God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors.That’s the shorthand view that a fairly knowledgeable (and formerly Reformed) Roman Catholic cited to me on a discussion board. But is the God of the universe, the “Covenant Lord,” our “jealous God” One who would wind up giving “His” authority to someone like Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI?
Calvin famously began his work, Institutes of the Christian Religion , with these words:
Nearly all the wisdom we posses, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves (1.1.1). … It is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and the descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself. For we always seem to ourselves righteous and upright and wise and holy—this pride is innate in all of us—unless by clear proofs we stand convinced of our own unrighteousness, foulness, folly, and impurity. Moreover, we are not thus convinced if we look merely to ourselves and not also to the Lord, who is the sole standard by which this judgment must be measured … So it happens in estimating our spiritual goods. As long as we do not look beyond the earth, being quite content with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue, we flatter ourselves most sweetly, and fancy ourselves all but demigods … As a consequence, we must infer that man is never sufficiently touched and affected by the awareness of his lowly state until he has compared himself with God’s majesty (1.1.2).Just as a personal note, I have handwritten in the margin of my copy of Institutes, “This is the main problem I see with the RCC.” The Roman Catholic Church does not truly consider its own state in comparison with God’s majesty. Oh, to be sure, they say plenty of good things about God.
Others have written about Aquinas and his “Platonism/Plotininianism/Dionysianism (the notion that there is a sort of chain of being in the universe on which God is at the top and we at the bottom and we climb it by grace and cooperation with grace).” Without going too deeply into this topic, we see that our old friend Pseudo-Dionysius (and his NeoPlatonism) made it into Aquinas’s theology in a big way. Pseudo-Dionysius is one of those works of fiction that was viewed as authentic during the Medieval era, and which subsequently was adopted virtually wholesale into Roman dogma. And there was no shortage of popes who waxed at length about how wonderfully close to God that they were.
More properly, the Reformers, following a Scriptural investigation of God, came to understand the absolute gulf between God and man.
Just to illustrate this, let’s look at a simple mental exercise. On one side of an equation, you have one. On the other side, you have infinity.
One / InfinityThat’s a pretty big gulf.
Then consider how you might, on the numerical side, come closer to “infinity”.
One / InfinityIn this “great chain of ratios,” do you ever, on the left hand side, come closer to reaching the limits of the right hand side? No, you can’t. This is a “category” error. And so is the “great chain of being” theology that posits God not as “wholly other,” but merely at the top of some kind of “great chain of being”.
Two / Infinity
Three / Infinity
Ten / Infinity
One Hundred / Infinity
One Thousand / Infinity
One Million / Infinity
The Roman Catholic Faith, with its emphasis on “the Church” as “the Ongoing Incarnation of Christ,” has succumbed to the error of those who tried to build the Tower of Babel. They said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:2-4). What a tragedy.
Here’s a selection from the works of A.A. Hodge that I have, for years, used as my personal signature on discussion boards:
And the sphere of a creature's knowledge, be it that of an infant, or of a man, or of a philosopher, or of a prophet, or of saint or archangel in heaven, will float as a point of light athwart the bosom of that God who is the infinite Abyss for ever; From A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, God-His Nature And Relation to the Universe, pg 16.In the first place in the Roman Catholic chain of succession, a misunderstanding of God and His nature are fundamental to its whole system of authority.
30 comments:
Well said!
Thanks Carrie :-)
I'm big on "starting at the beginning," and this seems to be it.
"More properly, the Reformers, following a Scriptural investigation of God, came to understand the absolute gulf between God and man."
But ironically, it is really the Neoplatonism that emphasizes, ultimately, the totally UNKNOWN character of its god ("divine darkness").
Like Steve Hays wrote about Palamian EO theology, that is so contaminated by Neoplatonic presuppositions:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-illusionism.html
"Orthodoxy also has a deep commitment to theological illusionism. We can see this in its dichotomy between the divine essence and the divine energies. God is said to be absolutely unknowable in his essence, yet he reveals himself in his energies.
But if that’s the case, then what do his energies reveal? Not his essence. Hence, God is essentially unlike his energies.
Orthodoxy prides itself on its Trinitarian theology. But is God really three persons? He may reveal himself as three persons, but that’s a manifestation of his energies, not his essence. Maybe he’s one person rather than three. Or maybe the Son is the fons deitas. For the energies are dissimilar to the essence.
We’re not just talking about the possibility that God’s energies may not correspond to his essence. Rather, if God is unknowable in his essence, then his energies don’t correspond to his essence.
His energies present an illusory revelation of God. Illusory persons. Illusory attributes. Virtual reality. What lies behind the mask?"
If you consider Neoplatonism to be a demonic deception (pagan NP thinkers were some of the most poisonous early enemies of Christianity), then it would make sense that it would deliver the very opposite of what it promised - instead of intimate communion with God, total alienation from Him.
Viisaus, your comment must have gotten stuck in Blogger's neoplatonic spam filter.
This is Viisaus's missing comment:
* * *
"More properly, the Reformers, following a Scriptural investigation of God, came to understand the absolute gulf between God and man."
But ironically, it is really the Neoplatonism that emphasizes, ultimately, the totally UNKNOWN character of its god ("divine darkness").
Like Steve Hays wrote about Palamian EO theology, that is so contaminated by Neoplatonic presuppositions:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-illusionism.html
"Orthodoxy also has a deep commitment to theological illusionism. We can see this in its dichotomy between the divine essence and the divine energies. God is said to be absolutely unknowable in his essence, yet he reveals himself in his energies.
But if that’s the case, then what do his energies reveal? Not his essence. Hence, God is essentially unlike his energies.
Orthodoxy prides itself on its Trinitarian theology. But is God really three persons? He may reveal himself as three persons, but that’s a manifestation of his energies, not his essence. Maybe he’s one person rather than three. Or maybe the Son is the fons deitas. For the energies are dissimilar to the essence.
We’re not just talking about the possibility that God’s energies may not correspond to his essence. Rather, if God is unknowable in his essence, then his energies don’t correspond to his essence.
His energies present an illusory revelation of God. Illusory persons. Illusory attributes. Virtual reality. What lies behind the mask?"
If you consider Neoplatonism to be a demonic deception (pagan NP thinkers were some of the most poisonous early enemies of Christianity), then it would make sense that it would deliver the very opposite of what it promised - instead of intimate communion with God, total alienation from Him.
And again, Catholic Encyclopedia writers A. Fortescue and S. Vailhé were ready to frankly point out the sinister implications of Neoplatonic theology - within EOdoxy, that is:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm
"There seems also to have been a strong element of the pantheism that so often accompanies mysticism in the fully developed Hesychast system. By contemplating the uncreated light one became united with God so intimately that one became absorbed in Him. This suspicion of pantheism (never very remote from neo-Platonic theories) is constantly insisted on by the opponents of the system."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm
"Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the "holy doctor" and "one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church", and his writings were proclaimed "the infallible guide of the Christian Faith". Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism."
"The Roman Catholic Faith, with its emphasis on “the Church” as “the Ongoing Incarnation of Christ,” has succumbed to the error of those who tried to build the Tower of Babel."
That's an interesting comparison, John.
I don't think Roman Catholics would appreciate it though.
That's an interesting comparison, John. I don't think Roman Catholics would appreciate it though.
And alas, I appreciate so little of what they teach ...
Those ziggurat-towers of ancient Babylonia (epigons of the original great tower) reflected the pagan evolutionist theology of EVOLVING towards divinity, step by step - the literal "stairway to heaven":
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/03/genesis-4-10-intent-of-heart-of-man-in.html
"Building a great ziggurat that would be dedicated to the worship of themselves in the form of the heavenly bodies, they would claim the right to ascent to the divine order 10:
“This sacred mountain or tower is the meeting-place of heaven and earth, where communication is established between heaven, earth, and hell. It “is situated at the center of the world. Every temple, or palace-and, by extension, every sacred city or royal residence-is a Sacred Mountain, thus becoming a Center.” True social order requires peace and communication with both chaos and deity, and society either moves downward into chaos or forward into deification. The significance of the Tower of Babel is thus apparent: it denied the discontinuity of God’s being and asserted man’s claim to a continuity of being with God and heaven. The Tower was the gate to God and the gate of God, signifying that man’s social order made possible an ascent of being into the divine order.”11
Believing in their ability to become gods, they asserted the Continuity of Being.12 "
So we could justifiably say that all doctrines that teach us to evolve our way to salvation (one way or another) are a part of the "Mystery Babylon."
Other interesting comments:
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/03/christ-assault-and-triumph-over.html
"All the Christological heresies of the early church were a return to the “sliding scale” concept of the Continuity of Being.
The Gnostic Jesus was without a human nature and taught that man can be saved by ascending into the Fullness of Being through esoteric knowledge. The Arian Christ wasn’t of the same being as the Father who was seen as too transcendent to be in the world, and thus, reconciliation was through a hierarchy of beings. The Nestorian Christ was comprised of two “persons” in the one man, and thus, the death of Christ was seen as the death of the human person, not the divine, which limited propitiatory power of the atonement. It was no wonder that Nestorius himself was a friend of the Pelagians who believed that man was to save himself solely through his good works. In the Apollinarian Christ, the divine nature overtook and destroyed the human. With this Christology, how could Christ atone for humanity’s sins? The Monophysite Christ was similar in that Christ only had one nature, the divine. The Monothelite Christ had only one will, the divine, and with this Christology, how could Christ relate to our infirmities as our perfect High Priest (Hebrews 4:15-5:10)?"
"7 Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are a combination of Christianity and pagan religious/philosophical thought and, as a result, represent a return to the Continuity of Being. Their belief in added mediators of priests, saints, angels, and Mary between man and Jesus brings back the chain of being concept. Their veneration of images and icons re-divinize the material world and end up confounding the Creator and the created-order (though they still profess analogy)."
And I have myself only lately discovered that it really is no slander to accuse RCs of "idolatry," or at least of tolerating idolatry in their midst.
For it was been taught by some prestigious RC "doctors of the church" that one should indeed offer the worship of LATRIA to certain kind of images (although not to of all them). And although the Council of Trent did not specifically taught this pernicious doctrine, it DID NOT REPUDIATE IT EITHER. Which means that it's perfectly permissible option for RCs to follow!
See for yourself, from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum476.htm
# Whether the image of Christ should be adored with the adoration of "latria"? #
"Consequently the same reverence should be shown to Christ's image as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is adored with the adoration of "latria," it follows that His image should be adored with the adoration of "latria.""
...
# Whether Christ's cross should be worshipped with the adoration of "latria"? #
"And for this reason also we speak to the cross and pray to it, as to the Crucified Himself. But if we speak of the effigy of Christ's cross in any other material whatever---for instance, in stone or wood, silver or gold---thus we venerate the cross merely as Christ's image, which we worship with the adoration of "latria," as stated above (A[3])."
Viisaus, you are on a roll today!
Thanks for providing so many real-life examples for something that I just alluded to in my comments.
Thanks, J.B., I am doing my best.
Here you will find multiple pages of documented proof, drawn from post-Tridentine RC teachers, that RCs are indeed permitted to offer divine worship of LATRIA to various material objects:
"Letters on some of the errors of Romanism, in controversy with N. Wiseman" (1851), by William Patrick Palmer
pp. 114-139
http://www.archive.org/stream/lettersonsomeer00palmgoog#page/n150/mode/2up
"Now, Sir, according to the doctrine of your most eminent theologians, approved by the Roman Church, and never censured or condemned, Latria or Divine worship is due to the following creatures: —
(1) Images of Christ; (2) Images of the Trinity; (3) Images of God the Father; (4) Relics of the blood of Christ; (6) Relics of His nails; (6) Relics of His hair; (7) of His flesh; (8) of the tree Cross; (9) of the nails which fastened Him to it; (10) of the spear; (11) of the scourge; (12) of the reed; (13) of the sponge; (14) of the napkin of Veronica; (15) of the linen cloth in which our Lord was wound; (16) of the coat without seam; (17) of the purple robe; (18) of the pillar to which He was bound when He was scourged; (19) of the inscription on the Cross; (20) Images of the true Cross of any material, such as wood, metal, or ivory; (21) The blessed Virgin, and her images and relics.
To all these created objects, LATRIA, OR THE HONOUR DUE TO GOD ONLY, IS FORMALLY, EXPRESSLY, AND PROFESSEDLY PAID IN THE ROMAN COMMUNION, AND WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST CENSURE."
I enjoyed reading your new article this morning. (and Viisaus' contributions)
Indeed, that is the emphasis of the RCC – some kind of human institution here on earth ( like the Tower of Babel), that claims to be good and has the audacity to claim infallibility. When I read the Wikipedia articles about Alexander VI and the Borgia popes and the links to the other sinful popes, . . . Well . . .
The Genesis 11 reference should be Genesis 11:2-4 ( not Genesis 11:24.) (smile)
The Gnostic parallels (secret unwritten traditions and intermediaries) and Neo-Plantonic parallels, Pelagian tendencies, semi-pelagianism, physical emphasis, relics, mediators, statues, baptismal regeneration, ex opere operato rituals, etc. seem to point to the root of the RCC as clinging to "the elementary principles of this world" (Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20-23; Galatians 4:9) and not to Christ Himself.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. "
Colossians 2:8
Colossians 2:20-23 -
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"
22(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.
Galatians 4:9 -
9But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Thanks Ken, I've fixed the Genesis reference :-)
Like I said, even I myself was not aware of this particular big skeleton in the Romanist closet until recently.
Late-medieval RC scholasticism really did go even much further in image-worship than the 787 AD 2nd Council of Nicaea, which "merely" permitted people to offer the worship of PROSKYNESIS to icons. For according to Aquinas and many others, the images of Christ (which concept could be very loosely interpreted, all crosses for example counting as "images of Christ") were to be objects of LATRIA.
The logic seems to have been that whatever objects that ever could have supposed to have been in physical contact with Christ (even the most spurious relics imaginable) were fair game for Latria!
Aquinas's only real line of discretion seems to have been that living persons (as verus lifeless objects) could not be worshipped as "images of Christ" - not even Mary. But this corrupt line of logic did not stop there, and some followers of Aquinas crossed even this last line:
http://www.archive.org/stream/lettersonsomeer00palmgoog#page/n156/mode/2up
p. 121
"It might be naturally imagined that if the Cross was to be adored with Latria on account of its contact with Christ, other objects might be regarded as entitled to the same worship. And here of course the blessed Virgin will at once occur to the mind. Accordingly we find that there are various theologians who are of opinion that THE VIRGIN IS ENTITLED TO LATRIA. Cabrera shall speak on this very important point.
"Whether, by reason of her contact with the body of Christ and the consanguinity which she had with Christ, she may be in some way adored with Latria, has not been defined by the Church, but is a matter of controversy amongst theologians.
...
And finally the logic of Aquinas would seem to collapse into full pantheism or panentheism - the whole universe, or mankind, or all Christians could in some sense be seen as "the body of Christ" or "image of Christ", and thus be worshipped with divine honours!
Thus simple reason would say that as long as RCs, and especially their Magisterial authorities, do not explicitly denounce and deny the Scholastic doctrine that "images of Christ" can be adored with Latria, we have a full right to mock and condemn them as idolaters, or at least as people who are aiding and abetting, or tolerating and pandering to idolatry.
And finally the logic of Aquinas would seem to collapse into full pantheism or panentheism - the whole universe, or mankind, or all Christians could in some sense be seen as "the body of Christ" or "image of Christ", and thus be worshipped with divine honours!
Thanks for completing this loop for me Viisaus - this is a clear tie-in with some of the Ratzinger-and-pantheism things that I'd posted in the past.
Palmer explained with admirable clarity the practical consequences of this doctrine to those moderate, sober-minded RCs who might not themselves feel great urge to adore the images of Christ with Latria.
(And this issue has not disappeared anywhere, no matter how greatly modern RCC might sweep it under the carpet.)
pp. 135-136, 137
http://www.archive.org/stream/lettersonsomeer00palmgoog#page/n172/mode/2up
"From what has been said, it follows necessarily that YOU CANNOT WARN YOUR PEOPLE against offering relative Latria, or Divine honours, to the images and relics which I have mentioned, AS AGAINST A SIN! For in the first place, the Council of Trent has not made any decision against the practice.
...
And fifthly, if you were to admit that those who have taught that Latria is due to certain Images and Relics were in serious error, what would become of the Infallibility of your Church? How could an infallible Pope or infallible Councils have permitted errors on this point to remain for so many ages uncondemned? No! you dare not admit that error on so vital a point has existed uncondemned in your Church; and hence it is plain that you cannot by any possibility teach your people that the above-mentioned idolatrous worship of images and relics is a sin! You are, on the contrary, obliged to admit to them that it is perfectly lawful! To do otherwise would be to condemn the Church of Rome — to deny her infallibility!
...
It is true, that some of your writers argue against it: but none of them venture to condemn it; or to say that it is sinful; or that it is in any degree idolatrous. It forms no subject of confession: no penitent can be questioned on the point: no one can be put to penance for offering Divine honours to created objects."
pp. 138-139
http://www.archive.org/stream/lettersonsomeer00palmgoog#page/n174/mode/2up
"Secondly, from what has been said, we cannot doubt the necessity of the Reformation. If the only result of that movement had been to expel from amongst us the doctrines of the schoolmen on the worship of images and relics, and to enable us to oppose an effectual and open resistance to those doctrines by pronouncing them sinful and idolatrous, an INCALCULABLE benefit would have been obtained — a benefit which was more than sufficient to counterbalance numerous evils and disadvantages.
Thirdly, we may learn to judge more fairly of the Reformers. Educated in the midst of a system deeply tinged with idolatry, both in doctrine and practice, they understood by experience, and saw in all its unveiled deformity, what we can only learn imperfectly from scarce and ancient writings, or from modern compositions, in which the utmost care is taken to conceal the real state of things. Their language and their actions, therefore, may appear exaggerated or uncharitable, when the fault lies rather in our own ignorance or credulity.
...
Fourthly, we can sympathize with the feelings and principles of Bishop Jewell and other English Reformers, who were jealous of the use of images, lights, crucifixes, and certain ceremonies connected more or less, in their own minds, with idolatrous practices. Certainly the Cross and the images of our Lord had been worshipped with idolatrous honours; and we cannot therefore wonder at the indignation which was sometimes expressed on matters which we, in our ignorance of the fearful abuses connected with them, may regard as innocent, lawful, or even pious and venerable."
The comments are good.
But it strikes me that you all, being modern people (and sons of Japheth, as the facts are) fail to notice that the problem is making theology a matter of philosophy. In this pit, regrettably, Calvinists tend to fall too often; but none more than the Roman Catholics, who have made theology a subset of philosophy (Ite ad Thomam!).
1 Cor 1 is still here, and it still pertinent. God will not be found by philosophy (for then He would not be the one who says of the children "Unless you become like one of these ...")
Most Westerners today (nearly all, Protestants included) have created an idol of a logical expression and they worship it. The reason for the surge of New Atheism has been to purge out those who live by (logical) sight, and not by faith.
Let God be true and every man a liar. El-i-Yah; whoever does not agree with the offensive plain-ness of such a truth can go and hang. God will not bow to anybody's prevailing proclivities for the logically-consistent (this, moreover, being Aristotelian logic; the same disputers the 1st century faith was contending with; we use these pagans' names on God - Prime Mover - and we still do not yet see the poisoning we have taken).
And as for Viisaus, sometimes you find the strangest quotes of the strangest natures, but which speak so clearly (especially because they use such quaint, passé language). This recent one, in particular, is very interesting.
Viisaus,
Thanks for the references to EO theology on neoplatonism and Roman theology on the unholy marriage of worship and images.
Regarding your last comment and what the Reformers were up against, as well as that it has largely been forgotten or ignored, Romanist Carlos Eire's War Against Idols, The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge, 1986) is quite interesting.
Eire admits that iconoclasm or the destruction of idols and images was quite a large part of the Reformation, in that Europe was blanketed with shrines, churches and cathedrals full to overflowing with relics, statues, crosses, crucifixes and images.
Now the long wait for an honest bookreview over at Called to Transubstantiated Communion. But only after Acquinas's remarks have been suitably laundered, of course.
And they wonder why they have no credibility.
cordially,
Bob S.
"But only after Acquinas's remarks have been suitably laundered, of course."
It was indeed startling for me to see Thomas Aquinas, the poster-boy of rational theology, legitimizing idolatry in a calm and formal manner.
Aquinas was not any frenzied enthusiast - the sort of ill-educated Romanist we commonly associate with crude image-worship with a feeling of condescending pity and/or contempt. He was probably a much smarter person than either of us, but this did not protect him from idolatrous sentiments.
His position that "the images and cross of Christ are to be worshipped with Latria" was a product of SYSTEMATIC LOGIC and not due to any arbitrary superstition or emotionalism.
He simply started with rotten premises and developed them ever-so-logically to even worse conclusions. And his later followers went still further, some of them defending things that even Aquinas could not stomach, like that Virgin Mary "may be in some way adored with Latria" (as Cabrera puts it above).
Viisaus,
It's very clear that you have very little grasp of Eastern Orthodox theology, and particularly the Palamite distinction between essence and energies. You know some of the terms, and a bit about what people have said here and there, and you know enough to fool others into believing you know what you're talking about (maybe you believe it too, since you seemed to enjoy the congratulations from others). But you don't know it enough to really be attempting to explain it to others. You're challenge things that Palamas himself would surely have argued against, yet you attribute them to him.
Whatever the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about Palamas is removed from the Orthodox viewpoint. The Roman Catholics, as you point out, see Palamas and hesychasm as problematic. However, using the Roman Catholic lens, Palamas and hesychasm cannot be properly understood. Many Orthodox do not properly understand Palamas, and even among those who do, there are differences of opinion about how to best explain him (though nobody in Orthodoxy holds the positions described by you or by the Catholic encyclopedia).
The notion from the Catholic encyclopedia that Palamas held that one can experience a sensory vision of the divine energies is not accurate. Palamas himself said "This light without beginning or end is neither sensible nor intelligible, in the proper sense. It is spiritual and divine, distinct from all creatures in its transcendence; and what is neither sensible nor intelligible does not fall within the scope of the senses as such, nor of the intellectual faculty considered in itself. This spiritual light is thus not only the object of vision, but it is also the power by which we see; it is neither a sensation nor an intellection, but is a spiritual power, distinct from all created cognitive faculties in its transcendence, *and made present by grace* in rational natures which have been purified." (emphasis mine) and he goes on a little later "it is a divinising energy which is in no way separate from the energising Spirit." He also later says "Do you not see that these divine energies are in God, and remain invisible to the created faculties? Yet the saints see them, because they have transcended themselves with the help of the Spirit. ... they see with a sense that exceeds the senses, and with a mind that exceeds mind, for the power of the spirit penetrates their human faculties, and allows them to see things which are beyond us. In speaking of a vision through the senses, then, we must add that this transcends the senses ..."
The suggestions of pantheism or polytheism are particularly rich balderdash.
Palamasm is, quite specifically, the final and most decisive step in a lengthy process in Byzantium (via Maximus the Confessor, in particular, but also via John of Damascus and Symeon the New Theologian) of finding the language that once for all defeats platonism and other attempts of philosophical usurpation of revelation in the Hellenic mind, and of acquitting many earlier writers (including Pseudo-Dionysius) from platonist charges (one could argue that P-D was neoplatonic, but one cannot make that argument when P-D is read according to the interpretation of Palamas or of Maximus the Confessor, which is to say, according to the Orthodox interpretation. In other words, the fact that some people have read an author one way does not mean that this is the only way to read that author, and in this case, it does not mean that is the Orthodox way to read the author). One of Palamas' opponents, Barlaam the Calabrian, exemplified the platonist position in their debates, leaning heavily on notions of the "divine darkness," which is not really the same thing as Orthodox apophaticism, at least in this case. A couple of the things you've said above (by claiming that the Orthodox hold that there is a dissimilarity between God's essence and energies) resemble charges that Barlaam held, which Palamas refuted.
The energies, according to Palamas, are not separate or separable or dissimilar from the essence. They are the energies of the essence. In many instances, Palamas calls them "natural and essential energies," meaning the energies are integral to the essence to which they belong. "For one would search in vain for a natural essence without energy," Palamas says. "How is it possible for the deifying light not to bear the Master's characteristics?" In other words, Palamas says elsewhere, after referencing some earlier fathers, "the natural energy is the power which manifests every essence, and only nonbeing is deprived of this power; for the being which participates in an essence will also surely participate in the power which naturally manifests that essence. But since *God is entirely present in each of the divine energies* we name Him from each of them, although it is clear that He transcends all of them. For, given the multitude of divine energies, how could each provide Him with a name and manifest Him entirely, thanks to indivisible and supernatural simplicity, if He did not transcend all these energies?" (emphasis mine)
Palamas did not really say anything that was not in accord with earlier theologians like Irenaeus or Athanasius or in the Macarian homilies (one of his clearest influences), he just explained them with a particular clarity and emphasis.
And the suggestion that the essence/energies distinction in Orthodox theology somehow might undermine the doctrine of the Trinity is also a revelation of an (extremely) poor understanding of how Orthodox theology explains these things. The three persons are not seen as examples of God's energies. They are eternal hypostases of the same essence. As such, they share the same energies as well because the energies are energies of a single essence.
Also, Orthodox theology rejects any notion of a chain of being that naturally connects God and creation (only the incarnation of the Word as man provides such a connection). One of the firmest ontological certainties in Orthodox theology is the division between the uncreated and the created, and the perennial dependence of every created thing on God for the continuation of its existence. Without God's upholding, created things would slip into the nonbeing from which they came. And, no, this is not not analogous to some sort of "return to the One" at all.
My explanations here are only cursory and rushed, so do not suppose they amount to anything close to a complete exposition. They're mainly just to demonstrate that if you wish to critique a theological position, at least do the homework required to truly know your opponent so that you can attempt to critique a position that he or she actually holds.
I won't be responding to any response from you or others, unless somehow I see in your words some indication that I was wrong about your (or their) ignorance about Orthodox theology. Otherwise, we'd just be wasting our time in useless debate. I am not trying to persuade you to adopt the Orthodox position, only perhaps to realize that you are not at all well-versed in it. Your expressed viewpoints do not even rise to the level of caricature, because caricatures at least bear some resemblance to the facts connected with their subjects. This comment was merely to suggest to other readers that you are blowing a lot of smoke, at least when talking about EO, and that if they want a better understanding they'll have to look elsewhere.
Hi All,
What do you think of Dr. Francis Beckwith's article on Apostolic Succession and Constantine's comment in the thread below?
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/apostolic-succession.html
Mome, welcome to Beggars All. I for one will freely admit I'm not deep into Eastern Orthodoxy, and I don't think Viisaus was trying to present himself as an expert on orthodoxy.
Some of the disjunction you see is not even his own -- it is from the "Catholic Encyclopedia". So you've got bigger fish to fry at any rate.
Hi Truth -- I did briefly see Beckwith's article, and also Constantine's response, though I haven't had a chance to look at it closely.
Post a Comment