Thomas Aquinas on Existence/Essence and Identity

September 26, 2008

“Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.” – ST Ia. Q.3 A.4

“Therefore “suppositum” and nature in them are identified. Since God then is not composed of matter and form, He must be His own Godhead, His own Life, and whatever else is thus predicated of Him.” – ST Ia. Q.3 A.3

“The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Question 3, Article 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as “suppositum,” which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), “relation multiplies the Trinity of persons,” some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be “adjacent”; considering only in the relations the idea of “reference to another,” and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above (Question 28, Article 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.” – ST Ia. Q.39 A.1

And for future discussion, to counter Boethius, does Relation establish Person or does Person establish Relation?


Roman Catholic Sophistry

September 25, 2008

“All that the Father has which is not Paternity he gives to the Son. This includes the act of spiration, which cannot be identical to the divine essence, since the Spirit Himself does not spirate.

“That the principle in question–that whatever is not shared by all three persons is a personal property–is false may be proved by the fact that the Son and the Spirit have in common originating from the Father, while the Father alone is unoriginate.”

Michael Sullivan posted this piece over at their blog to try and disprove the Basilian principle that “what is said about more than one hypostasis is of the nature, what is said about only one is personal.” Let’s start with the first part:

“All that the Father has which is not Paternity he gives to the Son.”

This much is true. The personal properties of the persons are not communicated, but all that is natural to the Father is natural to the Son. The personal feature of the Father is Ingenerate, Source, and Cause. These properties are not shared amongst persons according to Nicene Orthodoxy 101.

“This includes the act of spiration, which cannot be identical to the divine essence, since the Spirit Himself does not spirate.”

The act of spiration is common to the Father and Son, yet it is not identical to the divine essence. So is this a personal property resulting in the semi-Sabellian monster? Or is this a natural property? Or is it some new non-Trinitarian property that we are not even told that must be accounted for?

“That the principle in question–that whatever is not shared by all three persons is a personal property–is false may be proved by the fact that the Son and the Spirit have in common originating from the Father, while the Father alone is unoriginate.”

Here we see the hypocritical thinking in Roman Catholic theology, first we are told that the Father gives everything to the Son except his Paternity. Well is Paternity a personal property of the Father? Is it shared amongst persons? So, what is personal cannot be shared, and what is not shared is the personal properties.

Finally, to show the real problem with this critigue, does Mr. Sullivan give a reductio using Orthodox principles as they understand them? Does he give a true internal critigue? No he does not. There is no “common originating from the Father” property! No such thing exists in reality. Compare Mr. Sullivan here with Ratramnus of Corbie:

“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father because he flows from his substance…and just as the Son received his substance from the Father by being begotten, so also he received from the Father the ability to send the Spirit of Truth from himself through proceeding…For just as the Father and the Son are of one substance, so too by procession from both did the Holy Spirit receive his consubstantial existence.”

 

–Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Inflamantium, PL 121, 229

 

And,

 

“Therefore if the Son proceeds from God the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds, what will keep the Arians silent, not blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is also the Son of the Father.”

 

Ibid., PL 121, 247

Ratramnus’ Arian presuppositions not withstanding, what is the problem with this critigue? It is none other than a commitment to “God-in-General” theology. Generation and procession ends up being the same thing as some “common property of coming forth from the Father,” as Mr. Sullivan affirms, and to distinguish the Son and Spirit, the latter must come from not one but two. This is why Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles can say that the Son proceeds from the Father or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, they are both the same thing (divine simplicity at work). They are both just general ideas for “coming forth from the Father.”

Listen to John of Damascus, the other two Persons do not have some “common property of coming forth” (that doesn’t exist) but rather a very unique coming forth that is wholly and incomprehensibly unique:

“The Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand.” -Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, C. VIII

Would any Orthodox affirm that generation and procession can be considered under a more broader heading of “coming forth from the Father” ? Surely not if we are being careful and following proper theological method.

Photios


Does Ratzinger understand 1 Cor 3?

September 23, 2008

Ratzinger in Spe Salvi:

“Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, gives us an idea of the differing impact of God’s judgement according to each person’s particular circumstances. He does this using images which in some way try to express the invisible, without it being possible for us to conceptualize these images—simply because we can neither see into the world beyond death nor do we have any experience of it. Paul begins by saying that Christian life is built upon a common foundation: Jesus Christ. This foundation endures. If we have stood firm on this foundation and built our life upon it, we know that it cannot be taken away from us even in death. Then Paul continues: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). In this text, it is in any case evident that our salvation can take different forms, that some of what is built may be burned down, that in order to be saved we personally have to pass through “fire” so as to become fully open to receiving God and able to take our place at the table of the eternal marriage-feast.

“47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ’s Passion.”

The Greeks:

“In explanation of the Apostle’s words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner’s existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. “It is very right to suppose,” wrote the Orthodox teachers, “that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle’s words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities.” The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle’s words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. “Your doctrine,” they continued to tell the Latins, “would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, ‘Every man’s work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: ‘For the day,’ he says, ’shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.’ Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. ‘This fire,’ says he, ’shall try every man’s work of what sort it is,’ enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,’ (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour.”" –The Greeks at the Council of Florence link: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

Photios


The Confusion Between Person and Nature

September 23, 2008

Do I have reading comprehension problems or do Roman Catholics refuse to own up to error?

The essence of Nestorianism:

“But being human, i.e., an instance of humanity, entails being a person.” — Mike Liccione

What’s wrong with this ordo? And why does it not work in this order in evaluating Chalcedonian Orthodoxy? Why is it then not hypocritical to say “From the fact that all human beings are persons, which I affirm, it does not follow that all human beings are human persons, which I deny (Mike Liccione)?

Full context:

“There is something that each and every human person has in common, namely what may be called humanity. Call that “the human essence.” But being human, i.e., an instance of humanity, entails being a person. The same goes for being God: any x that is God must eo ipso be a person. That is part of what I mean by saying that the divine essence necessitates the divine persons.”

Notice that the analog here is not some category person which could be divine or human. Mike is prescriptive about what each essence has whether divine or human, and essence on his view necessarily entails person. That is the basis then on which he wants to make the analog work.

The analog fails because of the very order in which the questions are handled. If essence is prescriptive and entails having person, then Christ who has two natures, must also have two person’s that are prescriptive of those two essences (that’s logical order of his thinking). The union must be conjunctive.

Photios


Save Ferris

September 8, 2008

As some of you know, last June I lost my teaching position and my academic career was terminated. Needless to say this was due to my having integrity. If I had been dishonest and gone about things in a non-biblical manner by going to the person who stole from me privately, I wouldn’t be in this mess today. If I had know that I was dealing with principalities and powers rather than apparent ministers of righteousness, I would have gone about things differently. But the past is over and done with. As things stand, my wife is still working part time while I look for some kind of employment sufficient to meet our financial needs, while we take turns watching our three girls.

We live fairly frugally and even more so since my termination. We don’t have cable TV and going out to a KFC type place for dinner once a month with the family is a luxury,( which we no longer can afford). We cut off Netflix last month. Other than our mortgage, car payment and some small school loans, we have no revolving debt. We live within our means in our two bedroom home. My wife keeps telling me that I need to find a way to generate some cash flow from the blog writing I do. All of that apologetic experience has got to be worth something. So here goes.

I have been doing this for free. We have here a blog unlike most others in the blogsphere where we attempt to discuss unique material at a high level of sophistication. Few and far between are the places, at least that I know of in the blogsphere where you can discuss, not to mention learn about the kind of things we discuss here, even among “professonal” theologians and philosophers.

Soon my cash reserves will run out and I will be in serious financial difficulty. That means I will lose my house. Currently my wife and I have no health insurrance and my kids are on state medical coverage. So here I am begging until I can get on my feet. If you have found my writing significantly helpful and if you have disposable income and you need to be charitable or philanthropic, I am asking for help.

If you know of any job leads in the St. Louis area which would require someone with strong analytical skills, strong speaking skills and the kind of person who comes in early and leaves late, I could use those as well. For the last few months I have been applying to everything from educational positions, to selling shoes, to Enterprise Rent-a-Car. I am not proud, well at least not proud when it comes to feeding my kids. If you have already donated, you have my gratitude and I am not asking you to give again, but seeking to spread the love around as it were.

If you wish to donate or send me employment information, I would be most grateful. You may contact me at acolyte4236 AT sbcglobal dot net.

Thank you,

Perry Robinson