basically including the Divine Energy (as Palamas defines it) in the very definition of the Divine Essence, and he is not saying that we comprehend the Divine Essence, merely that we participate in it and experience it, just as we experience fire by heat, and participate in fire by growing warm by the fire. Whereas Palamas would say that we know the heat, but we don’t know the fire, because he makes the distinction between the essential attribute and the fire, Aquinas says we know the fire by sharing in the heat, because he includes heat in the essential definition of fire, but we don’t comprehend the fire because we know it in a limited way.

So they are both getting to the same problem from different approaches: Aquinas makes the distinction in the creature’s experience, and Palamas makes the distinction in God, but the two are not contradictory because they are using terms in different ways and expressing the same mystery, namely that God transcends all creation and is uncomprehended, yet creatures share in Divinity through Grace (and in our very being, according to both Palamas and Aquinas).

Does that help at all?

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
It seems to me the analogy of fire is imperfect since the fire is a complex thing, more than just its heat. Of course, any analogy between God and a creature is going to be similarly flawed yet may still be helpful, so this is not a criticism in and of itself. But in this case the flaw may hide an important truth, namely that there is no real distinction within God between the Divine Nature (in which we can participate in a partial way) and God Himself in His wholeness (in whom, therefore, we can participate in a partial way). In the Beatific Vision one sees and participates in God Himself, partially but directly. The distinction between what can be seen/comprehended and what cannot be seen/comprehended really is in the creature’s experience, and really is not in God Himself, who is entirely simple. If that is ultimately agreed upon by both sides then shouldn’t our theological language reflect that reality? Or if it is not ultimately agreed upon by both sides then it seems we have radically different ideas of God, one simple and another compound.
 
Ghosty said:
The whole “created” thing is, of course, another bit of linguistic difficulty. For Aquinas, who popularized the “created” terminology, it’s not that Grace is a creature (Aquinas adamantly argues that no creature can elevate another creature to the experience of God), but rather that our participation in Grace is “created”, and that the creature is remade in reference to God. This is the same sense as when we say that something is “made hot” by exposure to fire; the heat itself obviously exists with the fire prior to the new item receiving it, but never the less we say that the item is “made hot”. In English, even if the heat and fire were eternal, we would not say that an item newly made hot by an eternal heat source was “unmade eternally hot”, we would still say that it was “made hot” at the time of its exposure to the eternal flame. As Aquinas says in the Summa:

Aquinas, and Latin theologians, never denied the eternity of the “heat” of Grace, only the eternity of our participation in it. For them, saying that our experience of Grace is “uncreated” implied that we were always in a state of Grace, and thus was Pelagian. Obviously this is not at all what Palamas was saying (he was simply stressing the Divine nature of Grace against those who did believe that Grace was a creature, something the Latins never held to), and over time this was understood in the West. 👍

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir!

An area that fascinates me is the personal devotion to St Thomas Aquinas that Orthodox theologians had (and have?) as mentioned by Meyendorff.

I understand the Orthodox borrowed heavily from Aquinas in the area of moral theology.

Cheers,

Alex
 
Little_Boy_Lost said:
I keep hearing that Palamas opposed reunion with the western church. Is this true or is this just a myth started by one side or the other to cause further division?
Click to expand...
The issue of church reunion was never something that was of concern to Palamas’ ministry. The fact that he went after Barlaam and Akindynos for their nominalism does not and cannot mean that he was somehow opposed to the West.

But the fact that Rome now acknowledges Palamas as a saint (beginning in 1973) and that if you Google him on Catholic Online Saints he will come up - well, that says it all.

My Church and the Melkite and Ruthenian Churches and others have him in their calendar of Saints.

And we’re all in union with Rome.

Alex
 
A good book on the topic is “The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas”, by Anna Ngaire Williams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top