Posts
An Orthodox Refutation of the Foundation of Western Theology as Expounded by Thomas Aquinas
Simplified Version (O = Orthodox; S = Scholastic)
O. - Is God immutable?
S. – Yes
O. – Is God pure simplicity (actus purus)?
S. – Yes
O. - Is God’s pure simplicity meant to protect the immutability of God?
S. – Yes
O -- If God is pure simplicity without any complexity, then would you say there is no potentiality in God?
S. – Yes
O. – If there is no potentiality in God, then the divine essence, existence, and energy are identical?
S. – Yes
O. – If the divine essence, existence, and energy are identical, then is God only in a full state of activity (energy)?
S. – Yes
O. – Then would you agree that if God is in a fully activated state, He is so by necessity?
S. – Yes
O. – And there is no distinction between the action and power of God from his essence?
S. – No, God is pure energy.
O. – Do you distinguish the energies of God from the acts of God?
S. – No, they are both the same created works of God.
At the very core of its doctrine, Orthodox theology differs from Scholastic theology. The Greek Fathers clearly taught that God is not actus purus but possesses many energies and powers (potentialities) which are utterly united, neither separating nor confounding with one another within the incorruptible, inconceivable and utterly simple essence of the one triadic divinity. The immutability of God has no need of being protected by the actus purus. There is no need for the actus purus at all. Rather, it is protected by the incomprehensible and incommunicable essence of God.
Aquinas renders the divine energy into the divine essence as a necessity. The Orthodox Church would consider it blasphemous that God must act out of necessity, for God remains within His essence and within the three hypostaseis. God is not Being regulated by His energy but he Himself regulates His energy. God is not pure energy but the energizer.
The Church Fathers teach that God is the energizer, energy is the uncreated activity of God, and the accomplished work (or creature) is the act of God. The West, however, fails to distinguish the energy of God from the acts (works) of God. The energy of God is best rendered as activity rather than act. The finished act indeed is created, but the activity itself is uncreated. This activity is also known as grace, and if it is uncreated then it is divine.
To infer created grace (energy) in God is a heresy which logically leads to complete atheism and/or Greek mythology. According to the Church Fathers, created energy always indicates a created nature; and uncreated energy always indicates uncreated essence.
Would you please indicate some books that explain and expand on these theological differences?
ReplyDeleteThanks,
Edward
Specifically, this is a summary of chapter one in Sopko's "Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy: The Theology of John Romanides". Most people have a hard time understanding the debate between the Patristic views of Fr Romanides and the Scholastic views of Dr Trembelas, so I attempted to summarize it in the dialogue above. All the works of Fr. Romanides get into this essential conflict between East and West, and you can also find it in the writings of his students and successors like Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, Fr George Metallinos, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, Christos Yannaras, Philip Sherrard, etc. Some have different nuances than others.
ReplyDeleteDo you really consider Philip Sherrard a "student and successor" of Fr. John Romanides?
ReplyDeleteIn Christ,
Edward
I guess I should not have lumped him in there as a successor, but he was a student of sorts. Fr Romanides and he were good friends and koumbaroi at one point, but that relationship diminished when Sherrard became an advocate of the Analogia Entis. There are aspects of his ealier writings I really like that do give good arguments on the conflicts between East and West.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Do you have any English source to this information? Do you have some more detalis on how analogia entis played a role in Sherrard´s thinking? In his "Metaphysics of Logic" that I mentioned earlier, it seems quite the contrary: he refutes René Guénon showing how he (Guénon) inadvertently limits metaphysical realm with logical premises. This practice seems to be common with those linked with René Guénon and Frithjof Schuon. By the way: have you ever heard about these two?
ReplyDeleteRomanides writes:
ReplyDelete"When I went to Greece in 1953 to submit my doctoral thesis at the University of Athens I met Philip Sherrard and we became friends. I became his godfather at his baptism etc. However, when my Doctoral thesis was printed in 1957 he reacted strongly by challenging my claim that the Fathers of the Church reject both analogia entis and analogia fidei."
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.12.en.orthodox_heterodox_dialogues.01.htm
I havn't studied Sherrard till after I read this years ago to determine if this is revealed in his writings or not.
Yes, I've heard of Guénon and Schuon.
Thanks for the link. I haven´t noticed that Fr. John mentioned both Sherrard and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. But this is not surprising, since, as you may know, both of them were involved with Schuon´s teachings, although I´m not sure how much Metropolitan Kallistos really accepted them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you will find this article of interest:
http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw6_stoddart.pdf
Stoddart -- a famous Schuon´s disciple -- tries to interpret St. Gregory Palamas and Vladimir Lossky in the light of Schuon´s "Being" and "Beyond-Being" metaphysics.
I think analogia entis is exactly the Achilles´ heel of the philosophia perennis school, that´s why I thought your information about Sherrard and Fr. John Romanides so interesting.