OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 07:25:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Grace(s) would the IC Confer?  (Read 8584 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« on: September 22, 2010, 05:20:29 PM »

This topic seems to come up a lot on several threads, one of which, already very long, I took this:

Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?

Another, the issue of interpreting "full of grace" as scriptural proof of the IC (cited by the "infallible" statement of the IC), has come up here:

And furthermore, the way in which I interpreted some passages by St. Jacob of Serugh (a non-Chalcedonian saint) seemed to fortify my beliefs that words like "immaculate" or "pure" or "undefiled" speak of her actions, not necessarily of her soul.  I will share these words with you, in which Marduk interpreted them differently as a "second purification," which I find very confusing to understand personally.
I don’t believe I ever used the words “second purification.” I think that was your interpretation of what I stated. I may have used it (it’s been so long ago), but if I did, I would never have intended it to mean that the first purification was exactly like the second purification. As explained in previous posts, the Holy Spirit gives different Graces, and the Grace received by Mary at her conception is different than other Graces she received later in life.

That sort of negates the "full of grace" argument of your "infallible" statement of the 'singular" grace of the IC:
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.

Since grace is a He, not an it, the energies of God, which are one in essence and undivided, it seems a claim of "full of grace" and "all graces" can only be a relative statement, as the Holy Theotokos never becomes one in essence with her Son, despite what Kolbe and Miravelli teach.  Hence, no necessity of the IC are implied in those phrases that excempts the Holy Theotokos from the general curse.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2010, 05:35:36 PM »

This topic seems to come up a lot on several threads, one of which, already very long, I took this:

Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?
I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?

Another, the issue of interpreting "full of grace" as scriptural proof of the IC (cited by the "infallible" statement of the IC), has come up here:

And furthermore, the way in which I interpreted some passages by St. Jacob of Serugh (a non-Chalcedonian saint) seemed to fortify my beliefs that words like "immaculate" or "pure" or "undefiled" speak of her actions, not necessarily of her soul.  I will share these words with you, in which Marduk interpreted them differently as a "second purification," which I find very confusing to understand personally.
I don’t believe I ever used the words “second purification.” I think that was your interpretation of what I stated. I may have used it (it’s been so long ago), but if I did, I would never have intended it to mean that the first purification was exactly like the second purification. As explained in previous posts, the Holy Spirit gives different Graces, and the Grace received by Mary at her conception is different than other Graces she received later in life.

That sort of negates the "full of grace" argument of your "infallible" statement of the 'singular" grace of the IC:
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.

Since grace is a He, not an it, the energies of God, which are one in essence and undivided, it seems a claim of "full of grace" and "all graces" can only be a relative statement, as the Holy Theotokos never becomes one in essence with her Son, despite what Kolbe and Miravelli teach.  Hence, no necessity of the IC are implied in those phrases that excempts the Holy Theotokos from the general curse.

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

M.

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2010, 06:36:11 PM »


None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.


Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2010, 06:38:50 PM »


None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.


Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?
Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2010, 06:46:43 PM »


None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.


Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2010, 06:51:38 PM »


Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?

I know that there are quarrels betwen the Catholics and the Orthodox about the meaning of those terms, and I must admit that the details have fallen out of my brain.

So, if you will allow me, I shall fall back on Lossky again.... in his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

"...the Latins might express the mystery of the Trinity by starting from one essence in order to arrive at the three persons … the Greeks [preferred] the concrete as their starting point ( that is to say the three hypostases), seeing in them the one nature."

According to Lossky the Trinity,

"...is not a nature or an essence nor is it a person; it is something which transcends all notions both of nature and of person..."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2010, 06:55:20 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2010, 06:56:12 PM »


Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?

I know that there are quarrels betwen the Catholics and the Orthodox about the meaning of those terms, and I must admit that the details have fallen out of my brain.

So, if you will allow me, I shall fall back on Lossky again.... in his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

"...the Latins might express the mystery of the Trinity by starting from one essence in order to arrive at the three persons … the Greeks [preferred] the concrete as their starting point ( that is to say the three hypostases), seeing in them the one nature."

According to Lossky the Trinity,

"...is not a nature or an essence nor is it a person; it is something which transcends all notions both of nature and of person..."
Seems like nature and essence are grouped together as synonyms but I could be wrong.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2010, 06:56:53 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 06:57:07 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2010, 07:05:33 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2010, 07:07:02 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.
Definitely a complicated topic.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2010, 07:08:19 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.
Also one of the reasons that I think that Gregory Palamas may have gone too far.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2010, 07:18:59 PM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

Yes, There are not two uncreated things in existence -God and the Energies.  There is only One God who is uncreated and all that is uncreated is Him.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2010, 07:23:11 PM »

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.


As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2010, 07:24:45 PM »

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.


As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.
So Energies = Him then? Thanks.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2010, 07:33:17 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 22, 2010, 07:39:39 PM »

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.


As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.

Ah!!  The joys of language!!

A BUNDLE

A Bundle of Joy!!  An uncreated BUNDLE of Joy!!

Is HE a bundle?

Or is IT a bundle?

Are THEY multiple BUNDLES in one MEGA-BUNDLE?

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 22, 2010, 07:41:20 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2010, 07:55:40 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2010, 08:05:10 PM »

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2010, 08:11:23 PM »

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?

Not really. no.  That means - I have forgotten if there is any answer to what you are asking about, or I never knew any answer in the first place.  I suspect it is probably the former and we can try to ferret out some small information about the actuality of God.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2010, 08:19:50 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2010, 08:28:10 PM »

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?

Not really. no.  That means - I have forgotten if there is any answer to what you are asking about, or I never knew any answer in the first place.  I suspect it is probably the former and we can try to ferret out some small information about the actuality of God.
Father, what do you mean by actuality? Are you talking about potentiality vs. actuality?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2010, 08:28:40 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley
Is that how you see the Trinity?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2010, 08:31:17 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?

Can you get me some documentation that Orthodoxy teaches that "God is BEYOND God"

That is quite a statement if you think about it.  Much like the Wizard of Oz....

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"

Besides....Lossky would not entirely agree and certainly does not phrase it that way.

I don't think that Eastern Catholics feel constrained to take St. Gregory's teaching on energies as the ONLY way to express what the teaching on energies are designed to express.

However their spiritual lives, in so far as they retain the eastern hours and liturgies as part of their spiritual lives, or recover it as it may be the case from family to family, are very much distanced from a more western approach to grace.

However there are saints and doctors in the Catholic Church who are also far closer to St. Gregory and the fathers before him with reference to the Prayer of Union, or the Way of Union as Lossky calls it.  

One of Lossky's weaknesses was that he failed to take all that into account in his critique of the west.  I don't fault him for that but I don't get trapped in his critique of the west either.  You can take that or leave it.  Makes no difference to me.

Mary

Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2010, 08:32:42 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?

Can you get me some documentation that Orthodoxy teaches that "God is BEYOND God"

That is quite a statement if you think about it.  Much like the Wizard of Oz....

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"

Besides....Lossky would not entirely agree and certainly does not phrase it that way.

I don't think that Eastern Catholics feel constrained to take St. Gregory's teaching on energies as the ONLY way to express what the teaching on energies are designed to express.

However their spiritual lives, in so far as they retain the eastern hours and liturgies as part of their spiritual lives, or recover it as it may be the case from family to family, are very much distanced from a more western approach to grace.

However there are saints and doctors in the Catholic Church who are also far closer to St. Gregory and the fathers before him with reference to the Prayer of Union, or the Way of Union as Lossky calls it.  

One of Lossky's weaknesses was that he failed to take all that into account in his critique of the west.  I don't fault him for that but I don't get trapped in his critique of the west either.  You can take that or leave it.  Makes no difference to me.

Mary


Did he compeletely miss Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2010, 08:33:07 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2010, 08:34:00 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2010, 08:34:41 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2010, 08:37:18 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2010, 08:49:36 PM »

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh
Subjectively being able to identify a person by aprehending his actions, is different fromt the identity person=action. The word "Identity" is being used differently in the two situations.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 08:53:20 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2010, 08:50:47 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 22, 2010, 08:51:52 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: September 22, 2010, 08:54:47 PM »

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 22, 2010, 09:02:53 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 22, 2010, 09:03:38 PM »

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

LOL...what is the purpose of God?
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 22, 2010, 09:06:30 PM »

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

duplicate response..
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 09:07:45 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2010, 09:08:30 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

No more than a person's mind and their actions are two tracks.
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #38 on: September 22, 2010, 09:11:31 PM »

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

Creation reflects God's energies, I think that would be a more accurate way of saying it. Some examples of God's energies are Wisdom, Love, Grace, Truth, Beauty, Light, Good, Life, Joy, Hope, Judgment, and Forgiveness. What was purpose of these things before creation?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 09:11:55 PM by bogdan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2010, 09:18:52 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

No more than a person's mind and their actions are two tracks.

Essence=Mind

Energies=Acts

Can you get me some reference for this from Palamas or Lossky...anyone who may speak for universal Orthodoxy maybe?

M.
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #40 on: September 22, 2010, 09:19:28 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2010, 09:22:45 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.

Yes.  This was my precise point earlier when I said you cannot define the Energies by what they do.  That is modalism because the Energies ARE one with the Essence.  So as I said, Trinitarian Theology is a tad more subtle than that.

M.
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2010, 09:29:15 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  laugh

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.

Yes.  This was my precise point earlier when I said you cannot define the Energies by what they do.  That is modalism because the Energies ARE one with the Essence.  So as I said, Trinitarian Theology is a tad more subtle than that.

M.

I see what you mean. I think we were talking past each other, or perhaps I misunderstood you.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2010, 09:34:51 PM »

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?
That has always been my biggest concern about the essence/energies distinction. They speak of two Trinities. One eternal, the other economic.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2010, 09:36:11 PM »

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.
It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

LOL...what is the purpose of God?

Is an Eastern Catholic really and seriously asking these questions? 
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #45 on: September 22, 2010, 09:37:55 PM »

LOL...what is the purpose of God?
I guess what I am trying to say is that concept of the essence/energies distinction does not seem to come from God himself, but from us trying to solve a philosophical problem.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 22, 2010, 09:42:08 PM »


I see what you mean. I think we were talking past each other, or perhaps I misunderstood you.

Wonderful news!!  Smiley 

I do think we were passing in the night for a moment but I am glad that our thinking coincides on this point!!

Makes continuing the discussion more pleasant...maybe even more possible.   Smiley

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: September 22, 2010, 09:42:43 PM »

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?
That has always been my biggest concern about the essence/energies distinction. They speak of two Trinities. One eternal, the other economic.

In connection with Papist's concern may I ask you, Mary, if Eastern Catholicism has left behind the Eastern teaching on Essence and Energies?  Has it found it untenable in light of Roman Catholic theology (simplicitas Dei) and adopted the same. In light of what you are saying here I have the feeling that you have?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 22, 2010, 09:43:15 PM »

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation.

No, that's not the case. They do certainly interact with Creation. But that is not their primordial function.

What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 22, 2010, 09:44:18 PM »

LOL...what is the purpose of God?
I guess what I am trying to say is that concept of the essence/energies distinction does not seem to come from God himself, but from us trying to solve a philosophical problem.

Oh my goodness!!

It addresses far more than a philosophical issue.

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 22, 2010, 09:44:30 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your language "running on parallel tracks"?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2010, 09:46:27 PM »

Energies=Acts

I suspect that the nature of the Energies is more complicated than that, but I haven't yet gotten a straightforward answer to correct that definition.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2010, 09:46:59 PM »

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation.

No, that's not the case. They do certainly interact with Creation. But that is not their primordial function.

What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.

Father Source

But are these agreed upon as Energies or are they the very "essence" of the Trinitarian Hypostases?..if you will permit that language.

And it is generally agreed that Energies are not Hypostases is it not?
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2010, 09:48:36 PM »

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?
That has always been my biggest concern about the essence/energies distinction. They speak of two Trinities. One eternal, the other economic.

I don't think that it would be accurate to describe the Energies of God as economic, strictly speaking.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #54 on: September 22, 2010, 09:48:49 PM »

Oh my goodness!!
It addresses far more than a philosophical issue.
It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.
M.
Not really. God can simply will that we not be destroyed while we particpate in his life withouth there being a distinction between his essence and his energies. Your explanation of his energies concerns me further because it seems to make his energies into something less than his essence, and if that is the case, then we are talking about ditheism here.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: September 22, 2010, 09:50:09 PM »

I don't think that it would be accurate to describe the Energies of God as economic, strictly speaking.
I have heard this description from EOs on this very board on several occassions, though that was probably years ago.

The best explanation that I have ever heard of the Energies, is that God is infinite, and pours out even beyond the concept of essence.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 22, 2010, 09:51:52 PM »

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!  Grin

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #57 on: September 22, 2010, 09:52:16 PM »

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.
So the Son and the Holy Spirit are energetic but not essential? Then is not of God's nature to be Trinitarian? See how many dangerous places a radical distinction between God's essence and his energies leads us?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 22, 2010, 09:52:37 PM »

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   Smiley

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your language "running on parallel tracks"?

Let's leave this for the moment.  I am probing.  So if I find a better way of probing for this particular issue, it will come more clear, ok?

I am trying to keep it simple and plain rather than resorting to typing in tons of text from Lossky or Palamas or others....that's all...at least for the moment.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #59 on: September 22, 2010, 09:53:05 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: September 22, 2010, 09:54:42 PM »

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!  Grin

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

Oh...Well I understand Thomas because as we've already noted here several times....

The Essence and Energies are One

There is little except the protestations of young Orthodox men writing theses, that separate St. Thomas from St. Gregory.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #61 on: September 22, 2010, 09:56:13 PM »

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!  Grin

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.

Oh...Well I understand Thomas because as we've already noted here several times....

The Essence and Energies are One

There is little except the protestations of young Orthodox men writing theses, that separate St. Thomas from St. Gregory.

M.
Oh you see the essence and energies as one. Ok, then I am with you here and I agree with what you have said. Sorry, sometimes it's difficult to translate back and forth between Western and Eastern theological language.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 22, 2010, 09:56:59 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #63 on: September 22, 2010, 09:58:09 PM »

Father Source

Huh

But are these agreed upon as Energies or are they the very "essence" of the Trinitarian Hypostases?..if you will permit that language.

I don't know if it's agreed upon. I have heard the theory a few times, but not many.

No, they are not "the Essence" of the hypostases. You cannot suggest that the Filiation is part of the Essence of Son or else He technically winds up having a slightly different Essence from the Father. Everything that is the Essence of the Son must be exactly the same as the Essence of the Father.

There are basically three different concepts that are relevant to understanding the Son and the Spirit, those being Hypostasis, Essence, and Energy. Energy is what causes them to be. Essence is what they inherit as their substance of being (as well as the Energies pertaining to it). Hypostasis is what they are (as the Son is not the Father who is not the Spirit who is not the Son).

And it is generally agreed that Energies are not Hypostases is it not?

Yep. In discussing the Trinity, Energy, Essence, and Hypostasis are all realities distinct from each other.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #64 on: September 22, 2010, 09:58:55 PM »

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity.
Essence and Energies are One
St. Gregory insists on it.
M.
I agree with you. Can you provide some sources on the idea that Gregory Palamas insists that the essence and energies are one?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #65 on: September 22, 2010, 10:00:35 PM »

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!  Grin

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.


Yes, exactly. In Orthodox theology it is impossible to participate in the Essence of God, because that is God's God-ness and is utterly transcendent.

That is why I used the initial example of a human person, because a person's internal life is utterly transcendent to all other people. No person can enter into another person's inner life. God's essence, his "inner life" so to speak, is inaccessible also.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: September 22, 2010, 10:01:28 PM »

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.
So the Son and the Holy Spirit are energetic but not essential? Then is not of God's nature to be Trinitarian? See how many dangerous places a radical distinction between God's essence and his energies leads us?

Just because the Son and the Spirit are caused to come into being by Energies does not mean that they are not Essential.

Even the Creation was caused to come into being by Energies, but what they actually came into being from was nothing.

And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: September 22, 2010, 10:02:18 PM »

Father Source

Huh

But are these agreed upon as Energies or are they the very "essence" of the Trinitarian Hypostases?..if you will permit that language.

I don't know if it's agreed upon. I have heard the theory a few times, but not many.

No, they are not "the Essence" of the hypostases. You cannot suggest that the Filiation is part of the Essence of Son or else He technically winds up having a slightly different Essence from the Father. Everything that is the Essence of the Son must be exactly the same as the Essence of the Father.

There are basically three different concepts that are relevant to understanding the Son and the Spirit, those being Hypostasis, Essence, and Energy. Energy is what causes them to be. Essence is what they inherit as their substance of being (as well as the Energies pertaining to it). Hypostasis is what they are (as the Son is not the Father who is not the Spirit who is not the Son).

And it is generally agreed that Energies are not Hypostases is it not?

Yep. In discussing the Trinity, Energy, Essence, and Hypostasis are all realities distinct from each other.

Father-Generation [of Son and Holy Spirit]
Son-Filiation
Holy Spirit-Spiration

Better?

And yes.  You cannot have Generation, Filiation, and Spiration as equal to Essence or Essences, worse yet!

M.
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #68 on: September 22, 2010, 10:04:05 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 10:05:20 PM by bogdan » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: September 22, 2010, 10:07:34 PM »

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.
So the Son and the Holy Spirit are energetic but not essential? Then is not of God's nature to be Trinitarian? See how many dangerous places a radical distinction between God's essence and his energies leads us?

Just because the Son and the Spirit are caused to come into being by Energies does not mean that they are not Essential.

Even the Creation was caused to come into being by Energies, but what they actually came into being from was nothing.

And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.

Woah

God is Source, Archon

Son and Holy Spirit did NOT NOT NOT come into being!!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #70 on: September 22, 2010, 10:08:59 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #71 on: September 22, 2010, 10:09:17 PM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #72 on: September 22, 2010, 10:09:38 PM »

Not really. God can simply will that we not be destroyed while we particpate in his life withouth there being a distinction between his essence and his energies.

No. God cannot do the logically impossible. We cannot participate in that which is strictly infinite.

Your explanation of his energies concerns me further because it seems to make his energies into something less than his essence, and if that is the case, then we are talking about ditheism here.

How does God emitting forth that which reflects His Essence out from His inner being imply ditheism?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #73 on: September 22, 2010, 10:11:13 PM »

I don't think that it would be accurate to describe the Energies of God as economic, strictly speaking.
I have heard this description from EOs on this very board on several occassions, though that was probably years ago.

The best explanation that I have ever heard of the Energies, is that God is infinite, and pours out even beyond the concept of essence.

I don't think that really works if the primary description of what His Essence is is infinity. Why would infinity pour out beyond infinity?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #74 on: September 22, 2010, 10:11:43 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?

Like I said earlier, this analogy breaks down if you don't assume a pre-scientific mindset. According to a pre-scientific mindset, the sun is both two different things (the bright surface and the heat/light on earth) and yet the same single reality. I suppose that's as far as you can take it.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #75 on: September 22, 2010, 10:14:05 PM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #76 on: September 22, 2010, 10:16:40 PM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?

Like I said earlier, this analogy breaks down if you don't assume a pre-scientific mindset. According to a pre-scientific mindset, the sun is both two different things (the bright surface and the heat/light on earth) and yet the same single reality. I suppose that's as far as you can take it.

Oh the great ones [saints] have gotten a little further than this, but not tonight.  I am too sleepy and will have to soon begin to seek sources.  I have them right here but I am too pooped to seek them out in their particulars...

But this has been fun!!

Thanks...

Mary
Logged

bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #77 on: September 22, 2010, 10:20:42 PM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

It is?  Huh  I've read quite lengthy discourses about the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal begetting of the Son from quite Orthodox sources.

The Father is autotheos, wholly self-existent. The Son and Holy Spirit are pre-eternal with the Father, but they are not self-existent. If they were, we would be tritheists.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #78 on: September 22, 2010, 10:24:51 PM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

It is?  Huh  I've read quite lengthy discourses about the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal begetting of the Son from quite Orthodox sources.

The Father is autotheos, wholly self-existent. The Son and Holy Spirit are pre-eternal with the Father, but they are not self-existent. If they were, we would be tritheists.

I am not arguing that there is no Spiration and no Filiation and no Source

I am arguing against the implications of using the language of "derivation" to talk about that particular mystery.

eh...?

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #79 on: September 22, 2010, 10:41:22 PM »


And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.
Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 22, 2010, 11:05:41 PM »


And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.
Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

++++++++++++++

EACH have the fullness of the Godhead

++++++++++++++

NOT ONE of the Persons of the Trinity COME INTO BEING

They ARE


Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: September 22, 2010, 11:07:54 PM »

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism
++++++++++++++
EACH have the fullness of the Godhead
++++++++++++++
NOT ONE of the Persons of the Trinity COME INTO BEING
They ARE
Thanks for replying Elijah Maria. I was thinking along the same lines
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 11:08:22 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #82 on: September 22, 2010, 11:08:25 PM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

It is?  Huh  I've read quite lengthy discourses about the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal begetting of the Son from quite Orthodox sources.

The Father is autotheos, wholly self-existent. The Son and Holy Spirit are pre-eternal with the Father, but they are not self-existent. If they were, we would be tritheists.

I am not arguing that there is no Spiration and no Filiation and no Source

I am arguing against the implications of using the language of "derivation" to talk about that particular mystery.

eh...?

M.

derived - formed or developed from something else; not original
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: September 22, 2010, 11:10:49 PM »

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

Elijah, do you think that this extreme monarchialism comes from anti-western sentiments since Latins tend to emphasize the ontological equality of the Divine Persons?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 11:11:23 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #84 on: September 22, 2010, 11:18:10 PM »

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

Elijah, do you think that this extreme monarchialism comes from anti-western sentiments since Latins tend to emphasize the ontological equality of the Divine Persons?

No...It's part of what set Nestor and the Nestorians apart.

I've never read any Orthodox text that has said what deusveritasest has said here.

M.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 11:18:51 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #85 on: September 22, 2010, 11:34:19 PM »

Ecumenical Council of Nicea, 325:

The Father is the source of Godhead, born of none and proceeding from none; the Son is born of the Father from all eternity; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father from all eternity.

And....

The Cappadocians regarded the 'monarchy' as the distinctive  characteristic
of the Father:  He alone is a principle or arche within the Trinity.

But Western Theology ascribes the distinctive characteristic of the  Father
to  the Son as well, thus fusing the two persons into one; and what else is
this but 'Sabellius reborn, or  rather  some  semi-Sabellian  monster',  as
Saint Photius put it?

To Orthodox Theologians the persons are OVERSHADOWED [in Catholic theology]
by the common  nature, and God is thought of not so much in concrete and personal
terms, but as an essence in which various relations are distinguished.  This way
of thinking about  God  comes to full development in Thomas Aquinas, who went
so far as to  identify  the  persons  with  the  relations:   personae   sunt   ipsae
relationes
.  Orthodox thinkers find this a very meagre idea of personality.
The relations, they would say, are not the persons - they are the  personal
characteristics  of  Father,  Son, and Holy Spirit; and (as Gregory Palamas
put it) 'personal characteristics do not constitute the  person,  but  they
characterize the person'.  The relations, while designating the persons, in
no way exhaust the mystery of each.....

http://www.orthodoxcatechism.com/doctrine/filioque.htm

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #86 on: September 22, 2010, 11:44:34 PM »

^ Father A, you know very well that the Son would remain distinct from  the Father, even in light of the Filioque, because the Son is begotten of the Father. You also know very well that the Catholics profess the distinction in persons and do NOT fuse any of them. Finally, you also know that in Catholic theology, the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as primary/ultimate source, is different from the way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, who is secondary/penultimate source; thus, maintaining the distinction in persons. In fact, the Catholic medieval councils specifically point out that we do, in fact, profess the distinction of persons.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 23, 2010, 03:01:36 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

The theological problem is that the Essence is strictly infinite, and finite beings cannot logically experience that which is infinite.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 23, 2010, 03:03:58 AM »

Oh...Well I understand Thomas because as we've already noted here several times....

The Essence and Energies are One

That's not Palamism.

And if there is no real distinction between the nature of the Essence and Energies, then we simply cannot participate in them at all.

We cannot participate in the Essence because it is strictly infinite.

So if the Energies are not somehow different from that, then there simply is no participation.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #89 on: September 23, 2010, 03:05:21 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

Which Gregory are you talking about?

Again, the Essence is infinite. Are you suggesting we can in any way experience infinity?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #90 on: September 23, 2010, 03:07:58 AM »

It addresses the very question of how in heaven's name can a creature like me and you participate in the divine life without turning into crispy cinders in the process: to return to the sun and its rays as analog.

Great analogy!  Grin

You're right, we cannot participate in the Essence of God and therefore we must be participating in His Energies.


Yes, exactly. In Orthodox theology it is impossible to participate in the Essence of God, because that is God's God-ness and is utterly transcendent.

That is why I used the initial example of a human person, because a person's internal life is utterly transcendent to all other people. No person can enter into another person's inner life. God's essence, his "inner life" so to speak, is inaccessible also.

That's not a great comparison, because we can't experience God's inner life because it is by nature infinite. The same cannot be said about humans. I don't know that you are even correct that the inner life of a human cannot be shared in a different sense because of the possibility the their energies could fully express it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #91 on: September 23, 2010, 03:09:59 AM »

Father-Generation [of Son and Holy Spirit]
Son-Filiation
Holy Spirit-Spiration

Better?

Ah....

I haven't even understood all along what you were trying to get at with this piece?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #92 on: September 23, 2010, 03:11:44 AM »

Actually, I believe that Irish Hermit identified the Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit as Energies, and regarding this I agree with him.
So the Son and the Holy Spirit are energetic but not essential? Then is not of God's nature to be Trinitarian? See how many dangerous places a radical distinction between God's essence and his energies leads us?

Just because the Son and the Spirit are caused to come into being by Energies does not mean that they are not Essential.

Even the Creation was caused to come into being by Energies, but what they actually came into being from was nothing.

And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.

Woah

God is Source, Archon

Son and Holy Spirit did NOT NOT NOT come into being!!

If you interpret that to mean a temporal or spacial beginning, yes, I know, you are right.

I was meaning it simply in terms of causation (eternal in this case). In this sense I think it is appropriate to speak of the Son and the Spirit eternally coming into being.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 03:12:04 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 23, 2010, 03:12:52 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?

Again, not a great analogy.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #94 on: September 23, 2010, 03:12:59 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

The theological problem is that the Essence is strictly infinite, and finite beings cannot logically experience that which is infinite.
The Energy of God is also infinite, so I don't think that is the distinction.  I think the matter is simple.  The Latins define the Divine Essence to include what the Easterns state is Essence and Energy.  When Latins say that we can experience the Essence, they really mean "that of the Essence that can be experienced" which ultimately translates to the Energy of God.

It's all a matter of definition to me.  And St. Paul warns us not to be separated by such things.

Blessings
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #95 on: September 23, 2010, 03:15:51 AM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

To speak of the Son and the Spirit as simply being without causation is tritheistic.

The Son has to be generated from the Essence of the Father. The Spirit has to be spirated from the Essence of the Father. I don't see how it is incorrect to think of this as derivation so long as it is understood as eternal, not spacial or temporal, there never being a time or place where they were not.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 23, 2010, 03:17:24 AM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

It is?  Huh  I've read quite lengthy discourses about the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal begetting of the Son from quite Orthodox sources.

The Father is autotheos, wholly self-existent. The Son and Holy Spirit are pre-eternal with the Father, but they are not self-existent. If they were, we would be tritheists.

I am not arguing that there is no Spiration and no Filiation and no Source

I am arguing against the implications of using the language of "derivation" to talk about that particular mystery.

eh...?

M.

What are those implications?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 23, 2010, 03:20:04 AM »

Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?

Actually, what you are suggesting is more obviously in error. The Father is Father from eternity and there is no chance He would have been otherwise, so that must be part of His Essence.

Well, the same can be said of the Son and the Spirit.

So you wind up having three different Essences.

Because that is heretical, it must be admitted that their hypostatic particularities are not Essential.

As a matter of fact, this is precisely what Saint Basil the Great says in On the Holy Spirit.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #98 on: September 23, 2010, 03:22:30 AM »


And no, Trinitarianism cannot possibly be a fundamental aspect of God's Essence because then the Father would not have the fullness of the Godhead in and of Himself independent of His causing the Son and the Spirit to Be.
Wow. This sounds down right heretical. Elijah Maria can correct me if I am wrong, but God the Father is Father. That is what he is, from all eternity and would not have been otherwise. That sounds essential to me. Elijah, help me out, but isn't it God'e existence as Trinity, essential to Him?

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

++++++++++++++

EACH have the fullness of the Godhead

++++++++++++++

NOT ONE of the Persons of the Trinity COME INTO BEING

They ARE




It's both.

The Son and the Spirit are YHWH because there never was a time when they were not or a place where they were not.

But they are caused to be by the Father and thus in this sense ought to be understood as eternally coming into being.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 23, 2010, 03:24:16 AM »

The Father eternally begets the Son and eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. Their existence is derived from the Father. That does not mean that the Son and Holy Spirit once did not exist.

Nononono...do not use the language of derivation.  The Son and Spirit are NOT derived.  They ARE.

The Father is the Source, the Archon...

The rest is mystery.

I hate to say it but it is a protestant habit to speak of derivation with the Persons of the Trinity.

It is?  Huh  I've read quite lengthy discourses about the eternal procession of the Spirit and the eternal begetting of the Son from quite Orthodox sources.

The Father is autotheos, wholly self-existent. The Son and Holy Spirit are pre-eternal with the Father, but they are not self-existent. If they were, we would be tritheists.

I am not arguing that there is no Spiration and no Filiation and no Source

I am arguing against the implications of using the language of "derivation" to talk about that particular mystery.

eh...?

M.

derived - formed or developed from something else; not original

The only absolutely original one is the Father.

Every other hypostasis in existence is caused to be by another hypostasis.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #100 on: September 23, 2010, 03:26:09 AM »

No...It's part of what set Nestor and the Nestorians apart.

Are you batty? How could Nestorianism possibly have anything to do with it? It's a strictly Christological heresy having nothing to do with the Godhead or its eternal hypostases.

On top of that, I'm probably one of the most Nestorianism vigilant posters on this site.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #101 on: September 23, 2010, 03:29:43 AM »

^ Father A, you know very well that the Son would remain distinct from  the Father, even in light of the Filioque, because the Son is begotten of the Father.

And yet you do not understand the Father to be exclusively the Fountainhead in the way that we do.

You also know very well that the Catholics profess the distinction in persons and do NOT fuse any of them.

It's pretty much impossible not too implicitly fuse the hypostases without remaining faithful to the monarchy of the Father. Heck, you've even go so far as to confuse Essence and Hypostases by saying that the Fatherhood is Essential!

Finally, you also know that in Catholic theology, the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as primary/ultimate source, is different from the way in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, who is secondary/penultimate source; thus, maintaining the distinction in persons.

Nonsense: "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #102 on: September 23, 2010, 03:41:08 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

The theological problem is that the Essence is strictly infinite, and finite beings cannot logically experience that which is infinite.
The Energy of God is also infinite, so I don't think that is the distinction.  I think the matter is simple.  The Latins define the Divine Essence to include what the Easterns state is Essence and Energy.  When Latins say that we can experience the Essence, they really mean "that of the Essence that can be experienced" which ultimately translates to the Energy of God.

It's all a matter of definition to me.  And St. Paul warns us not to be separated by such things.

Blessings

You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot. The ability to really linguistically describe the nature of something requires limitation.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Mardukm
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 423


« Reply #103 on: September 23, 2010, 04:31:25 AM »

Dear brother DeusVeritasEst,

As an Oriental, I do not in the least feel compelled to have my belief on the Essence and Energy of God be informed by what Palamists teach on the matter.  I have a great respect for St. Palamas from what I’ve read of him, but I feel EO today have an unpatristic (note I did not say heretical) understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction.

I do not find in the Fathers the ontological distinction between the Essence and Energy that modern EO seem to impose on the teaching.  I understand from the Fathers that God is one and that the only ontological distinction within the Godhead is the distinction of Persons.  There is no such thing as a distinction within the Godhead of Essence and Energy. Just because we can somehow describe God does not mean that he is composed of something called Energy that can be described, and another thing called Essence that can’t.

The distinction between Essence and Energy is purely epistemological. It is simply a way for us mere creatures to somehow grasp in our language the otherwise incomprehensible reality of the total otherness of God while simultaneously sharing in his Divinity.

Both God’s Essence and Energy are infinite.  They are one.  To repeat, the distinction is merely epistemological, not ontological.

Blessings
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:32:06 AM by Mardukm » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: September 23, 2010, 05:10:44 AM »


You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.


The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc.   The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically  - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 05:11:11 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #105 on: September 23, 2010, 05:25:35 AM »


You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.


The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc.   The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically  - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."

I knew the Energies were uncreated, but I thought they were not infinite, in the sense that they actually convey something understandable and limited.

I don't doubt that you may be right about this: I haven't ever really gotten a strong sense that I understand the nature of the Energies in Palamite theology.

So, that leaves me with the same question as for the Thomists: how could and inherently finite being possibly participate in that which is inherently infinite?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: September 23, 2010, 05:52:51 AM »


You're saying the Energies are infinite in nature? That doesn't seem to be what I've heard from Palamites. They seem to think that the Energies can be linguistically encapsulated, where the Essence cannot.


The energies of God are uncreated and so they are as infinite as His essence.

As with His essence the energies fade away for our circumscribed human understanding into the great mystery of apophatic language - God is not love, God is not existence, etc.   The Saints of the Church, far along on the path of theosis may begin to comprehend them experientially and mystically but they will always lack the means to portray them linguistically  - the "dark glass" which prevented Saint Paul from adequately describing his experiences in the afterlife is present. "Eye hath nor seen nor hath ear heard....."

I knew the Energies were uncreated, but I thought they were not infinite, in the sense that they actually convey something understandable and limited.

From a human perspective yes..... that is the core of apophatic theology which strives to break through the limitation of human experience and understanding -and only partially succeeds.   To use a more familiar example for Westerners- that of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Beatific Vision which brings a man to look upon God and comprises the joy of the future life.  While what he looks upon is infinite and beyond comprehension but he does comprehend it,  to a *very* limited extent

Quote

So, that leaves me with the same question as for the Thomists: how could and inherently finite being possibly participate in that which is inherently infinite?

"Becoming by grace what God is by nature"  this becomes possible in the process of theosis.

As for the thomists, would they not also be driven to ask, how can a finite human being look upon the infinite deity in the Beatific Vision?   
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #107 on: September 23, 2010, 06:09:21 AM »

To use a more familiar example for Westerners- that of the Roman Catholic understanding of the Beatific Vision which brings a man to look upon God and comprises the joy of the future life.  While what he looks upon is infinite and beyond comprehension but he does comprehend it,  to a *very* limited extent

I don't think the Western Thomist conception of the Beatific Vision is orthodox.

"Becoming by grace what God is by nature"  this becomes possible in the process of theosis.

Yet grace is the Energies of God, therefore uncreated, therefore infinite. So this is circular logic. You're telling me that we're able to participate in the infinite by being transformed by the infinite.  Undecided

As for the thomists, would they not also be driven to ask, how can a finite human being look upon the infinite deity in the Beatific Vision?   

This is precisely what led me to believe that the Western Beatific Vision is heretical as it involves finite beings seeing the infinite Essence of God...
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #108 on: September 23, 2010, 06:18:17 AM »


None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

Theosis 101: He whether in His Energies or His Essence, He is 'I AM.'

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

His energies are not too much the mystery that His Essence is. We've discussed them some before
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23309.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28899.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28899.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2538.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2545.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23873.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21389.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13526.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13076.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12063.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,1329.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15855.0.html

This also may be of interest "'Anthropology: Consequences of the Fall"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9447.0.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #109 on: September 23, 2010, 06:19:49 AM »


I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.


I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.
Also one of the reasons that I think that Gregory Palamas may have gone too far.

How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?

When discussing the Persons of the Trinity, do we say "He" or "They?" Many languages say "she" because "Trinity" is feminine. I'd have to examples from Lossky to address your allegations of deficiency in his language.

But as for answers: Essence=Him, Energies=Him just as 1x1x1=1, 1x1x1/1=1

Grace=Energies=Him

We partake of the Divine Nature in His Energies (though I admit an interesting question as to the Eucharist: is the Godhead present in His Essence or His Energies).

One God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #110 on: September 23, 2010, 06:19:49 AM »

Given this, it really makes me wonder how you could possibly defend the traditional Thomist conception of the beatific vision, that is perceiving the very Essence of God.
We can experience his Essence if he so wills it. There is no theological problem here.

We do experience His essence: in the mode of the receiver rather than in the mode of the giver: in the mode of a creature, rather than the mode of the Divine Trinity

Essence and Energies are One

St. Gregory insists on it.

M.

They are one single reality, but part of that reality is transcendent while the other part is not. Similarly, a person can enjoy the sun perfectly fine on a chair at the beach, but he cannot enjoy the sun from within the 10 million degree plasma.

But it is a matter of distance NOT kind.
Neither is the matter of the Essence and Energies.

Where is it on the Sun-Ray continuum that the Essence morphs into Energies?
The Essence does not morph, i.e. change, into Energies, any more than the sun morphs into rays. For instance, from a sunray we can determine the elements in the sun's core.  Which is a good thing, as we can't take samples from the surface and text them.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #111 on: September 23, 2010, 06:19:52 AM »

Meet Nestor-or extreme monarchialism

Elijah, do you think that this extreme monarchialism comes from anti-western sentiments since Latins tend to emphasize the ontological equality of the Divine Persons?
You are skipping the subordination of the Spirit in the Filioque.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #112 on: September 23, 2010, 06:19:52 AM »

A blast from the past:
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Dear Marduk,

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages.   I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."?   Smiley  Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?
When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.

When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.

Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit.  As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul.  The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc.  She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.

Of course, Mardukm, like Pope Pius, begs the question that the IC is one of those "particular graces suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner." We have covered this before, e.g.:

Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him. II Cor. 5:21. The Incarnation does not need the IC.
I don’t understand your interpretation of that passage as it relates to the IC. Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
God forbid! It just proves that the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. All the protestations of horror that God would let His mother be subject to sin, even just original sin, for nought.

Quote
CCC 490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" [by typical slight of hand, this is not a quote from "the Fathers of the Eastern tradition," but from the Latin "Lumen Gentium" 56]. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:

Potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit.

Since He became sin for us, He had no need of a IC'd mother.

Mardukm, of course, claims that the East came up with the IC, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and gives it his own singular spin:
What "western doctrines" are you talking about?  The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted.  There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma.  But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 
1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will.  That is riddled with Pelagianism.
Don't you accuse us of semi-Pelagianism anyway?
2) Mary received Graces at her birth.  This would be free of any taint of Pelagianism. The problem with this one is that there is NO patristic witness to Mary having an Immaculate birth.
The lack of patristic witness to her having an immaculate conception hasn't stop you.
3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception.  This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain.  The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).
or better yet that she was full of the Holy Spirit like St. John was from the womb, and saving the only Immaculate Conception for that which occured on the Annunciation.
4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon).  This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.
Your "infallible" pope disagrees:
Quote
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
Another example:
I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace."  No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't.  Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation).  So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity.  Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.  Grin
which but requires a look at Ineffabilis Deus:
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace  by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
But then I've already pointed this out:
As you pointed out, it is not proper to say "all Vatican documents are infallible."  But I think your statement might mislead a few.  It is not "documents" that are infallible, but teachings.

Just when we thought things couldn't be made more slippery....

As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined.  It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.

That's nice.  Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative.  It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.
An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa.  He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.
Quote
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiseque scriptores
animo menteque reputarent, Beatissimam Virginem ab angelo
Gabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante,
ipsius Dei nomine et jussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam,
docuerant hac singulari solemnique salutatione nunquam alias
audita ostendi, Deiparam fiiisse omnium divinarum gratiarum
sedem, omnibusque Divini Spiritus charismatibus exoraatam
, imo
eorumdem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque
inexhaustam, adeo ut nunquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum
Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth Divino acta
Spiritu audire meraerit : Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et hener-
dictus fructus ventris tui.
i.e.
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.


and Mardukm "responded":
The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms.  It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning.  If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught.  You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms.  I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

I don't notice any misunderstanding on my part on this issue. Just accusations of "disparagement" when I have just quoted their words.

But I agree about the priesthood and the "all graces." Problem is, the "full of grace" argument depends on the "all graces."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #113 on: September 23, 2010, 06:27:32 AM »

No, the teaching of the Beatific Vision is not known in Eastern Orthodoxy.  It would be interesting though to know how far back it goes in the Church of the West, if it is found in its orthodox time?

Saint John seems to hint at it.

And is it not interesting that he speaks of an ontological change in us the nature of which he cannot specify.

1 John 3

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.  Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #114 on: September 23, 2010, 06:38:56 AM »

A blast from the past:
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Dear Marduk,

I am still intrigued by the unexpected appearance of the term "the Graces" repeated and repeated in your last couple of messages.   I have never seen you use it before and am curious what is behind its sudden appearance.

Are you about to correct the Hail Mary to "Hail Mary, full of the Graces..."?   Smiley  Have the Latin translators made a mistake by using the singular?
When I use the term "Grace," I would use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energy, Divine action, the effect of a divine action, the Holy Spirit, or any benefit from God.

When I use the term "Graces," I would likewise use it in a number of different ways: Divine Energies, Divine actions, effects of a divine action, or benefits from God.

Whichever one you think fits according to the context of the phrase is probably what I was thinking of when I used the term.

Interestingly (well, to me anyway) if we take Grace to mean the Holy Spirit, it would fit perfectly with the phrase "full of Grace." It would mean, as Father Deacon Lance pointed out, that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit.  As you already know, however, being full of the Holy Spirit does not mean being full of all the Graces that the Holy Spirit can give, according to St. Paul.  The Holy Spirit gives Grace/Graces according to His purpose. As the quote from the Apostolic Constitution of the dogma of the IC (quoted by brother Isa) indicates, "Mary 'was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.'" Mary did not receive the gifts/Graces of prophecy or leadership or healing or infallibility, etc.  She received particular graces from the moment of her existence suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose, as the Apostolic Constitution states, of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner.

Of course, Mardukm, like Pope Pius, begs the question that the IC is one of those "particular graces suited for her role to be the Mother of God for the specific purpose of enabling her to respond to the message of the angel in a positive manner." We have covered this before, e.g.:

Him, who knew no sin, He hath made sin for us, that we might be made the justice of God in Him. II Cor. 5:21. The Incarnation does not need the IC.
I don’t understand your interpretation of that passage as it relates to the IC. Are you saying that Jesus sinned?
God forbid! It just proves that the IC is an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. All the protestations of horror that God would let His mother be subject to sin, even just original sin, for nought.

Quote
CCC 490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" [by typical slight of hand, this is not a quote from "the Fathers of the Eastern tradition," but from the Latin "Lumen Gentium" 56]. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."
494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word." Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:

Potuit, sed non decuit ergo non fecit.

Since He became sin for us, He had no need of a IC'd mother.

Mardukm, of course, claims that the East came up with the IC, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, and gives it his own singular spin:
What "western doctrines" are you talking about?  The teaching of the IC was originally an Eastern teaching that the West gradually accepted.  There is nothing about it particularly Western except the language of the dogma.  But the teaching itself (not its dogmatic formulation) is primordially Eastern.

Put another way, which Eastern position are you accepting? 
1) Mary received Graces only at her annunciation, and she was sinless beforehand by the use of her own free will.  That is riddled with Pelagianism.
Don't you accuse us of semi-Pelagianism anyway?
2) Mary received Graces at her birth.  This would be free of any taint of Pelagianism. The problem with this one is that there is NO patristic witness to Mary having an Immaculate birth.
The lack of patristic witness to her having an immaculate conception hasn't stop you.
3) Mary received Graces before her birth, but after her conception.  This would be the most sensible non-Catholic position, since though there is NO direct patristic support for it, it can nevertheless be inferred from the patristic prooftexts used for the IC - namely, explicit statements by many Western and Eastern Fathers (mostly Eastern) that Mary was formed or created by God without stain.  The only problem with this position is that a better one exists - i.e., the teaching of the IC (because Mary was formed by God from the first moment of her existence).
or better yet that she was full of the Holy Spirit like St. John was from the womb, and saving the only Immaculate Conception for that which occured on the Annunciation.
4) The teaching of the IC is acceptable but not necessary (i.e., the teaching should not be a dogma, but remain a theologoumenon).  This position would actually not put you outside the pale of Catholicism, since the censure of the dogma is only against those who disbelieve it, not against those who believe it, but not as a dogma.
Your "infallible" pope disagrees:
Quote
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.
Another example:
I will make one comment about the Greek often translated as "full of Grace."  No Eastern or Oriental Catholic here (AFAIK) has ever claimed that the Greek term means "all divine graces." I certainly haven't.  Not even the apostolic constitution you quoted makes that claim (i.e., though it uses the term "full of grace," nowhere does it claim that the term is equivalent to your exaggerated interpretation).  So I don't know how you think your "all divine graces" argument has any validity.  Your attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument, but the only thing shown to be absurd here is your credibility.  Grin
which but requires a look at Ineffabilis Deus:
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace  by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
But then I've already pointed this out:
As you pointed out, it is not proper to say "all Vatican documents are infallible."  But I think your statement might mislead a few.  It is not "documents" that are infallible, but teachings.

Just when we thought things couldn't be made more slippery....

As every Catholic knows (or should know), infallibility refers only to the specific teaching that is being defined.  It does not apply to the preamble (the apostolic constitution) that accompanies the teaching.

That's nice.  Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.

Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.

However, the apostolic consitution is indeed considered magisterial and authoritative.  It's something non-Catholics (and probably a few Catholics) can't understand, so, as you can see here, they run around in circles in their arguments, because they seek to impose their non-Catholic perceptions on Catholic teaching.
An example here would be this issue of "full of grace" being brought up by brother Isa.  He makes a big dieal about it being contained in an apostolic constitution, but he doesn't realize that the term "full of grace" here is not being defined, but rather being used somewhat in a colloquial manner, since "full of grace" is often the translation that people are used to.

Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.

Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.
Quote
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiseque scriptores
animo menteque reputarent, Beatissimam Virginem ab angelo
Gabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante,
ipsius Dei nomine et jussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam,
docuerant hac singulari solemnique salutatione nunquam alias
audita ostendi, Deiparam fiiisse omnium divinarum gratiarum
sedem, omnibusque Divini Spiritus charismatibus exoraatam
, imo
eorumdem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque
inexhaustam, adeo ut nunquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum
Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth Divino acta
Spiritu audire meraerit : Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et hener-
dictus fructus ventris tui.
i.e.
Quote
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace[22] by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."[23]

Close enough at an attempt to define the phrase. That it fails, not withstanding scrutiny, doesn't change that.


and Mardukm "responded":
The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms.  It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning.  If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught.  You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms.  I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.

I don't notice any misunderstanding on my part on this issue. Just accusations of "disparagement" when I have just quoted their words.

But I agree about the priesthood and the "all graces." Problem is, the "full of grace" argument depends on the "all graces."

Dear Ia,

It is always a pain to read your awful tiny teeny font size with long quotes, but, as with this message, it is often worth the trouble.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: September 23, 2010, 07:43:50 AM »

You are skipping the subordination of the Spirit in the Filioque.
Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #116 on: September 23, 2010, 07:47:36 AM »

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?
The essence/energies distinction is not needed to answer this question.
How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?
Oh pleas Isa, you know what I meant. Gregory didn't go too far in how much he wrote. He went too far in radically distinguishing between the essence and energies.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:17:07 AM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #117 on: September 23, 2010, 07:48:37 AM »

No, the teaching of the Beatific Vision is not known in Eastern Orthodoxy.  It would be interesting though to know how far back it goes in the Church of the West, if it is found in its orthodox time?

Saint John seems to hint at it.

And is it not interesting that he speaks of an ontological change in us the nature of which he cannot specify.

1 John 3

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.  Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
Yup. That's the Beatific Vision all right. Notice, he didn't say that we shall see God's activities, but see God as his is. That's Essence.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 08:02:27 AM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #118 on: September 23, 2010, 08:15:54 AM »

We partake of the Divine Nature in His Energies (though I admit an interesting question as to the Eucharist: is the Godhead present in His Essence or His Energies).

God can be present within us in His Essence (also Chrismation) while it is still only the Energies which we ontologically participate in.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #119 on: September 23, 2010, 08:20:27 AM »

You are skipping the subordination of the Spirit in the Filioque.
Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.

Huh?

Yeah it does.

You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #120 on: September 23, 2010, 08:25:16 AM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #121 on: September 23, 2010, 08:33:26 AM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

That counter doesn't work. It's a play on words for defense.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: September 23, 2010, 10:35:04 AM »

Dear brother DeusVeritasEst,

As an Oriental, I do not in the least feel compelled to have my belief on the Essence and Energy of God be informed by what Palamists teach on the matter.  I have a great respect for St. Palamas from what I’ve read of him, but I feel EO today have an unpatristic (note I did not say heretical) understanding of the Essence/Energy distinction.

I do not find in the Fathers the ontological distinction between the Essence and Energy that modern EO seem to impose on the teaching.  I understand from the Fathers that God is one and that the only ontological distinction within the Godhead is the distinction of Persons.  There is no such thing as a distinction within the Godhead of Essence and Energy. Just because we can somehow describe God does not mean that he is composed of something called Energy that can be described, and another thing called Essence that can’t.

The distinction between Essence and Energy is purely epistemological. It is simply a way for us mere creatures to somehow grasp in our language the otherwise incomprehensible reality of the total otherness of God while simultaneously sharing in his Divinity.

Both God’s Essence and Energy are infinite.  They are one.  To repeat, the distinction is merely epistemological, not ontological.

Blessings


As you might guess, I am in agreement with you in the main.

After I've read this thread however, I have a great deal of respect for St. Gregory because when I have finished reading St. Gregory, I don't come out wondering why he bothered.

The confusion evidenced in the early part of this thread is not encouraging, and some of the un-nuanced and uncritical conflation of Essence and Energies later in the thread make one wonder why bother making the distinction in the first place.

But I would not write St. Gregory off in this, any more than I write off St. Thomas, and as I noted earlier I would not turn my hand for the difference in the explanatory power of either one of them, knowing the purpose to which each turned their understanding of nature and grace and Persons of the Trinity.  Their purposes were not identical so that there are details that make their work not entirely equivalent but they are not useless by any means.

It is generally in the use of St. Gregory, or a virtually unread St. Thomas, as one of THE dividing lines between east and west that creates all kinds of distortions of both their purposes and their concepts.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #123 on: September 23, 2010, 04:29:45 PM »

Dear Ia,

It is always a pain to read your awful tiny teeny font size with long quotes, but, as with this message, it is often worth the trouble.
Thanks, Father. My apology: I have to use the "zoom" on the computer myself. I can't remember what was the problem with enlarged type (band width or some such thing).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #124 on: September 23, 2010, 04:31:20 PM »

You are skipping the subordination of the Spirit in the Filioque.
Sorry but that is just a stupid argument and you know it. The Filioque doesn't ontologically subordiante the Holy Spirit any more than the fact that the Son is begotton of the Father would suboridnate the Logos. Sorry Isa, this isn't even a nice try.
If the Spirit proceeds from the Son rather than through then He has to be begotten first to process from the Son. We've covered this before.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #125 on: September 23, 2010, 04:33:41 PM »

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?
The essence/energies distinction is not needed to answer this question.
I didn't ask that question.
How many volumes are the Summa Theologica? And St. Gregory went too far?
Oh pleas Isa, you know what I meant. Gregory didn't go too far in how much he wrote. He went too far in radically distinguishing between the essence and energies.
No, he did not. How do you say otherwise?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #126 on: September 23, 2010, 04:37:45 PM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.
No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #127 on: September 23, 2010, 04:46:01 PM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.
No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

This is nothing more than an assertion, so I will assert in a counter-point that it is meaningless to Catholic teaching on Filioque.

There is nothing in the Catholic theology of Filioque that says that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit.  In fact the theology of Filioque explicitly says that the Father is the sole source.

So in terms of meaning your critique here has none.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #128 on: September 23, 2010, 04:59:13 PM »

No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.

This is nothing more than an assertion,

Yes, 1+1=1 is an assertion, and like filioque,an incorrect one at that.

so I will assert in a counter-point that it is meaningless to Catholic teaching on Filioque.

There is nothing in the Catholic theology of Filioque that says that the Son is the source of the Holy Spirit.  In fact the theology of Filioque explicitly says that the Father is the sole source.

I made no claim that the Vatican's theology was consistent, internally or externally.

So in terms of meaning your critique here has none.
The Son has all He has from the Father by betting. If He had spiration, it would have to come that way too.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: September 23, 2010, 06:23:07 PM »

The Son has all He has from the Father by betting. If He had spiration, it would have to come that way too.

I am sure you think this has meaning...even with a quick correction for "begetting" this makes no sense whatsoever.  "If He had spiration"....what the dickens does that mean?

I would humbly suggest a quick look at the language of the Fathers who do NOT talk about the persons of he Trinity "having" qualities that identify them.  Source, Filiation and Spiration are not possessions; they are not "things" to be had or not had, they are not even essential to the divine nature.  All that is for us to be able to "see" who we are speaking to and about.

I am very curious about how some of you here on this board process Trinitarian teachings.

No wonder you make such a hash of Filioque.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #130 on: September 23, 2010, 06:24:49 PM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.
No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.
Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #131 on: September 23, 2010, 06:26:17 PM »


That counter doesn't work. It's a play on words for defense.
It's not a play on words. It's a reasonable argument.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #132 on: September 23, 2010, 06:29:42 PM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.

If the Holy Spirit is the Father by sharing in begetting the Son, then the same is for the Son in sharing the spiration of the Spirit. Unless you can actually understand the difference between spirated and begotten.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #133 on: September 23, 2010, 06:54:56 PM »

The Son has all He has from the Father by betting. If He had spiration, it would have to come that way too.

I am sure you think this has meaning...even with a quick correction for "begetting" this makes no sense whatsoever.  "If He had spiration"....what the dickens does that mean?

That the Son does not spirate: to talk about it is a contrary to fact hypothetical

I would humbly suggest a quick look at the language of the Fathers who do NOT talk about the persons of he Trinity "having" qualities that identify them.  Source, Filiation and Spiration are not possessions; they are not "things" to be had or not had, they are not even essential to the divine nature.  All that is for us to be able to "see" who we are speaking to and about.

Summed up easily: the Father is, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit is spirated from the Father.

I am very curious about how some of you here on this board process Trinitarian teachings.


No wonder you make such a hash of Filioque.

Hash? we want no part of that barnacle.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: September 23, 2010, 06:55:49 PM »

Huh?
Yeah it does.
You have said that the Father shares everything with the Son except for that which is addressed by their opposing relationship, and therefore that the Son "possesses" the Spiration of the Holy Spirit. And yet, you are not willing to say that the same about the Holy Spirit sharing the Begetting of the Son, even though it should logically follow. Thus, the Holy Spirit is subordinated.
If the Holy Spirit shared the begetting of the Son, then He would be a Father, but no one has two Fathers but one. So no, the Holy Spirit is not subordinated. I have never been impressed by Eastern attempts to say that Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit was subordinate. I am especially not impressed when you know very well that we profess their equality.
No matter how much you say 1+1=1, I still won't be impressed.

If the Son shares the spiration, then it would have to be begotten first into the Son. Besides confusing the Persons, that subordinates the Spirit.
Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't.

Logic does that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #135 on: September 23, 2010, 07:02:42 PM »


Hash? we want no part of that barnacle.

How does one know if one knows not?

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #136 on: September 23, 2010, 07:15:26 PM »

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.
And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #137 on: September 23, 2010, 07:24:12 PM »

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.
And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Yes.  Logic needs to be demonstrated, rather than being asserted.

At least some effort to make pointing and declaring a little more transparent...
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #138 on: September 23, 2010, 08:26:38 PM »


Hash? we want no part of that barnacle.

How does one know if one knows not?

M.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.
And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Asserting your point is not the same as provin it. Just because you assert that the Filioque subordinates the Spirit, doesn't make it so.
No, it doesn't.
Logic does that.
And interestingly enough, there is no logic in your argument, only assertions.

Yes.  Logic needs to be demonstrated, rather than being asserted.

At least some effort to make pointing and declaring a little more transparent...

Aren't you two on the wrong thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=347
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #139 on: September 23, 2010, 09:03:57 PM »

And yet you are joining in the conversation. Funny, but your tactics of style over substance don't seem to be working here.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #140 on: September 27, 2010, 10:50:25 PM »

And yet you are joining in the conversation. Funny, but your tactics of style over substance don't seem to be working here.
Joining the conversation? I'm the OP.

Back to the topic of this thread, we have St. Gregory (who's appeared here already, to your chagrinn) and his sermon on the entry of the Holy Theotokos into the Temple.
Quote
It was a deed of perfect justice that our nature, which was voluntarily enslaved and struck down, should again enter the struggle for victory and cast off its voluntary enslavement. Therefore, God deigned to receive our nature from us, hypostatically uniting with it in a marvelous way.

 

But it was impossible to unite that Most High Nature, Whose purity is incomprehensible for human reason, to a sinful nature before it had been purified. Therefore, for the conception and birth of the Bestower of purity, a perfectly spotless and Most Pure Virgin was required.

 

Today we celebrate the memory of those things that contributed, if only once, to the Incarnation.

 

He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:Cool, immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). Even in what He assumes, He is perfectly pure and has no need to be cleansed Himself. But for our sake, He accepted purification, suffering, death and resurrection, that He might transmit them to us.

 

God is born of the spotless and Holy Virgin, or better to say, of the Most Pure and All-Holy Virgin.

 

She is above every fleshly defilement, and even above every impure thought. Her conceiving resulted not from fleshly lust, but by the overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit. Such desire being utterly alien to Her, it is through prayer and spiritual readiness that She declared to the angel: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it unto Me according to thy word" (Lk. 1:38), and that She conceived and gave birth. So, in order to render the Virgin worthy of this sublime purpose, God marked this ever-virgin Daughter now praised by us, from before the ages, and from eternity, choosing Her from out of His elect...

In this manner, the choice of the future Mother of God, beginning with the very sons of Adam and proceeding through all the generations of time, through the Providence of God, passes to the Prophet-king David and the successors of his kingdom and lineage.

 

When the chosen time had come, then from the house and posterity of David, Joachim and Anna are chosen by God. Though they were childless, they were by their virtuous life and good disposition the finest of all those descended from the line of David. And when in prayer they besought God to deliver them from their childlessness, and promised to dedicate their child to God from its infancy. By God Himself, the Mother of God was proclaimed and given to them as a child, so that from such virtuous parents the all-virtuous child would be raised. So in this manner, chastity joined with prayer came to fruition by producing the Mother of virginity, giving birth in the flesh to Him Who was born of God the Father before the ages.

Now, when Righteous Joachim and Anna saw that they had been granted their wish, and that the divine promise to them was realized in fact, then they on their part, as true lovers of God, hastened to fulfill their vow given to God as soon as the child had been weaned from milk. They have now led this truly sanctified child of God, now the Mother of God, this Virgin into the Temple of God.

 

And She, being filled with Divine gifts even at such a tender age,  She, rather than others, determined what was being done over Her. In Her manner She showed that She was not so much presented into the Temple, but that She Herself entered into the service of God of her own accord, as if she had wings, striving towards this sacred and divine love. She considered it desirable and fitting that she should enter into the Temple and dwell in the Holy of Holies.
http://www.orthodox.net/audio/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Although St. Gregory speaks of the choice of the Theotokos through the ages, speaks of the conception of Our Lord and His mother's birth, speaks of the need of a pure virgin for the incarnation etc. yet he finds no need nor evidence for the IC.  It seems to him a grace not needed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #141 on: September 27, 2010, 11:32:24 PM »


Back to the topic of this thread, we have St. Gregory (who's appeared here already, to your chagrinn) and his sermon on the entry of the Holy Theotokos into the Temple.

http://www.orthodox.net/audio/feasts-of-the-theotokos_+entry-of-the-theotokos+by-saint-gregory-palamas.html

Although St. Gregory speaks of the choice of the Theotokos through the ages, speaks of the conception of Our Lord and His mother's birth, speaks of the need of a pure virgin for the incarnation etc. yet he finds no need nor evidence for the IC.  It seems to him a grace not needed.

What is your point here?

Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #142 on: September 27, 2010, 11:41:50 PM »

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #143 on: September 27, 2010, 11:57:14 PM »

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).

Gosh you love giant font.

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #144 on: September 28, 2010, 12:49:11 AM »

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5).

Gosh you love giant font.

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 

And what would be different?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: September 28, 2010, 01:41:26 AM »

Gosh you love giant font.


Palatino, size 14.  I "stole" it from Fr Giryus.   Cheesy
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #146 on: September 28, 2010, 01:46:22 AM »

That does knock on the head Mardukm's repeated claim that Saint Gregory Palamas supported the IC:

"He Who is God by nature, the Co-unoriginate and Coeternal Word and Son of the Transcendent Father, becomes the Son of Man, the Son of the Ever-Virgin. "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and today, and forever" (Heb. 13:8.), immutable in His divinity and blameless in His humanity, He alone, as the Prophet Isaiah prophesied, "practiced no iniquity, nor deceit with His lips" (Is. 53: 9). He alone was not brought forth in iniquity, nor was He conceived in sin, in contrast to what the Prophet David says concerning himself and every other man (Ps. 50/51: 5). [/size}

I read that different than you, I bet. I read the two statements separate. Therefore, isolating the "he alone" with the "was not brought forth in iniquity" and a separate "nor was He conceived in sin". 


Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #147 on: September 28, 2010, 12:35:49 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #148 on: September 28, 2010, 01:42:14 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

That verse speaks of the Original Sin that spread to the entire fallen humanity.There is only one that came from above.

"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." 1Cor 15:47

Signed  Dan-Romania.


« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 01:42:31 PM by Come Back » Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #149 on: September 28, 2010, 02:10:38 PM »

Grace represents the energy of God that can make us be partakers to the devine essence..
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #150 on: September 28, 2010, 02:22:29 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

That verse speaks of the Original Sin that spread to the entire fallen humanity.There is only one that came from above.

"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." 1Cor 15:47

Signed  Dan-Romania.



See, not as absolute a statement as it first appears.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #151 on: September 28, 2010, 02:33:16 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
Come Back
Dan-Romania
Moderated
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Ecumenical
Posts: 50


« Reply #152 on: September 28, 2010, 02:41:41 PM »

Grace is part of the being and essence of God.. Only in grace and through grace we can be united with God in theosis..
Logged

A half-truth is a lie.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #153 on: September 28, 2010, 02:51:13 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.

M.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #154 on: September 28, 2010, 02:59:50 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.
Btw, who is Nestor?

As for the rest:
No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.
Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree?

How about the learned interpretation of Catholics not in communion with the Vatican, bases on your magisterial inerpratations?
Dearest Father Ambrose,

Seriously -- the fact that you do not actually read my response makes your claims lose all credibility.  I already stated, specifically, that the "stain" of original sin does not refer to any of the tactile effects of the Fall, but only to the spiritual effects.  I don't know how you can assume I claimed that death is not a consequence of the Fall.

Let me spell this out more slowly:

The Fall had two consequences for mankind - 1) tactile/physical effects which include bodily/emotional infirmities, corruption and death. 2) spiritual effects which include loss of sanctifying grace, loss of original justice, and concupiscence.

In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father?  Do you see the connection?  "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences.  In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?
Quote
SUPREME REASON FOR THE PRIVILEGE: THE DIVINE MATERNITY

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son -- the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart -- and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[1]
Nice inclusion of the error of the Filioque.

This of course, is the supreme problem for your read of the IC:Mary becomes Theotokos through her body.

Quote
The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind -- words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, "I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed"[13] -- taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14]

Based on the Vulgate's mistransaltion of Genesis 3:15 (something the IC believers by the score still ignore).

Quote
As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25] -- unmistakable evidence that she crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.


They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

And then, there is the problem of squaring your read of the IC with Munificentissimus Deus:
Quote
3. Actually God, who from all eternity regards Mary with a most favorable and unique affection, has "when the fullness of time came"(2) put the plan of his providence into effect in such a way that all the privileges and prerogatives he had granted to her in his sovereign generosity were to shine forth in her in a kind of perfect harmony. And, although the Church has always recognized this supreme generosity and the perfect harmony of graces and has daily studied them more and more throughout the course of the centuries, still it is in our own age that the privilege of the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, has certainly shone forth more clearly.

4. That privilege has shone forth in new radiance since our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception. These two privileges are most closely bound to one another. Christ overcame sin and death by his own death, and one who through Baptism has been born again in a supernatural way has conquered sin and death through the same Christ. Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was from the very beginning free from the taint of original sin, the minds of the faithful were filled with a stronger hope that the day might soon come when the dogma of the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven would also be defined by the Church's supreme teaching authority.

12. But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6) Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,(7) and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them. For, as the Vatican Council teaches, "the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter in such a way that, by his revelation, they might manifest new doctrine, but so that, by his assistance, they might guard as sacred and might faithfully propose the revelation delivered through the apostles, or the deposit of faith."(Cool Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."(9)

14. Christ's faithful, through the teaching and the leadership of their pastors, have learned from the sacred books that the Virgin Mary, throughout the course of her earthly pilgrimage, led a life troubled by cares, hardships, and sorrows, and that, moreover, what the holy old man Simeon had foretold actually came to pass, that is, that a terribly sharp sword pierced her heart as she stood under the cross of her divine Son, our Redeemer. In the same way, it was not difficult for them to admit that the great Mother of God, like her only begotten Son, had actually passed from this life. But this in no way prevented them from believing and from professing openly that her sacred body had never been subject to the corruption of the tomb, and that the august tabernacle of the Divine Word had never been reduced to dust and ashes. Actually, enlightened by divine grace and moved by affection for her, God's Mother and our own dearest Mother, they have contemplated in an ever clearer light the wonderful harmony and order of those privileges which the most provident God has lavished upon this loving associate of our Redeemer, privileges which reach such an exalted plane that, except for her, nothing created by God other than the human nature of Jesus Christ has ever reached this level.

17. In the liturgical books which deal with the feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin there are expressions that agree in testifying that, when the Virgin Mother of God passed from this earthly exile to heaven, what happened to her sacred body was, by the decree of divine Providence, in keeping with the dignity of the Mother of the Word Incarnate, and with the other privileges she had been accorded. Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."(11)

18. What is here indicated in that sobriety characteristic of the Roman liturgy is presented more clearly and completely in other ancient liturgical books. To take one as an example, the Gallican sacramentary designates this privilege of Mary's as "an ineffable mystery all the more worthy of praise as the Virgin's Assumption is something unique among men." And, in the Byzantine liturgy, not only is the Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption connected time and time again with the dignity of the Mother of God, but also with the other privileges, and in particular with the virginal motherhood granted her by a singular decree of God's Providence. "God, the King of the universe, has granted you favors that surpass nature. As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb."(12)

20. However, since the liturgy of the Church does not engender the Catholic faith, but rather springs from it, in such a way that the practices of the sacred worship proceed from the faith as the fruit comes from the tree, it follows that the holy Fathers and the great Doctors, in the homilies and sermons they gave the people on this feast day, did not draw their teaching from the feast itself as from a primary source, but rather they spoke of this doctrine as something already known and accepted by Christ's faithful. They presented it more clearly. They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death, her heavenly glorification after the example of her only begotten Son, Jesus Christ-truths that the liturgical books had frequently touched upon concisely and briefly.

21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."(17)

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."(18) And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."(19)

26. Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,(20) have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption. Thus, to mention only a few of the texts rather frequently cited in this fashion, some have employed the words of the psalmist: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified"(21); and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord's temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven. Treating of this subject, they also describe her as the Queen entering triumphantly into the royal halls of heaven and sitting at the right hand of the divine Redeemer.(22) Likewise they mention the Spouse of the Canticles "that goes up by the desert, as a pillar of smoke of aromatical spices, of myrrh and frankincense" to be crowned.(23) These are proposed as depicting that heavenly Queen and heavenly Spouse who has been lifted up to the courts of heaven with the divine Bridegroom.

28. Thus, during the earliest period of scholastic theology, that most pious man, Amadeus, Bishop of Lausarme, held that the Virgin Mary's flesh had remained incorrupt-for it is wrong to believe that her body has seen corruption-because it was really united again to her soul and, together with it, crowned with great glory in the heavenly courts. "For she was full of grace and blessed among women. She alone merited to conceive the true God of true God, whom as a virgin, she brought forth, to whom as a virgin she gave milk, fondling him in her lap, and in all things she waited upon him with loving care."(26)

29. Among the holy writers who at that time employed statements and various images and analogies of Sacred Scripture to Illustrate and to confirm the doctrine of the Assumption, which was piously believed, the Evangelical Doctor, St. Anthony of Padua, holds a special place. On the feast day of the Assumption, while explaining the prophet's words: "I will glorify the place of my feet,"(27) he stated it as certain that the divine Redeemer had bedecked with supreme glory his most beloved Mother from whom he had received human flesh. He asserts that "you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: 'Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."' And he asserts that, just as Jesus Christ has risen from the death over which he triumphed and has ascended to the right hand of the Father, so likewise the ark of his sanctification "has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling."(28)

30. When, during the Middle Ages, scholastic theology was especially flourishing, St. Albert the Great who, to establish this teaching, had gathered together many proofs from Sacred Scripture, from the statements of older writers, and finally from the liturgy and from what is known as theological reasoning, concluded in this way: "From these proofs and authorities and from many others, it is manifest that the most blessed Mother of God has been assumed above the choirs of angels. And this we believe in every way to be true."(29) And, in a sermon which he delivered on the sacred day of the Blessed Virgin Mary's annunciation, explained the words "Hail, full of grace"-words used by the angel who addressed her-the Universal Doctor, comparing the Blessed Virgin with Eve, stated clearly and incisively that she was exempted from the fourfold curse that had been laid upon Eve.(30)

31. Following the footsteps of his distinguished teacher, the Angelic Doctor, despite the fact that he never dealt directly with this question, nevertheless, whenever he touched upon it, always held together with the Catholic Church, that Mary's body had been assumed into heaven along with her soul.(31)

32. Along with many others, the Seraphic Doctor held the same views. He considered it as entirely certain that, as God had preserved the most holy Virgin Mary from the violation of her virginal purity and integrity in conceiving and in childbirth, he would never have permitted her body to have been resolved into dust and ashes.(32) Explaining these words of Sacred Scripture: "Who is this that comes up from the desert, flowing with delights, leaning upon her beloved?"(33) and applying them in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin, he reasons thus: "From this we can see that she is there bodily...her blessedness would not have been complete unless she were there as a person. The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person. It is manifest that she is there in soul and in body. Otherwise she would not possess her complete beatitude.(34)

33. In the fifteenth century, during a later period of scholastic theology, St. Bernardine of Siena collected and diligently evaluated all that the medieval theologians had said and taught on this question. He was not content with setting down the principal considerations which these writers of an earlier day had already expressed, but he added others of his own. The likeness between God's Mother and her divine Son, in the way of the nobility and dignity of body and of soul - a likeness that forbids us to think of the heavenly Queen as being separated from the heavenly King - makes it entirely imperative that Mary "should be only where Christ is."(35) Moreover, it is reasonable and fitting that not only the soul and body of a man, but also the soul and body of a woman should have obtained heavenly glory. Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.(36)

34. The above-mentioned teachings of the holy Fathers and of the Doctors have been in common use during more recent times. Gathering together the testimonies of the Christians of earlier days, St. Robert Bellarmine exclaimed: "And who, I ask, could believe that the ark of holiness, the dwelling place of the Word of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, could be reduced to ruin? My soul is filled with horror at the thought that this virginal flesh which had begotten God, had brought him into the world, had nourished and carried him, could have been turned into ashes or given over to be food for worms."(37)

35. In like manner St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself observed, in the most perfect way, the divine commandment by which children are ordered to honor their parents, asks this question: "What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?"(38) And St. Alphonsus writes that "Jesus did not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after death, since it would have redounded to his own dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust."(39)

36. Once the mystery which is commemorated in this feast had been placed in its proper light, there were not lacking teachers who, instead of dealing with the theological reasonings that show why it is fitting and right to believe the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven, chose to focus their mind and attention on the faith of the Church itself, which is the Mystical Body of Christ without stain or wrinkle(40) and is called by the Apostle "the pillar and ground of truth."(41) Relying on this common faith, they considered the teaching opposed to the doctrine of our Lady's Assumption as temerarious, if not heretical. Thus, like not a few others, St. Peter Canisius, after he had declared that the very word "assumption" signifies the glorification, not only of the soul but also of the body, and that the Church has venerated and has solemnly celebrated this mystery of Mary's Assumption for many centuries, adds these words of warning: "This teaching has already been accepted for some centuries, it has been held as certain in the minds of the pious people, and it has been taught to the entire Church in such a way that those who deny that Mary's body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic."(42)

37. At the same time the great Suarez was professing in the field of mariology the norm that "keeping in mind the standards of propriety, and when there is no contradiction or repugnance on the part of Scripture, the mysteries of grace which God has wrought in the Virgin must be measured, not by the ordinary laws, but by the divine omnipotence."(43) Supported by the common faith of the entire Church on the subject of the mystery of the Assumption, he could conclude that this mystery was to be believed with the same firmness of assent as that given to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Thus he already held that such truths could be defined.

38. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot. Consequently it seems impossible to think of her, the one who conceived Christ, brought him forth, nursed him with her milk, held him in her arms, and clasped him to her breast, as being apart from him in body, even though not in soul, after this earthly life. Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way.

potuit, decuit ergo fecit all over again.

Quote
39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: "When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory."(46)

40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)
44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

And then, what about the interpretation of those canonized by the Vatican, and those who teach with its authority?


I am afraid this is NOT an inaccurate understanding of the immaculate Comecption:
Quote
The Immaculate Conception and the Co-redemptrix       
Written by Mark Miravalle     
December 01 2007 
Page 1 of 6
On February 17, 1941, the "Property" of the Immaculata, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, was arrested by the Nazi Gestapo, eventually leading to his martyrdom in Auschwitz. During the few hours before his arrest, Fr. Maximilian was inspired to write the heart of his unparalleled mariological ponderings regarding the "Immaculate Conception."

The following are excerpts from this last written testimony:

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: These words fell from the lips of the Immaculata herself. Hence, they must tell us in the most precise and essential manner who she really is.

Since human words are incapable of expressing divine realities, it follows that these words: "Immaculate," and "Conception" must be understood in a much more beautiful and sublime meaning than usual: a meaning beyond that which human reason at its most penetrating, commonly gives to them . . . Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?

Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7). Not Eve, molded from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). Not the Incarnate Word, who exists before all ages, and of whom we should use the word "conceived" rather than "conception." Humans do not exist before their conception, so we might call them created "conception." But you, O Mary, are different from all other children of Eve. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique Immaculate Conception.

. . . Creatures, by following the natural law implanted in them by God, reach their perfection, become like him, and go back to him. Intelligent creatures love him in a conscious manner; through this love they unite themselves more and more closely with him, and so find their way back to him. The creature most completely filled with this love, with God himself, was the Immaculata, who never contracted the slightest stain of sin, who never departed in the least from God's will. United to the Holy Spirit as his spouse, she is one with God in an incomparably more perfect way than can be predicated of any other creature.

What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.

In what does this life of the Spirit in Mary consist? He himself is uncreated Love in her; the Love of the Father and of the Son, the Love by which God loves himself, the very love of the Most Holy Trinity. He is a fruitful Love, a "Conception." Among creatures made in God's image the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all (cf. Mt. 19:6). In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being. He makes her fruitful, from the very instance of her existence, all during her life, and for all eternity.

This eternal "Immaculate Conception" (which is the Holy Spirit) produces in an immaculate manner divine life itself in the womb (or depths) of Mary's soul, making her the Immaculate Conception, the human Immaculate Conception. And the virginal womb of Mary's body is kept sacred for him; there he conceives in time—because everything that is material occurs in time—the human life of the Man-God. (1)

In a 1933 Letter from Nagasaki, St. Maximilian explains further that in the name, "Immaculate Conception," the Mother also gives us the secret of her very nature:

In her apparition at Lourdes she does not say: "I was conceived immaculately," but "I am the Immaculate Conception." This points out not only the fact that she was conceived without original sin, but also the manner in which this privilege belongs to her. It is not something accidental; it is something that belongs to her very nature. For she is Immaculate Conception in (her very) person. (2)

The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:

The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)

Does St. Maximilian go too far in speaking in this manner of the wonders of the Immaculate Conception? Or does he say too little? The Mariology disclosed by the saint of the Immaculata, generous and profound as it is, in no way exhausts the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. His unrivaled pneumatological discoveries prepare the way for a new comprehension of the inseparability of the Uncreated Immaculate Conception with the created Immaculate Conception. But the mystery continues. The brilliance of St. Maximilian's methodology in his return to Trinitarian Mariology specific to the Holy Spirit also propels us to ponder more deeply the other relationships of the Immaculata with her Triune God.

Perhaps least developed of these, from a Trinitarian perspective, is the relationship between the Immaculate Conception and the Heavenly Father. The Father-daughter relationship is one of the most precious of human relationships, and no other relationship captures more the love of the Creator for creation, and the appropriate reciprocal love of creation for the Creator than the relationship between the Eternal Father and Mary Immaculate. At the heart of this union of Perfect Daughter to Perfect Father, which represents and exemplifies how every creature should be united to its Creator, is the stainlessness and fullness of grace possessed by the Immaculate Daughter. This "stainless-fullness" is given to her by the Eternal Father through the Spirit and in view of the foreseen merits of the Son, which is the foundation of her perfect response of fiat-love to everything given to her and asked of her by her "Abba," God the Father of all mankind.

As the example of St. Maximilian makes clear, the dogmatic proclamation of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 does not end its doctrinal development, but rather encourages more unveiling and more appreciation of its sacred mystery. Certainly Contemporary Mariology would do well to follow the example of St. Maximilian in striving to incorporate a more Trinitarian perspective and methodology in relation to the Blessed Virgin if we seek to be true to the full glory of Mary Immaculate....
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/general-mariology/the-immaculate-conception-and-the-co-redemptrix.html

Care to admit or deny Kolbe and Miravalle?


Quote
I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Claiming that the East taught the IC, you already critique EO dogma based on your Latin view on what Orthodoxy, EO and OO, herself teaches.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #155 on: September 28, 2010, 03:09:04 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.
Btw, who is Nestor?


Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #156 on: September 28, 2010, 03:13:25 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.
Btw, who is Nestor?


Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary
How about this?
Dearest Father Ambrose,

[
I believe St. Jeremiah and the Forerunner received the Graces of Baptism

The Graces of Baptism which are empowered immediately

God could grant these ETERNAL Graces

I, too, believe that Mary received an abundance of Graces at the Annunciation. 

However, I also believe that the Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different from the Graces she received at her IC.

I cannot agree with your position that she received the Graces of Baptism at the Annunciation. 

The Graces of Baptism are what permits us to be sinless (as I think you'll agree). 


Thus, she must have received the Graces of Baptism

I am rather more sympathetic to the position of some Orthodox that she received these Graces at her birth. 

What are "the Graces"?
GRACES are any and all manifestations of the Divine Energy in this created world (I'm writing that only for the benefit of our Latin brethren who might be reading our discussion, not for our Eastern and Oriental brethren who need no lessons in that definition).  There are many different Graces of the same Spirit, as Scripture and the Fathers have taught us.  The Graces of Baptism are those Graces which aid in attaining sinlessness.  Every Grace of sinlessness has its Source in only one thing - the Holy Sacrifice of Christ.  Like most other Graces, there must be a free will response to these Graces of Baptism (note: I'm not talking about Baptism, but the Graces one receives at Baptism).  Grace does not make us automations.

The Graces Mary received at the Annunciation are different - these particular Graces affected her very body

WAIT A MINUTE!  You were the one claiming that the IC only affected the Theotokos' soul, not her body.  Are you saying that the "grace of the IC" is not connected to the grace of the Annuciation now?


Quote
SO THAT SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO BEAR THE FULLNESS OF DIVINITY.  IMO, the Grace to remain a Virgin despite child-bearing and parturition was also among the Graces she received at the Annunciation.

As an aside, the Graces Mary recieved at her Dormition/Assumption are, again, different from the Graces she received at the beginning of her life, on the one hand, and at her Annunciation, on the other.  The Graces Mary received at her Dormition/Assumption were the Graces of Immortality and Incorruptibility.

Unfortunately for you, your Vatican's "infallible documents" connect the IC to her immortality and incoruptibilty, as I pointed out when you tried to get the body of the Theotokos out of the IC:
In the Decree on Original Sin at the Council of Trent, the Church defined that in Baptism, mankind is "made innocent, without stain, pure...beloved sons of God."

Do you see the word "stain" in the definition, Father?  Do you see the connection?  "Stain" refers to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, NOT the physical/tactile consequences (unless your innovative polemics are now going to claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism means we can no longer die).

So when the dogma of the IC states that Mary was preserved from all STAIN of original sin, it is referring exclusively to the SPIRITUAL consequences of original sin, and is not making any reference to the physical/tactile consequences.  In other words, the dogma of the IC is not claiming that the Graces Mary received at the moment of the Immaculate Conception somehow freed her from death, or physical/emotional infirmities, or bodily corruption, etc.

Your fine distinction in the IC are not found in Ineffibilus Deus.  Are they a refinement?



 Btw, since:
No, just bringing out the difficulty of pinning you down for authoritative statements, and getting you to recognize the plain language of dogmatic statements (like the Magesterial Pronouncement of the Fifth Ecumenical Council: sorry, neither we nor the Vatican are the court of appeal from an Ecumenical Council), let alone the plain language of pronouncements on the IC.
Well, the "plain language" of the IC, if you want to debate it, should be interpreted according to the magisterial interpretations of the CC, not according to the whimsical interpretations of NON-Catholics, wouldn't you agree?  I'm sure you would not want me to critique an EO doctrine based on my own NON-EO point of view, but rather on what the EOC herself teaches, correct?

Before I waste time on that, can we get a ruling on the "old Catholic Encyclopedia"...as magesterial documents?
And I would certainly trust the old Catholic Encyclopedia to explain a dogma of the Catholic Church before I waste time listening to a non-Catholic interpret it. Grin

potuit, decuit ergo fecit:
Quote
Proof from reason [sic]
There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her...Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was anticipated and not merely appeased."

Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

And again, then there's that problem of the "full of grace" proof text:
Quote
The Immaculate Conception

490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,134 was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

This only works if, as is claimed over and over by IC apologists, that

Quote
Luke 1:28 The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

If any grace was withheld, than the all-or-nothing argument of the eisogesis of the IC into Luke 1:28 falls apart.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #157 on: September 28, 2010, 03:20:57 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.
Btw, who is Nestor?


Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary
How about this?

What I have said, I have said.  It is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

There is nothing of import in your cut and pastes.

M.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #158 on: September 28, 2010, 03:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #159 on: September 28, 2010, 03:52:21 PM »

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 03:53:43 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #160 on: September 28, 2010, 03:57:18 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Actually, we no longer die at all, in some sense.

Remember that God in the Garden said that once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would die. Yet they physically lived for hundreds more years beyond that point. The Orthodox interpretation of this is that in some sense they spiritually died once they partook of the fruit. This explains why Sheol was such a gloomy place lacking in real consciousness, because those who were in it were spiritually dead.

The Atonement reverses this reality and any who are in Christ will be forever spiritually alive as before the Fall.

The spiritual death is actually the core condition of the Fall. And physical death is actually a mere consequence of the spiritual death.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #161 on: September 28, 2010, 04:05:00 PM »

Quote from: Irish Hermit link=topic=30017.msg476620#msg476620

Even if you wish to parse the sentence in that peculiar way, it still says "He alone was not brought forth in iniquity."  In other words She was brought forth in iniquity, as are we all.

The bible states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God," and yet you believe that Mary did not sin. These "absolute" statements are not always as absolute as we would like them to be. You know very well that theology is messier than that.

Even she would in some sense be qualified in that statement because she was born with the ancestral curse, which is a sinful condition.

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Actually, we no longer die at all, in some sense.

Remember that God in the Garden said that once Adam and Eve partook of the fruit from the forbidden tree that they would die. Yet they physically lived for hundreds more years beyond that point. The Orthodox interpretation of this is that in some sense they spiritually died once they partook of the fruit. This explains why Sheol was such a gloomy place lacking in real consciousness, because those who were in it were spiritually dead.

The Atonement reverses this reality and any who are in Christ will be forever spiritually alive as before the Fall.

The spiritual death is actually the core condition of the Fall. And physical death is actually a mere consequence of the spiritual death.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes!!!!....almost.

That is why the Catholic Church refers to the spiritual death as the stain of the ancestral sin and the physical death and corruption as a consequence of the ancestral sin, and why the Immaculate Conception only exists with reference to the spiritual death.

However if the physical death is not organic to the wounded nature, that loss of integrity between body and soul, then you have one heck of a time trying to explain why we die after Christ has redeemed us and given us Baptism in water and the spirit for our salvation.

So the Catholic Church teaches that the loss of integrity between body and soul is not fully healed until Jesus comes again in glory to raise up the living and the dead.

And that is why the Theotokos dies and why Jesus, in his body, was able to die as well.

M.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 04:07:30 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,438



WWW
« Reply #162 on: September 28, 2010, 04:17:12 PM »

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.

Jesus was without sin and He died. The "curse" was in human nature despite of sin (it is no more; it is as persons that we die, not in our nature).

Because He was sinless and innocent, death could not hold His human nature and keep it.

But did the Holy Virgin die?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #163 on: September 28, 2010, 05:00:23 PM »

You cannot count Christ with the "fallen ones".. Christ is the only one that came out of heaven(John 3:13;1Cor 15:47).

This line that you are following here falls quickly off to one side or the other, Nestor or Arius.

Jesus took flesh from the Theotokos...corruptible flesh, capable of aging and of death.

The Immaculate Conception only refers to a spiritual freedom from the stain of original sin, not a physical freedom from ALL of the consequences of original sin, including death, pain and the possibility of corruption.  She was preserved, as a virgin, from the pain of child birth.  And she was preserved from bodily corruption upon her death by being raised up and assumed into heaven.
Btw, who is Nestor?


Nestorius

I was in a hurry.

The rest of your cut and paste does not change anything of what I said which is the truth of Catholic teaching.

Mary
How about this?

What I have said, I have said.  It is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

What is?

There is nothing of import in your cut and pastes.

M.

Then it wouldn't merit your post now, would it?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #164 on: September 28, 2010, 05:17:45 PM »

There are consequences of the ancestral curse that will not be healed till the final judgment when we rise in our glorified bodies.  If that were not the case then we would not die.  After all Christ trampled down death by death and redeemed that which was raised up....and still we die.

Do we speak of a "qualified" redemption?

Do we still die?

M.


Jesus was without sin and He died. The "curse" was in human nature despite of sin (it is no more; it is as persons that we die, not in our nature).

Because He was sinless and innocent, death could not hold His human nature and keep it.

But did the Holy Virgin die?

The Divine Person could never be stained by sin of any kind, but he could be tempted.

And yes, his mother died.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
******