created/uncreated grace

[Maryslittleflower]

Maybe I was thinking of "limbo"?

Limbo wasn't done away with, it just wasn't declared as dogma I think ....it remains as a possible theological view

 

[Maryslittleflower]

but how is the hypostatic union an act of grace?

I think that goes above my theological knowledge -mahbe they're talking about it starting at a point in time based on the quote

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think that goes above my theological knowledge -mahbe they're talking about it starting at a point in time based on the quote

well, we agree it is in time, but how would that be an act of grace, since more than grace is involved?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Yes.

Now that we talk to Jews (as opposed to driving them out, as in olden days), the realization that Jewish Gehenna is Purgatorial Hell - only permanent for the worst, purgatorial for the rest before they rise up out of it and go to Gan Eden (Paradise) after being cleansed by fire - the realization is dawning - ah slowly - among Catholic thinkers that Jesus directly spoke of Purgatory all the time. Gehenna - to a Jew - is Purgatory. It is not the permanent Lake of Fire.

Unfortunately, the Church spent several centuries claiming that Purgatory is a doctrine devised by the Church through reason, and used that argument to reinforce the authority of the Church to create doctrine in that way (over and against "Sola Scriptura").

Because Purgatory was justified in that way for centuries, Catholic thinkers themselves argue rather strongly (and without merit) that Purgatory is not Biblical. In truth, Purgatory is in plain sight in the Gospels, because the proper translation of what Gehenna IS, in Judaism, is "Purgatory", not "Hell". Or rather, Jewish Hell is Purgatorial, not permanent (for most).

Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to Jews. They all knew what Gehenna was. Still do. Jesus didn't correct their understanding of Purgatory at all. He simply stated that it was where people were going to go if they didn't shape up. They already knew that. So he just used the word "Gehenna", without explanation.

Because the Mosaic Covenant is about the land of Israel in THIS life and never refers to the afterlife, Gehenna is not defined or used in the Old Testament. Jesus simply uses the word without antecedent, to a Jewish population that did not need an explanation because it was part of their tradition.

Christians ignored Jewish tradition for the better part of 2000 years, criticizing it as a thing that Christ rejected. Christ DID reject aspects of it that were contrary to God's will, but he didn't reject all of it. In the case of Gehenna, he simply referred to it directly without clarification, which would be a ratification.

Purgatory is Gehenna. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory. The Church's intellectuals are - slowly - coming to that realization. It is difficult, when all of the written argumentation of the centuries comes at things from a certain angle, to reverse the field. And sometimes, old arguments themelves take on a dogmatic tone which makes it harder still to fix.

Still the truth is that Purgatory is dogma. And contrary to the Church's argument of the past several centuries, it is also Biblical. That it is not Biblical but the product of the Church's reason and teaching authority is not itself a dogma, but it has been so often argued that it feels like a dogma to most.

Gradually the Church's thinkers are coming to the realization that Purgatory was hidden in plain sight - Biblical all along. This knowledge we are gaining because of our reconnection with our Jewish cousins, and the open lines of communication between Christian and Jewish scholarship and theologians, which did not exist after the First Century until about the 20th.

Give it another couple of decades, and everybody will "know" that Purgatory was in the Bible all along.

Until then, it will remain...in limbo.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've never heard Catholics say that Purgatory is not Biblical. Actually the Scriptures are often quoted to support it. Also the Early Church was not sola Scriptura.

What the Catholic Church did I think is explained why some people we pray for and they go to Heaven and others stay in suffering. Also the souls in the first category love God there and in the second hate God. That's a significant difference. But many Catholic Saints say the suffering ie fire is similar, but the souls in Purgatory have no malice.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Just as a general comment.. one of the best sources I've found in learning about the traditional (especially Thomistic) Catholic theology is from Fr Garrigou Lagrange. It's very clearly explained and accurate. The Summa Theologica - The Teaching of St Thomas Aquinas according to P. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,O.P. - Complete books online

 

[Maryslittleflower]

maybe, I am pretty sure limbo was done away with under Pope Benedict XVI

I don't think it was done away with.. a commission wrote a document giving reasons for the other view. But Limbo is not a condemned view. Secular newspapers like the Telegraph seemed to post that the Pope got rid of Limbo, but Catholic sources gave a different angle: Notion of Limbo Isn't Closed, Expert Says

there are also some Church councils that I think supported Limbo... the traditional Catholic churches with the Latin Mass tend to believe it, like where I go for Mass. However no one knows what would happen to Limbo after the Resurrection of the dead. In any case there's no suffering there.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

How exactly does one unite one's suffering to the cross? What does this even mean?

That is a good question, I am trying to think about it right now... the way it was taught to me, is that God doesn't want suffering for itself and in itself it is not a good thing.. however, the world was redeemed through suffering, through the Cross. If we take our sufferings and through an act of the will, join them to the Cross, they acquire a certain merit. I'm reminded of the verse from St Paul is linked to that: (1 Colossians)

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church: [25] Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God:

Commentary: [24] "Wanting": There is no want in the sufferings of Christ in himself as head: but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come, in his body the church, and his members the faithful.

It is similar to that... the idea that we can participate in the Passion. That is actualy what "Co-Redemptrix" means, but in a bigger way. Our Lady isn't equal to Christ in this way. Her sufferings are not equal in value, but placed within His, joined to His, not in an equal way. The term is also Latin, it means "with the Redeemer"... those who translate it as "Co-Redemptress", are changing it to an English term which is less clear. Mary is not a "Redemptress" equal to Christ, but joined her suffering to His, Christ's suffering being primary and making everything else efficacious. The idea of joining our suffering to the Cross is similar but lesser than what Our Lady did, because of her role as our Mother and Mediatrix of all graces (again, in Christ, not equal or apart from Him) and of course she suffered much more..

 

[Maryslittleflower]

well, we agree it is in time, but how would that be an act of grace, since more than grace is involved?

hmm.. to be honest, I can't figure out this one, because Fr Garrigou Lagrange says it in a seemingly different way..

"Tenth Article: Whether The Union Of The Two Natures In Christ Took Place By Grace

State of the question. The difficulties at the beginning of this article show clearly the purpose of this question. It seems that the union did not take place by grace, because grace is an accident inhering in the soul of everyone in the state of grace; whereas the hypostatic union is substantial, as stated above, and belongs exclusively to Christ.

Reply. This union did not take place by created grace, which is an accident, and an habitual gift inhering in the soul, but it took place by uncreated grace, which is the gratuitous will of God doing something without any preceding merits on the part of the beneficiary of the gift.

First part. It is evident, because this union is substantial, and not accidental.

Second part. It is also evident, because this union infinitely transcends the faculty and exigencies of created nature, even the angelic.[624]

In this article St. Thomas does not speak of a substantial mode that would be present between the Word that assumes and the humanity that is assumed."

Here, he seems to say that the Hypostatic Union is substantial and involved uncreated grace. In another part, he seems to says that the Hypostatic Union is something unique, but not accidental.. but it's such that the two natures are kept intact, of course. To be totally honest, this is something where I don't understand what the Catholic view is. It's all in this section: Christ The Saviour A Commentary on the Third Part of St Thomas' Theological Summa - R. Garrigou-Lagrange,O.P. - Complete book online

"Sixth Article: Whether The Human Nature Was United To The Word Of God Accidentally

This article is both a recapitulation of the preceding articles and the completion of their definition of the hypostatic union.

State of the question. It seems that this union is accidental, for whatever accrues to a being after it is complete as an entity, accrues to it accidentally. Whatever does not pertain to the essence of anything, is its accident. But the human nature does not pertain to the divine nature of the Son of God. Therefore the union of the human nature with the divine nature is accidental.

Reply. It is given about the end of the argumentative part of the article. St. Thomas says: "The Catholic faith, holding an intermediate position between Monophysitism and Nestorianism, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental, but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis."[598]

1) Indirect proof. It is drawn from the counterargument, and is expressed by the following argument. Whatever is predicated accidentally, is not predicated substantially, but quantitatively or qualitatively. But the humanity of Christ is not predicated quantitatively or qualitatively. Therefore it is not predicated accidentally.

2) Direct proof. It is founded on the arguments defining the faith on this point, which declare that the union is not natural, which is against Eutyches, nor accidental, which is against Nestorius, but is subsistential. The two opinions quoted by the Master of the Sentences in this article may be included in the error of Nestorius. The argument may be reduced to the following syllogism.

The union of substantial things that form the composite of one person is not accidental. But such is the union of the Word incarnate. Therefore the union is in no way accidental, but substantial, which means that it is subsistential."

It seems Catholic theology can be nuanced and very complex in this. That would be way above my knowledge... I guess my point in this thread is simply that Catholics do believe in grace being uncreated too, but in a specific way mentioned earlier. I'm including these current quotes just for anyone who is well versed to read them. (I admit I am not).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think it was done away with.. a commission wrote a document giving reasons for the other view. But Limbo is not a condemned view. Secular newspapers like the Telegraph seemed to post that the Pope got rid of Limbo, but Catholic sources gave a different angle: Notion of Limbo Isn't Closed, Expert Says

there are also some Church councils that I think supported Limbo... the traditional Catholic churches with the Latin Mass tend to believe it, like where I go for Mass. However no one knows what would happen to Limbo after the Resurrection of the dead. In any case there's no suffering there.

well, Limbo is extremely problematic from our POV. and according to at least stuff from the Middle Ages, Limbo is in hell. their only torment is knowing they have only the highest aspects of natural happiness and glory, and not the happiness and glory of heaven.

 

[ArmyMatt]

hmm.. to be honest, I can't figure out this one, because Fr Garrigou Lagrange says it in a seemingly different way..

"Tenth Article: Whether The Union Of The Two Natures In Christ Took Place By Grace

State of the question. The difficulties at the beginning of this article show clearly the purpose of this question. It seems that the union did not take place by grace, because grace is an accident inhering in the soul of everyone in the state of grace; whereas the hypostatic union is substantial, as stated above, and belongs exclusively to Christ.

Reply. This union did not take place by created grace, which is an accident, and an habitual gift inhering in the soul, but it took place by uncreated grace, which is the gratuitous will of God doing something without any preceding merits on the part of the beneficiary of the gift.

First part. It is evident, because this union is substantial, and not accidental.

Second part. It is also evident, because this union infinitely transcends the faculty and exigencies of created nature, even the angelic.[624]

In this article St. Thomas does not speak of a substantial mode that would be present between the Word that assumes and the humanity that is assumed."

Here, he seems to say that the Hypostatic Union is substantial and involved uncreated grace. In another part, he seems to says that the Hypostatic Union is something unique, not quite accidental and not quite substantial maybe in that the two natures are kept intact... so to be totally honest, this is something where I don't understand what the Catholic view is. Maybe I misunderstood the second quote - there's a whole section on it in the same book. It's the same book so I don't think it contradicts, I'm just probably not understanding it.

It's all here in detail... I guess I don't know for sure if the Catholic view of the Hypostatic Union and grace is, and what type of grace it's talking about, because Catholic theology can be nuanced and complex in this. That would be way above my knowledge... I guess my point in this thread is simply that Catholics do believe in grace being uncreated too, but in a specific way mentioned earlier.

Christ The Saviour A Commentary on the Third Part of St Thomas' Theological Summa - R. Garrigou-Lagrange,O.P. - Complete book online

but the problem here is grace is not the will of God doing something, it is the eternal energy of God which just is. the will of God is involved. and the union must be said to be substantial, there can be no question of that.

but even then, to make any distinction between created grace and uncreated grace makes no sense.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

well, Limbo is extremely problematic from our POV. and according to at least stuff from the Middle Ages, Limbo is in hell. their only torment is knowing they have only the highest aspects of natural happiness and glory, and not the happiness and glory of heaven.

From what I have read about it, it seems like that absence of the Beatific Vision for them would not be any sort of torment.. they would just be naturally happy. I am curious where you read that, because in my research, I seem to remember reading that they have no suffering at all.

From Wikipedia (which I know isn't a great source but still..)

"Medieval theologians of western Europe described the underworld ("hell", "hades", "infernum") as divided into four distinct parts: Hell of the Damned,[2] Purgatory, Limbo of the Fathers or Patriarchs, and Limbo of the Infants. However, Limbo of the Infants is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

so technically Purgatory and Limbo are like parts of hell, because they lack the Beatific Vision, but Purgatory contains souls that love God and are going to Heaven, and Limbo doesn't contain any suffering.

It later says "In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view. In the 12th century, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) said that these infants suffered no material torment or positive punishment, just the pain of loss at being denied the beatific vision. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness."

which probably explains why we said different things on this point - it seems like the theologians didn't agree on that (whether lack of Beatific Vision would be a suffering)

The Vatican's theological commission said "Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness through their mediated union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)"

As to whether it is a place in hell or an intermediate place, that is a big question I think... a council at the time of St Augustine (though local council) disagreed with the idea of an intermediate place, and since later Limbo was decided to be in hell, it's not really intermediate... at the same time, it's not a place of suffering like hell is. I guess the solution could be that it's technically in hell because hell means no Beatific Vision, but only the hell of the damned or Purgatory contain any suffering (and malice in the will is only found in the hell of the damned).

medieval Councils did really stress that Baptism is necessary for Heaven.. this is where we get Limbo. It's not a dogma, but necessity of Baptism needs to be dealt with, because that is an issue of doctrine. There is baptism of desire but the children don't have use of reason, so that raises some questions. This is why Limbo became a popular view and while it's not a dogma, the necessity for Baptism is something that the Councils said we need to believe.

The article also says

"Through the 18th and 19th centuries, individual theologians (Bianchi in 1768, H. Klee in 1835, Caron in 1855, H. Schell in 1893) continued to formulate theories of how children who died unbaptised might still be saved. By 1952 a theologian such as Ludwig Ott could, in a widely used and well-regarded manual, openly teach the possibility that children who die unbaptised might be saved for heaven.[27] He also told about Thomas Cajetan, a major 16th-century theologian, that suggested infants dying in the womb before birth, and so before ordinary sacramental baptism could be administered, might be saved through their mother's wish for their baptism."

One point about Limbo though is that traditionally, it seems like the theological alternative was actually suffering in hell. (to protect the idea of necessity of Baptism). The current perspective it seems is that we need to believe in necessity of Baptism, but the way it works out is sort of a mystery and we leave it to God's mercy, and Limbo is a permissible view. No one today believes that the unbaptized infants are suffering in hell though, as the souls who committed sin.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

but the problem here is grace is not the will of God doing something, it is the eternal energy of God which just is. the will of God is involved. and the union must be said to be substantial, there can be no question of that.

but even then, to make any distinction between created grace and uncreated grace makes no sense.

Maybe to have this discussion we need to first figure out the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of grace...

Uncreated grace is basically like God's love, which is not distinct from His Essence. We would not say that the Divine Energies are formally distinct from His Essence.

in the Catholic view though, we need a created instance of grace to receive uncreated grace, simply through our limitations as creatures.. because the grace in us is there accidentally. If it was there substantially, we would become actually Divine. This is where created grace comes in, it's a way that we don't become God in substance but still have union with God Himself. It's also to illustrate the idea of Divine Simplicity.

I'm interested in how the Orthodox would explain this... if Divine Energies are actually distinct from His Essence, and are uncreated, how does this go together with God's simplicity? Do you define Essence in the same way as we do? We say there is no formal distinction, yet Catholic theology also describes why we don't become divine in substance in union with God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

From what I have read about it, it seems like that absence of the Beatific Vision for them would not be any sort of torment.. they would just be naturally happy. I am curious where you read that, because in my research, I seem to remember reading that they have no suffering at all.

From Wikipedia (which I know isn't a great source but still..)

"Medieval theologians of western Europe described the underworld ("hell", "hades", "infernum") as divided into four distinct parts: Hell of the Damned,[2] Purgatory, Limbo of the Fathers or Patriarchs, and Limbo of the Infants. However, Limbo of the Infants is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

so technically Purgatory and Limbo are like parts of hell, because they lack the Beatific Vision, but Purgatory contains souls that love God and are going to Heaven, and Limbo doesn't contain any suffering.

It later says "In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view. In the 12th century, Peter Abelard (1079–1142) said that these infants suffered no material torment or positive punishment, just the pain of loss at being denied the beatific vision. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness."

which probably explains why we said different things on this point - it seems like the theologians didn't agree on that (whether lack of Beatific Vision would be a suffering)

The Vatican's theological commission said "Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all or even that they enjoy a full, though only natural, happiness through their mediated union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus)"

As to whether it is a place in hell or an intermediate place, that is a big question I think... a council at the time of St Augustine (though local council) disagreed with the idea of an intermediate place, and since later Limbo was decided to be in hell, it's not really intermediate... at the same time, it's not a place of suffering like hell is. I guess the solution could be that it's technically in hell because hell means no Beatific Vision, but only the hell of the damned or Purgatory contain any suffering (and malice in the will is only found in the hell of the damned).

medieval Councils did really stress that Baptism is necessary for Heaven.. this is where we get Limbo. It's not a dogma, but necessity of Baptism needs to be dealt with, because that is an issue of doctrine. There is baptism of desire but the children don't have use of reason, so that raises some questions. This is why Limbo became a popular view and while it's not a dogma, the necessity for Baptism is something that the Councils said we need to believe.

The article also says

"Through the 18th and 19th centuries, individual theologians (Bianchi in 1768, H. Klee in 1835, Caron in 1855, H. Schell in 1893) continued to formulate theories of how children who died unbaptised might still be saved. By 1952 a theologian such as Ludwig Ott could, in a widely used and well-regarded manual, openly teach the possibility that children who die unbaptised might be saved for heaven.[27] He also told about Thomas Cajetan, a major 16th-century theologian, that suggested infants dying in the womb before birth, and so before ordinary sacramental baptism could be administered, might be saved through their mother's wish for their baptism."

One point about Limbo though is that traditionally, it seems like the theological alternative was actually suffering in hell. (to protect the idea of necessity of Baptism). The current perspective it seems is that we need to believe in necessity of Baptism, but the way it works out is sort of a mystery and we leave it to God's mercy, and Limbo is a permissible view. No one today believes that the unbaptized infants are suffering in hell though, as the souls who committed sin.

ah, yeah, now we're getting into a lot of more problems with the beatific vision. anywho, I don't remember where I read it in school, but I do know Dante uses it (which is poetry, I know) and he got it somewhere.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

For example... here's something that was explained to me... St John of the Cross talks about how we can experience God.

He says that God's essence and His operations are not formally distinct (he agrees with Catholic theologians).

However, there's a distinction between His operations and their effect on us. The operations are God Himself, not distinct from His Essence. But the effect on us is created.

If someone sees a vision of Christ, or the Light of God... It is God who is acting, operating and communicating. It is truly God, not an intermediary. However, the actual perception (the feelings, etc) are effects of His operation and are created in the soul. This means that while God can really touch our souls, we don't experience grace itself, but it's effect on the soul.

So it's God who is really communicating, but our perception is fitted for this

In the Beatific Vision, we would see God's Essence in our intellect but not comprehend it fully, because seeing and comprehension are two different things according to St Thomas

The Orthodox view, as I understand, would be that we perceive God's Energies, which are uncreated, but not His Essence. Orthodox believe we can't experience God's Essence at all? do you believe we can be in contact with it or in some sort of union with it? (for Catholics, of course this union wouldn't change our substance). The Catholic difficulty with this has been that if God's Energies are uncreated AND distinct from His Essence, how does that reflect Divine Simplicity? we simply believe they are not formally distinct. And though our participation is created, we are still in contact with God Himself, so it's not like Barlaam said in the debate with Gregory Palamas. Barlaam's view is not the Catholic view, because he believed we can't know God Himself at all, and we believe we can. It's a really complicated topic. The East and the West have different theologies in this, that first need to be understood imo..

 

[ArmyMatt]

Maybe to have this discussion we need to first figure out the differences between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of grace...

Uncreated grace is basically like God's love, which is not distinct from His Essence. We would not say that the Divine Energies are formally distinct from His Essence.

in the Catholic view though, we need a created instance of grace to receive uncreated grace, simply through our limitations as creatures.. because the grace in us is there accidentally. If it was there substantially, we would become actually Divine. This is where created grace comes in, it's a way that we don't become God in substance but still have union with God Himself. It's also to illustrate the idea of Divine Simplicity.

I'm interested in how the Orthodox would explain this... if Divine Energies are actually distinct from His Essence, and are uncreated, how does this go together with God's simplicity? Do you define Essence in the same way as we do? We say there is no formal distinction, yet Catholic theology also describes why we don't become divine in substance in union with God.

grace is only uncreated because it is God's energy and operation. we say they are distinct from His essence, but that doesn't violate His simplicity any more than the distinction of Persons does, or the distinction between Person and Essence.

we say we do become Divine through participation in the energies of God, without becoming God since His essence is forever beyond us.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

ah, yeah, now we're getting into a lot of more problems with the beatific vision. anywho, I don't remember where I read it in school, but I do know Dante uses it (which is poetry, I know) and he got it somewhere.

if Wikipedia is correct, I guess there was debate about that among theologians, with both views being present.. neither are dogma of course, this particular point seems to be speculation

 

[ArmyMatt]

For example... here's something that was explained to me... St John of the Cross talks about how we can experience God.

He says that God's essence and His operations are not formally distinct (he agrees with Catholic theologians).

However, there's a distinction between His operations and their effect on us. The operations are God Himself, not distinct from His Essence. But the effect on us is created.

If someone sees a vision of Christ, or the Light of God... It is God who is acting, operating and communicating. It is truly God, not an intermediary. However, the actual perception (the feelings, etc) are effects of His operation and are created in the soul. This means that while God can really touch our souls, we don't experience grace itself, but it's effect on the soul.

So it's God who is really communicating, but our perception is fitted for this

In the Beatific Vision, we would see God's Essence in our intellect but not comprehend it fully, because seeing and comprehension are two different things according to St Thomas

The Orthodox view, as I understand, would be that we perceive God's Energies, which are uncreated, but not His Essence. Orthodox believe we can't experience God's Essence at all? do you believe we can be in contact with it or in some sort of union with it? (for Catholics, of course this union wouldn't change our substance). The Catholic difficulty with this has been that if God's Energies are uncreated AND distinct from His Essence, how does that reflect Divine Simplicity? we simply believe they are not formally distinct. And though our participation is created, we are still in contact with God Himself, so it's not like Barlaam said in the debate with Gregory Palamas. Barlaam's view is not the Catholic view, because he believed we can't know God Himself at all, and we believe we can. It's a really complicated topic. The East and the West have different theologies in this, that first need to be understood imo..

well, yeah, you got our belief. it doesn't violate God's simplicity as stated before. and for us, the effects are not created. they are the uncreated experienced by the created.

and Barlaam might not be accepted now, but I am pretty sure he was accepted by Rome and made a bishop.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

grace is only uncreated because it is God's energy and operation. we say they are distinct from His essence, but that doesn't violate His simplicity any more than the distinction of Persons does, or the distinction between Person and Essence.

we say we do become Divine through participation in the energies of God, without becoming God since His essence is forever beyond us.

I think one of the differences is that for the Orthodox, being in union with God's Essence means becoming God... whereas for Catholics, it only means that if we talk about a substantial union, but not otherwise.

I'm trying to figure out the first part about the distinction of Essence and Energies being comparable to distinction between Essence and the Divine Persons...

I think we see the distinction between Persons as being different:

"A certain difficulty still presents itself, for according to revelation there are three distinct Persons in God. Does this mean then that God is composed of three Persons? St. Thomas considers this difficulty in one of his works, and says: "A plurality of Persons posits no composition in God. For we may consider the Persons from two points of view. First in their relation to their essence with which they are identified; and thus it is evident that there is no composition remaining. Secondly we may consider them in their mutual relations, and thus they are related to one another as distinct, and not as united. For this reason neither from this point of view can there be composition: for all composition is union." (47) Elsewhere he remarks: "All the divine relations are not greater than only one; because the whole perfection of the divine nature exists in each Person"; (48) otherwise any one of the Persons would not be God.

Therefore God is absolutely simple, and it will be stated farther on that the three Persons have, in fact are, one existence, one intellect, one essential will."

(Fr Garrigou Lagrange, same book as before)

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think one of the differences is that for the Orthodox, being in union with God's Essence means becoming God... whereas for Catholics, it only means that if we talk about a substantial union, but not otherwise.

I'm trying to figure out the first part about the distinction of Essence and Energies being comparable to distinction between Essence and the Divine Persons...

I think we see the distinction between Persons as being different:

"A certain difficulty still presents itself, for according to revelation there are three distinct Persons in God. Does this mean then that God is composed of three Persons? St. Thomas considers this difficulty in one of his works, and says: "A plurality of Persons posits no composition in God. For we may consider the Persons from two points of view. First in their relation to their essence with which they are identified; and thus it is evident that there is no composition remaining. Secondly we may consider them in their mutual relations, and thus they are related to one another as distinct, and not as united. For this reason neither from this point of view can there be composition: for all composition is union." (47) Elsewhere he remarks: "All the divine relations are not greater than only one; because the whole perfection of the divine nature exists in each Person"; (48) otherwise any one of the Persons would not be God.

Therefore God is absolutely simple, and it will be stated farther on that the three Persons have, in fact are, one existence, one intellect, one essential will."

(Fr Garrigou Lagrange, same book as before)

well, the problem here is that the earliest Fathers had our view. check out the writings against the Eunomeans. and just like when talking about God, distinguishing between Person and essence does not add to God, since it is only a distinction being made, and not a separation. same is true with the energy and essence distinction.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

well, yeah, you got our belief. it doesn't violate God's simplicity as stated before. and for us, the effects are not created. they are the uncreated experienced by the created.

I think I understand what you are trying to say... I guess for Catholics it's that - the uncreated (not distinct from God's Essence) can be experienced by us but in a created way... so it is truly God but our perception is created.

and Barlaam might not be accepted now, but I am pretty sure he was accepted by Rome and made a bishop.

Maybe he was a Bishop, but my understanding of him was a bit different when I researched it.. I'll post my notes on what I read in the past about the topic in the next post..