1:09:11 bookmark 19:43 Bradshaw's article 32:21 Thomistic Ineffible Essence 59:18 Vladimir Lossky, student of Gilson 1:02:22 Eric Pearl's book 1:21:14 Simplicity as an activity 1:26:07 "God doesn't have a will with an act of willing."
Ack, I was really hoping that astrofire's question would be answered, namely: "Thomists and Palamites agree that [the] energy of deification is uncreated. But what about the effect of act? When creatures receive grace by energy of God, is it an uncreated effect?" That's a question I've had too, but haven't seen it answered. If the sun is like the essence and the energies are like the rays, and of course both are uncreated, what then is the warmth which is imparted by the ray? What about the sensation of warmth? Are these (the warmth and the sensation of warmth) created, or uncreated? What a great discussion though.
The inner experience of man is created, but the act itself and the content of the act itself is not created, as God's goodness is not created. To put it into an alternative analogy - let's say a singer is eternally singing a song; you, at some point, receive/hear that singing. Your reception of the singing is created, because it begins at some point - so, the experience of starting to hear the song begins at particular time, - but the singing itself and its content are uncreated and eternal and you receive what the singer has been singing from eternity. You don't receive a different singing, or song, but that one he was singing all along. So, in receiving the Grace, you receive God's goodness as it has always been for eternity. So, the energy is eternal and uncreated, but the subject that starts to experience it is temporal, thus the interaction itself has a beginning point, but only because man is temporal and begins receiving the Grace at some point; not because the Grace itself is created, or begins to exist at some point. It has always existed. So, the energy itself does not change, but rather the additional subject that starts participating in it is in time and space, thus in "taping into the energy", the effect is both created and uncreated, in so far as the Grace itself is eternal and uncreated, while the man who starts receiving it is created and begins to experience it at particular time. The same way when the eternal Son of God began to manifest in created reality hypostatically(became incarnate), then it doesn't end up with us concluding that He is created; the same way that eternal and uncreated Grace begins manifesting in created reality, namely in man, then it doesn't end up being created.
Yes, I've heard Dr. Bradshaw explain that some 'energies' of God are necessary aspects of His nature and would exist even apart from creation, while others are contingent on creation and depend on God choosing to express them. An example of the former would be God's love, while an example of the latter would be the gifts of the Spirit.
Could the Eternal Now be a virtual distinction applied to time itself & thus thomism actually be compatible with Palamism when we understand God is outside time?
@@esoterico7750 The eternal operations would be part of one moment and thus one movement or one operation themselves ergo they would be virtually one operation with no real distinction (I know Dr Bradshaw seems to be deny real distinction in the video but most online Orthodox like Dyer are quite adamant of a real distinction)
The distinctions in Palamas are real for practical purposes. An essence can be partaken by as many hypostases as they wish to partake of the same essence. God's essence is exclusively tri-hipostatic; else, any of us can become a Person of the Godhead. In that sense, if you equate actus purus with the divine processions, rather than the divine essence, you have a full compatibility with Thomism. Since in Palamas it's the Trinity that chooses to partake in the same essence. As the essence is one, and the persons of the Trinity are eternally locked to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you have the immovable aspect in the processions, and the simple aspect in the essence, which retains a uncreated nature, and a same identity, that of the single essence. So the question remains is how do people partake of God without becoming a Person of God, and those are the divine energies. Aquinas does have the same distinction than Palamas, but it isn't arranged in the same way, as he does say that grace is either an operation (i.e. energy) or a cooperation (i.e. synergy) depending on whether you have freewill. Then what you'd have to debate is whether to pinpoint the Eternal Now as an attribute in the essence being acted upon (Aquinas) or an operation reflecting the essence (Palamas), and that depends on the viewpoint you are looking at that phenomenon. Palamas says that the Energies are a mirror of the Essence; while, Aquinas says that God operates as an agent of his essence. In both cases you have a instance of "What I do is in agreement with Who I Am", but from different perspectives: Aquinas from via positiva, and Palamas from via negativa.
This is exactly why Bradshaw argues that the Western perspective on God leads to secularism and agnosticism: it places God too far away from us, leading to the belief that we can never truly know God. The Essence-Energies Distinction seems to offer a model that doesn't have this issue.
Not to sound mean...Thomas Aquinas seems to be reinventing Christianity...you conform to the saints not the other way around. Especially the saints that are already established doctors of the Church prior to you.
54:30 What is a "uncreated photon"? For God sake, it is not a "photon", and yet it is the bodily eyes that see the light, Just like we see in scripture: "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there *shined round about him a light from heaven* [...] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, *hearing a voice,* but seeing no man." A light from heaven shine and Paul saw it his bodily eyes, which made them blind. While the other man didn't see anything. This is a mistery, God can manifest itself in the world while his essence remains unseen, incomprehensible, beyond being... that is what Chrysostom called his "condescension". It is not a created light/photon.
Totleben's historical grasp - not to say anything about the theological and/or philosophical merits of his overall argument - of this topic is quite weak, admittedly. Secondly, while his expertise in and subsequent grasp of Aquinas is observably strong (to be expected, since he is a Dominican), I cannot help but observe that he typically, like so many Papists/Thomists/Neo-Thomists, suffers from a self-restraining, limiting view of these matters and, as either a result of or catalyst to the question, simply falls back on "Aquinas says" or "Aquinas wrote." They seem to never step outside the Thomistic framework of understanding, which appears to obligate them to this "backward reading" hermeneutic. Seems deeply handicapping, even problematic.
Great discussion
so true
Man Fr Peter’s rebuttal at the end was marvelous to dr Bradshaw computer analogy was soo good
Thanks for hosting this very insightful discussion!
Great!
Awesome ❤✝️🙏🏼❤️🔥
1:09:11 bookmark
19:43 Bradshaw's article
32:21 Thomistic Ineffible Essence
59:18 Vladimir Lossky, student of Gilson
1:02:22 Eric Pearl's book
1:21:14 Simplicity as an activity
1:26:07 "God doesn't have a will with an act of willing."
Ack, I was really hoping that astrofire's question would be answered, namely: "Thomists and Palamites agree that [the] energy of deification is uncreated. But what about the effect of act? When creatures receive grace by energy of God, is it an uncreated effect?" That's a question I've had too, but haven't seen it answered. If the sun is like the essence and the energies are like the rays, and of course both are uncreated, what then is the warmth which is imparted by the ray? What about the sensation of warmth? Are these (the warmth and the sensation of warmth) created, or uncreated?
What a great discussion though.
The inner experience of man is created, but the act itself and the content of the act itself is not created, as God's goodness is not created. To put it into an alternative analogy - let's say a singer is eternally singing a song; you, at some point, receive/hear that singing. Your reception of the singing is created, because it begins at some point - so, the experience of starting to hear the song begins at particular time, - but the singing itself and its content are uncreated and eternal and you receive what the singer has been singing from eternity. You don't receive a different singing, or song, but that one he was singing all along.
So, in receiving the Grace, you receive God's goodness as it has always been for eternity. So, the energy is eternal and uncreated, but the subject that starts to experience it is temporal, thus the interaction itself has a beginning point, but only because man is temporal and begins receiving the Grace at some point; not because the Grace itself is created, or begins to exist at some point. It has always existed. So, the energy itself does not change, but rather the additional subject that starts participating in it is in time and space, thus in "taping into the energy", the effect is both created and uncreated, in so far as the Grace itself is eternal and uncreated, while the man who starts receiving it is created and begins to experience it at particular time.
The same way when the eternal Son of God began to manifest in created reality hypostatically(became incarnate), then it doesn't end up with us concluding that He is created; the same way that eternal and uncreated Grace begins manifesting in created reality, namely in man, then it doesn't end up being created.
I asked once an Orthodox bishop If he thinks that Love Is energy or the essence of God. He thought for a while and then Said: Both
Yes, I've heard Dr. Bradshaw explain that some 'energies' of God are necessary aspects of His nature and would exist even apart from creation, while others are contingent on creation and depend on God choosing to express them. An example of the former would be God's love, while an example of the latter would be the gifts of the Spirit.
Gosh the two actually seem closer than perhaps a lot of people (some of the online Eastern orthodox perhaps? 😉) who care to admit
The differences are all fake and manufactured
@@778FraxK
Could you give me a few key time stamps that you thought there was a difference that couldn't be reconciled?
They’re the same on this matter imo. Just different terms and perhaps emphases.
Not really, no.
Could the Eternal Now be a virtual distinction applied to time itself & thus thomism actually be compatible with Palamism when we understand God is outside time?
Idk how that addresses the issue of the names
@@esoterico7750
The eternal operations would be part of one moment and thus one movement or one operation themselves ergo they would be virtually one operation with no real distinction (I know Dr Bradshaw seems to be deny real distinction in the video but most online Orthodox like Dyer are quite adamant of a real distinction)
The distinctions in Palamas are real for practical purposes. An essence can be partaken by as many hypostases as they wish to partake of the same essence. God's essence is exclusively tri-hipostatic; else, any of us can become a Person of the Godhead. In that sense, if you equate actus purus with the divine processions, rather than the divine essence, you have a full compatibility with Thomism. Since in Palamas it's the Trinity that chooses to partake in the same essence.
As the essence is one, and the persons of the Trinity are eternally locked to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you have the immovable aspect in the processions, and the simple aspect in the essence, which retains a uncreated nature, and a same identity, that of the single essence.
So the question remains is how do people partake of God without becoming a Person of God, and those are the divine energies. Aquinas does have the same distinction than Palamas, but it isn't arranged in the same way, as he does say that grace is either an operation (i.e. energy) or a cooperation (i.e. synergy) depending on whether you have freewill.
Then what you'd have to debate is whether to pinpoint the Eternal Now as an attribute in the essence being acted upon (Aquinas) or an operation reflecting the essence (Palamas), and that depends on the viewpoint you are looking at that phenomenon. Palamas says that the Energies are a mirror of the Essence; while, Aquinas says that God operates as an agent of his essence. In both cases you have a instance of "What I do is in agreement with Who I Am", but from different perspectives: Aquinas from via positiva, and Palamas from via negativa.
If God is immaterial how can you see Him except through his creation and not in Himself?
Do we need to see Him?
This is exactly why Bradshaw argues that the Western perspective on God leads to secularism and agnosticism: it places God too far away from us, leading to the belief that we can never truly know God. The Essence-Energies Distinction seems to offer a model that doesn't have this issue.
I have no clue what it’s about by and large
Not to sound mean...Thomas Aquinas seems to be reinventing Christianity...you conform to the saints not the other way around. Especially the saints that are already established doctors of the Church prior to you.
That doesn't sound mean. It sounds silly. S. Thomas was a master of scripture and the Fathers.
54:30 What is a "uncreated photon"? For God sake, it is not a "photon", and yet it is the bodily eyes that see the light, Just like we see in scripture:
"And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there *shined round about him a light from heaven* [...] And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, *hearing a voice,* but seeing no man."
A light from heaven shine and Paul saw it his bodily eyes, which made them blind. While the other man didn't see anything. This is a mistery, God can manifest itself in the world while his essence remains unseen, incomprehensible, beyond being... that is what Chrysostom called his "condescension". It is not a created light/photon.
Really good point
Totleben's historical grasp - not to say anything about the theological and/or philosophical merits of his overall argument - of this topic is quite weak, admittedly.
Secondly, while his expertise in and subsequent grasp of Aquinas is observably strong (to be expected, since he is a Dominican), I cannot help but observe that he typically, like so many Papists/Thomists/Neo-Thomists, suffers from a self-restraining, limiting view of these matters and, as either a result of or catalyst to the question, simply falls back on "Aquinas says" or "Aquinas wrote." They seem to never step outside the Thomistic framework of understanding, which appears to obligate them to this "backward reading" hermeneutic. Seems deeply handicapping, even problematic.