Відео

what makes you say that? it seems to me your are just being rude

Reading the quotes you have shared, I think we have much more of an aligned perspective. Especially given my evolved understanding since I created this video as can be seen in my latest video. I would ask that Nyssas works on the Song of Songs be further investigated for I think he has something more to add to the conversation than noticed. For instance, he specifies knowledge of God in this age is attained through the energies (which he calls the bridegrooms “hand” in the doorknob). But, he seems to imply that in the eschatological age there is a beholding of a different kind. Check out the 1 hour and 2 minute mark on this video I made. Would love to hear your thoughts. ua-cam.com/video/VpWGVFO7BuE/v-deo.htmlsi=X8xrRti_b7EVs35t

@@MountAthosandAquinas It seems to me that what Nyssa is saying is that the manner in what we see the Energy (our capacity) is going to change (God's activity "shall be apprehended in another fashion", and not that we are going to change the object of our aprehension). Our "soul's knowledge" can only grasp the Energy of God "manifested in [now] existent things". Here our mind is limited, so we perceived as manyfold something that is one and simple. As St. Paul says: "For we know in part [μέρους]" (1Cor 13:9)". Now our contemplation is imperfect because our mind can only aprehend aspects of God's Energy, in the multiplicity on existent things, but in the escathon God will reveal his energy in a more direct way (he will be *all* in *all* ) in the glorified New Heaven/New Earth, and in our glorified body and mind. In this new reality we will be capable of contemplate the wholeness/unity/totality of God's energy. (If God did this now, the whole world would be destroyed by his presence; cf: 2Pt 3:10-13). As it is said in Revelation: "the *glory of God* illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp." (Rv 21:23-23) And also: "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for *the Lord God giveth them light."* (Rv 22:5).

It seems, from your response, that we have a similar perspective on the contracting of the “many” energies (myriad) into the ineffable, Trihypostatic Godhead where all multiplicity (and oneness as perceived here) vanishes into the immediate vision of God. It seems that the Son delivering the Kingdom to His Father (who doesn’t appear in the economy) is the drawing out of the faithful unto the One above one and the Life above life. There, all is “light” and the many expressions of goodness are convertible as the mind of the one raised beyond the cosmic city to the Primal Principle itself. “I will show you plainly of the Father.” In moving into simplicity the mind itself will be freed from its dyadic lens (matter and form) by which it only imperfectly knows God in part through the mediation of His product. Maximus calls this leaving mother (matter-Moses) and father (form-Elijah). And beyond this, one must even pass rhe cosmic city, which mirrors the divine glory through the angelic hierarchy. Thus, it seems to me, that when all the terms (of products) are stripped away from the Divine substance, and God is seen “as He is” then, it’s absolutely impossible to say the Divine Essence is not beheld in some manner. For an unblinking nous that sees nothing in conjunction with God (everything sequent to God vanishes when the Father is seen) then God is manifested “as He is” (1John 5) and not “as he acts.” Or rather, His Act in us, unmediated by any object “sequent to God” (even the natural motion of intellection and sensation). Nyssa calls this the final sight beyond the cosmic city. I realize you seem to think Nyssa imagines the cosmic city as the “end” of the Christian life. But actually, if you read further in his Homilies, he affirms that this is but a road, a passage that one must travel through so as to arrive at Him who is “above every name.” That One is honored in silence. It’s not that the cosmic city doesn’t behold God in His Essence, it’s that they behold in what’s called “morning knowledge” which is a knowledge that is unmediated by intellection and simple and incomprehensible. As such, they know “nothing” and can speak “nothing” about the one who is above their apprehension. They cannot speak about “seeing” it for they do not “see” it. For “seeing” as Chrysostom says, is perfect apprehension/knowledge and comprehension. It’s evening knowledge, or, knowledge about God through intellection whereby we “name” God. Thus, God manifesting himself THROUGH the mind is his energies in “the door.” Disclosing Himself apart from the mind (the activity of the mind that is and not the subject of the mind) is the rest of the mind. For “perception” Maximus states puts to rest the mind. So, I am still unsure what I am saying. As one who is currently surrounded by worldly cares I don’t quite see as clearly as I did when making the EED series. These conversations are difficult for me. I do believe the East and West can be harmonized as I tried to demonstrate in my videos. Only it requires a great deal of unpacking (hence 2 hours for the last episode). Much of what you say really resonates with me. Thanks for the lengthy response. -Irenaeus

Great points. I would give a possible alternative interpretation of Gregory’s quote considering he considers “perfect” beholding of the Divine Essence in the same way as Chrysostom states in his incomprehensible nature of God. Namely, perfect beholding is perfect apprehension and comprehension of the Divine Essence. Which beholding only the Holy Trinity has and no created mind can have. Thanks for bringing this quote forward. Blessings, -Irenaeus

It’s a quote which Maximus the Confessor has from his Opusculas. I have been unable to identify directly from any of his works though Maximus states it’s from Saint Alexander. -Irenaeus

I am glad that derived some fruit from the Grace God extended to me. Blessings to you my friend. -Irenaeus

Greetings, Unfortunately my understanding of Islam is sparse. From what I understand, it seems the concept of “fitrah” is something akin to the Eastern idea of the Nous. At the end of the day, words are vocal expressions of inner apprehensions so the discrepancy in verbiage in no way dismisses their convertibility. Said differently, languages are different expressions of similar concepts. But, rather Nous and Fitrah are convertible or not isn’t clear to me. Someone who understands Islam may have a better answer for you. -Irenaeus

Why be on this channel? You disagree with it all. Therefore, enter into the chamber of your heart and spend your time in illumination rather than seeking rotten breadcrumbs from me.

@@MountAthosandAquinas Thank you

This is a very superficial understanding of the intellect. It’s an anachronistic interpretation based off the theory of modern sciences. The intellect, as proved by the philosophers, is not located in any organ of the body. If it was, it would be limited and circumscribed by the limitations of the material domain. Man alone (of the material domain) transcends all categorical restraints. And yet, whatever you find compositionally in motion in man you can find in all creatures in one way or another. The intellect, my friend, is the Proper power of the soul which has “being” as its object and truth as its perfection. Hope this helps. -Irenaeus

One clarification I see the energy is the movement which is the logos (or begetting of) is that correct? I need to go back and understand how the spirit is included in that.

That’s close, only in no way can we say the energy is uncreated and created. Energy is the essential motion of the nature and as such Gods energy has no aspect of being created. The Son and Spirit in the West enter the economy through the “Missions.” These “missions” (sending of the Father) are not a change in their essential nature but their beginning to be in a place in a new and supreme way. In Western Theology, the Sons generation is conceptualized analogously as that of an internal Word, remaining inseparable from the Mind (Father) in which it substantially exists. This is a natural generation. The Holy Spirit is conceptualized as the innate motion, proceeding naturally as fruition from the Wills actualization of its final end. With this in mind, the West has a secondary term of these inner relations towards the creature (divine exemplars-ideas). But this “second term” isn’t a movement outside the agent but a formally immanent movement within the agent. This “second term” is generated from the will and thought of God. God creates simply by willing it. His essential motion causes a creation that is in motion from God and in motion towards God. This motion “from” and motion “towards” are “predeterminations” and exemplars of the created order. A lot more to unpack here. The exitus and reditus of creation in imitation of the inner trinitarian relations, and the Divinization through the theological outlines. The Logoi are the blueprint and patterns in the mind of God and the motion of the virtues which are the secondary term intentions (and movements) of God towards his creatures with the primary so as to move them towards Him as First Truth and final end. This returning to the First and final End contracts the many Logoi (thought (Son) wills (Holy Spirit)) into the One Logos (since God made all through Him). In a Divinization above nature and all affirmation or negations the whole of the intellect is mingled with the whole of the Divine Glory, placing the subject face to face with God in Consummation. Hope this makes some sense. I haven’t visited this video or the material since I made it, and my mind is engrossed with worldly cares so as to dry up the divine stream that saturated my understanding. Nothing is as clear these days. Pray for me, a man absorbed with worldly cares. This mystery is too deep right now. -Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas Thanks, that and watching your video on created grace has really helped 👍. As a man who has been caught up in a lot of worldly cares myself I can understand, i will pray for you. Pray me also. God bless.

@@MountAthosandAquinas Where does the bible say that energy is the essential motion of nature?

Where does the Bible say energy is “pure potential” as you define it? What Church are you from?

Hey Nico… Would you mind leaving a time stamp so I can answer adequately? I haven’t been as sharp in this conversation as I was when I made the video. -Irenaeus

👀

I haven’t yet put Pino work in my hands. To be honest, I don’t find many secondary sources to be as thorough as I have been in my research. Maybe Pino is different so I’ll suspend judgment.

​@@MountAthosandAquinasI would highly recommend Pino's work.

Hey @dubbelkastrull You’re welcome to send questions to greekandhebrewf@gmail.com -Irenaeus

Hey Servus, great observation from a historical perspective. One might consider my video a mystical harmonizing of the two even in the diverging forms as expressed by the motion of the hands. I think meditating on both will prove to be more fruitful than just one expression. Thanks for leaving your thoughts. -Irenaeus

This is a great question. First we would have to assess what it means to “see.” Is gnoetic knowledge the same as sight? Does “sight” necessarily entail apprehension through the medium of the phantasms? Can God commune with the intellect apart from any created medium? Many far wiser than myself have drawn out a well of different tenses and expressions of sight. Once we are clear on the different tenses and senses of the term I think we can affirm that some of the Apostles and prophets had an experience approximating “sight.” I think others did not. If we are asking rather they had the unveiled sight of God free from any phantasms in the mind or from any object of intellection I would say this is doubtful. Nevertheless, the energies of God come down as manifold and digestible to the mind in conjunction with the term in which they are manifested and multiplied. (The Cause is virtually in the effect) With that being said, some of the Apostles and the Prophets (perhaps) ascended in the mind to the same degree that Christ descended to the earth. Such that, they arrived to Him who is the Self subsisting Truth in a flash of Lightning like inspiration since they followed His Cross after Him. In this union (I conjecture) there is an immediate awareness (sight of some sort) of God dwelling within the soul of the believer since it experiences a momentary suspension of its natural powers and is enfolded into its inner chamber by the hook of Glory. “All the Queens beauty is within.” “Go out within and I will show you the place of your inheritance.” “The Kingdom is within you.” As you can see, these questions are not as simple as some try to reduce it to. Hope this helps. -Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinasThank you very much for the response! Would you say that when the Prophets in the Old Testament saw The Angel of the Lord that they saw something created and uncreated at the same time? For example when the Sun (Divine Essence) shines on a window and the window reflects light (The Created Effect). Because it is impossible to see the Divine Essence with my eyes on this earth at least right?

@@SicilianusThomismus I think that would be an accurate assumption if one reads the Fathers of the West. Augustine and Gregory the Great are very clear that seeing the Angel of the Lord was not seeing The Logos in His undiminished brightness. In fact they believed the Angel was actually an Angel by nature and not the Logos Himself. The Angel was a prism of the Divine Energy and a typological figure of Christs future embodiment in the incarnation. There is strong reason to believe Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa also believed this. Though many would state the contrary it is clear that Nyssa believed the “theophanies” always contained a created medium.

@@MountAthosandAquinas this is what I would say and maybe you would agree with this. It looks like there was something like a imperfect composition as with the Hypostatic union but not a human nature but more like a Angelic form. So they were completely the same subject (God The Son) but the Angelic Form was distinct by composition, but united by the same subject. So the angelic form was not a accident, since accident is opposed to substance/subsistence but they were completely the same subsistence. This is what i have got from reading the Fathers and Catholic doctrine, it actually looks almost the same but when Christ took on a human nature he did take it for always. What you think on this?

@@SicilianusThomismus I think on a metaphysical level I don’t find issue with it. It seems plausible. On a Scriptural level I think there are complications. In the letter to the Hebrews Paul affirms that Christ did not “take hold of an Angel. But he did take hold of the seed of Abraham.” It is precisely because of this “taking hold of the seed of Abraham” that Paul says Christ was made like His brethren in all things. I would reject that Christ ever took the form of a Cherub, seraph, or any creature besides the seed of Abraham on the basis of this passage alone. Also, Stephen when he is arguing with the Pharisees in Acts never refers to the “Angel” that followed the Israelites in the wilderness as God. Lastly, when John the Apostle bows to the Angel in Heaven the Angel stops him and says “do not do that. Worship God! For the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.” Gregory the Great saw that any Scriptural passage that seems to appropriate worship towards this “Angel of the Lord” is actually worshipping the testimony which the Angel carried. In a sense, they were worshipping Gods Providencial mystery (the Logos) of the incarnation delivered by the hands of angels to the prophets. Gods Hidden speech was impressed by a hidden angel in the inner chamber of the prophet. The prophet understood the angel to be actually an angel and truly one for an angel is an angel to the degree in which it manifests Christ who is called “the Angel of Counsel” according to the Septuagint version of Isaiah. Christ as the “Angel of Counsel” is so called in regards to His Divinity since the Angel is a “messenger” and Christ is the Eternal Speech (contained which is the mystery and message) of the Father. Lastly, I’ll add that the theophanies of Sacred Scripture seem to have a gradation of creaturely appropriation. I think the purest appearances of the Lord were not when the creature beheld an object of intellection (such as a scroll to Zechariah, or the Cherub to Ezekiel, or the vision of Jacobs Ladder, or the angel that wrestled with Jacob) but when God impressed immediately upon the mind of the rational agent apart from any descriptive qualities. For instance, when it says in Genesis 15, “and the Word of the Lord came to Abraham and said.” This coming to Abraham is by way of immediate inspiration apart from any description in Scripture. If there is a descriptive quality attached to a prophetic utterance, then this seems to be anticipatory of Christs Hypostatic Union of Uncreated Speech and created vocal speech. In a sense, Gods creatures rather they be angels or prophets are terms of the Divine Utterance and reflect something of the mystery in their speech. When a man ascends to the same degree Christ descends, then there they truly come face to face with self subsisting truth no longer manifested in an enigma and mirror but truly unveiled in His undiminished brightness and Glory. This is the best way I can explain it, being weak at this time for lack of reading and worldly engagement. I don’t fully dismiss your hypothesis, just merely showing why I struggle with it given my personal convictions. Blessings to you -Irenaeus

I’ve considered it. It seems the topic has been discussed near ad nauseam as of late. Not sure what I can add to the discussion. Thanks for the recommendation. -Irenaeus

Hi Sammy, Saint Gregory the Great was a 6th century Church Father. Saint John Chrysostom was early 5th century. Many believed Chrysostom taught that the divine Essence wouldn’t be seen. Gregory the Great forcefully disagrees with those disciples of Chrysostom. (Which disciples didn’t investigate his works fully)

It’s clear that the Catholic position understands God to be self subsisting. In this sense, God does not receive Being in any way. In fact, God is beyond Being and Non-Being since these are predicated of the things which come down from God through his Energy and not of God Himself. (God is not an opposite to non being) With that being said, the Son is said to “receive being” from the Father in the sense that Logically, in the taxis of persons, the Father has nobody prior. Nevertheless God subsists as tri-Hypostatic. Each name signifies their mode of existence and operation. Nevertheless, their existence and energy is numerically one. The Father generates because He exists as subsisting Paternity. The Son is generated because He exists as subsisting Filiation. The Holy Spirit is the vital impulse or procession because He exists as subsisting vital impulse and procession. Each subsist, but their mode of subsistence is “other” referencing which culminates in the Father as the Font and Principle without a principle. In short, God is self subsisting as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the “mode” of their existence demand the Father be logically prior in the taxis of persons and yet even the term “Father” necessitates “Son” as Saint Symeon the New Theologian demonstrates. Hope this helps, follow ups are welcomed. Irenaeus

It’s been a long time since I have listened to Mark Spencer give his thoughts. Honestly I can’t recall what his position is.

@@MountAthosandAquinas He's attended a few well known podcasts (such as Reason & Theology, and Philosophy For The People). ua-cam.com/video/FRVP8UTdjo0/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared

To be quite honest, I think the schismatic mind is clouded by misapprehension which feeds polemics. As such, there is a formulation of the EED which is to be rejected by Catholics and even some Orthodox alike and that formulation is what I call “neopalamism.” What I have attempted to do is use the Eastern sources in a way that isn’t in tension with Catholic Dogma. I don’t appreciate any apologetics that simply hand waves “the other side” and seeks to score points. For I recognize that the Eastern Fathers are not another “side” (neither are the Western Fathers to the East) and as such must be treated reverently. I hope my videos have done that and provided a fresh look at the EED controversy.

@@MountAthosandAquinas well, I think you’re doing a great job. I think the main problem with apologetics is an us versus them mindset, and instead of trying to reach a higher understanding of truth, or help others reach a higher understanding of truth. It is simply a war against an ideology that someone deems “other”.

@What.Is.Truth. I think that is spot on. Really appreciate the feedback!

@@MountAthosandAquinas alright, don’t block me lol but I had this thought about how quantum physics might help us shed light on the essence energies distinction… So orthodox are saying God’s energies are uncreated because they are co eternal manifestations of God’s essence. Catholics would say nothing is uncreated expect the divine essence itself and there are no distinctions within the divine Essence.. To me, space time seems to be the issue. It’s hard for our minds to grasp something being created and eternal at the same time. However, if we examine quantum entanglement, one electron acts on another electron outside of space time.. but, while no time elapses, it still required an precondition in which it’s action was instantiated. Could We think of Gods essence interacting through his energies/grace in a sort of “gracious quantum entanglement” where grace is created in the sense it emanates from Gods essence, but uncreated in the sense it’s happening outside of space time?

I like that your wheels are spinning. The quantum entanglement analogy is interesting but I wouldn’t want to draw the parallels that you are suggesting. If I follow you, it seems that you want “grace” to be the emanated term that makes contact within the realm of space and time but is relational to God as uncreated and timeless. Is this a fair summery?

Hey, So I have quite a bit to say in response to those who launch arguments against ADS. In my series on the EED (Essence and Energy distinction), I follow and trace through the East and West two different formulations that converge into the same point. Dyer might sound convincing but actually through philosophical proofs you could back him into the other extreme that he attempts to back Catholics into. But instead of arguing in that way, I prefer to just deal with the fathers and the sources. For instance, in Nyssas homilies on the Song of Song, he is clear that in this life the “energies” of God come down to us in multiplicity and are diversified by the apprehension of the intellect in union with the object it apprehends. But, when the subject leaves behind this life, God is “no longer known by his energies” as Nyssa says. This is because He will no longer be known in conjunction with a thing that is “sequent” to Him. Instead, He will be seen as He is in Himself through no mediated means. This is what Maximus and Dionysius call the “contracting” of the Energies and Logoi into a super essential One. This “contracting” puts to rest the mind and the multiplicity that it perceives through analogy. So, the conclusion? In the eschaton the Catholic notion of ADS is true. But, in this lifetime, we do not perceive this but only reason about it from effect to Cause. In which case, Gods truly “indivisibly divided” in this life. And in the next, He will be above all division and even Oneness as we know it. So rather the Orthodox wants to admit it or not, if he studies the fathers, he will HAVE to affirm ADS is an ungraspable Truth. One in which the CC has always rested her bosom. The Eastern Fathers are in that CC. May God silence all her antagonists. Hope this helps. Peace to you Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas Thank you very much

​​​​@@MountAthosandAquinas Hi Irenaeus, just one more query, as I've reread the fathers thru your channel & realized you're right. One problem however i find indequate is if there are any church fathers prior to Aquinas & the 2nd millennium that have an answer to the *Modal Collapse problem?* As I find aquinas' answer circular as he says that the Divine Will doesn't change if God created differently, but then wouldn't that mean that God didn't will creation? My solution to this is that there are personal wills (just like perichoresis) united with the essence and thus how creation happens is a personal choice and not necessitated by the divine will itself. However if I'm right I can't find this in any church fathers, though my reading of the western church fathers is very limited since I've come from E.O.

Hey, So, I started to answer this question and realized that I have a different approach than most that takes a lot of unpacking to flesh out. For the time being, I’ll have to hold my peace. This topic deserves a video to give it due consideration. In regard to readings, I don’t know of any off the top of my head. The modal collapse argument seemed to not be an issue in the first millennium. Dr. Gavin Kerr has some good Thomistic answers. You might want to check into some of his videos on the matter. My apologies for not fulfilling your request. -Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas Not a problem, I appreciate the fact that you don't speculate (i need to learn not to do this myself). As I've done a bit reading since I posted and found what I've said isn't the way Aquinas answered it. In summa contra gentiles bk 1, chapter 82-85 Aquinas says God necessarily and naturally wills somethings contingently and voluntarily, which to me seems sufficient enough to answer the modal collapse problem. Aquinas really is a brilliant man.

Hi Mario, I’ll be honest that it’s been some time since I have read through De Trinitate. Without visiting the text I would imagine that Augustine is considering the name of “Holy Spirit” not in the personal notion but in the essential notion. I think this might be likened to the Eastern notion of the Energy of God as “holy” and “spirit” as well. For we can apply both terms to the Godhead essentially. I am sure there is more to this but I am keeping it brief for now based off memory. Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas thanks 🙏🏿

Hey Mario, Yes I have. I watched a few of his talks with Bishop Barron and Jordan Peterson in the past. From what little I watched he seems to have a deep grasp on symbolical theology with an emphasis on beauty. Thank you for the kind comparison. Blessings this Sunday, Irenaeus

This is a very shallow comment not worth engaging. I recommend you try and formulate your comments in a way that is befitting true dialogue. Peace -Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas well things are simple orthodox theology says the energies of God are deity uncreated ,catholic say they are some created forms. So something _ energies one calls it as Deity , the other that some thing calls it created ... So ontological difference how can one say something is actuall God and the other see that as something created?

@user-pj7sq7ce1f there is no Catholic that says Divinity is a created form. This in itself shows your lack of willingness to seriously investigate Catholic theology. Read Gregory the Great. Read Augustine. Read Victorinus. Read Isidore of Seville. What Catholics teach now is identical to what they taught. Either seriously engage their works and have intelligible conversations or simply don’t bother commenting. This channel is far past the low hanging fruit. Nobody here will take what you wrote seriously. -Irenaeus

@@MountAthosandAquinas i said that the energies in orthodoxy are divine Uncreated actually God himself ,and in the catholic belief seen as something created

@@MountAthosandAquinas Tell me are the energies of God when operated in tbe creation deity or something created. How catholic see the ? In orthodox at any time allways the energies of God are seen as Deity uncreated actually God himself . You did not address the energies issue i mentioned , but in general wrote about the divinity of God .

Hey 101caliber, I do have a few topics I would like to dedicate some time to. Right now I have stepped away from making content but am hopeful to return in this upcoming year.