I dont think Gregory the Great was criticizing Chrysostom at all, but some "disciple" that thought that if we don't see the essence we would only contemplate some created symbom of divinity (If I'm not mistaken, this was Baarlam's position (and of many others in the west), he denied the beatific vision after death, he denied not only the Theoria but also the Beatific Vision). That is not teaching of Chrysostom, but that we see the "Condescension of the Essence", God himself, but not the "pure essence unveiled", this is the Energy in Chrysostom's theological language. In the "Morallia" Gregory Dialogist also stated: "Now in the height of the rewarding the Almighty may be found out *in the appearance afforded to contemplation,* yet He can never be found out to perfection. For though *sooner or later we see Him in His brightness, yet we do not perfectly behold His Essence."* "Sooner of later"... that is, when we die we are going to see the "appearance afforded to contemplation"..."in his brightness" and this is not a "perfectly beholding of His Essence.". This is perfectly in line with the theoria of the Energy, as it is never separated from the Essence. As our Council have said: "[The divine Energy] always remains undivided from ~it~ [the essence], coexisting from eternity with the divine essence, and being inseparably united with it... God's energy is inseparable from his essence... *Where the energy is deemed to be, the essence is also contemplated* with it..." Therefore, this is what of the Essence is *"afforded to contemplation"* in St. Gregory thought. And not only Chrysostom, but the teaching of the Cappadocians is that not even in Heaven we are going to see the divine essence: "As, then, she went, in the persistent curiosity of her understanding, through the whole of that supracosmic city and even among intelligible and incorporeal beings did not see the object of her desire." (Gregory of Nyssa, Honily on the Song of Songs). The "supracosmic city" is heavenly Jerusalem, i.e., Heaven. Even there St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms that nor the saints neither the angels (incorporeal beings) see the Essence. He says the same in his "Life of Moses": "Wherefore John the sublime, who penetrated into the luminous darkness, says, No one bas ever seen God, thus asserting that knowledge of the divine essence is unattainable not only by men but also by every intelligent creature." (Life of Moses, p.95). If this is only in earthly life but afther death, in heaven, man could see the essence, he would not include "every intelligent creature", which is certainly a reference to the angelic host. Later in the same book he would comment about the difference of seeing the "backparts" of God and seeing him face-to-face, and nowhere he stated that "backparts" = energies, and "face" = essence. He already denied any vision of the essence in the aforementioned quote. The difference between them is that in this world even the participation in God's energy is not at its fullnes, we don't see his fullnes but only aspects of his Energy, the many forms of it (indivisibly multiplied in divisible things). God covered Moses with his hand, but in Heaven, God will shine his light at us in his fulnes, thats why is said to be "face to face". 19:05 Jesus indeed said: "No one can come to the Father except through me." But he also said: "He Who Has Seen *Me* Has Seen The Father...". By his incarnation the saints in heaven can see the theandric hypostasis of Christ trough his body seated in the heavenly Throne (Rv 5:6; 7:9-17) manifesting the fullnes of his divine energy as an eternal transfiguration, in this the Father is given, just as in the Transfiguration the Apostles knew him throug the hearing of his voice. Thats why is said: "And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the *glory of God did lighten it,* and the *lamp thereof is the Lamb."* , the Light/Glory of God (his energies) manifest themselves (as fire in a lamp) *in the theandric body of Jesus Christ,* its He that we see "face to face". Also, in revelation, when the "face" of God is referenced it is always about his manifested form on the throne, i.e., a theophany/energetic manifestation (Rv 4:2; 6:16; 20:11). There is no reason at all to extrapolate that "come to the Father" is seein the Divine essence itself and the Person of the Father."
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
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
Did the Apostles see the Divine essence when they beheld the transfiguration of Christ? What was that light they saw. Thanks for an answer in advance, love your channel bro
@disciplemike5821 Thanks for the comment, Saint Leo the Great and John Chrysostom would affirm that the Apostles did not receive the fullness of that vision reserved for the end. The Apostles, therefore, received a “foretaste” according to the receptive capacity of their faith where they beheld the Light as an “enigma” (Paul in 1 Corinthians 13) and “mirror” (2 Corinthians 3-4) which is the proper glory of God but restrained. The apostles did not “see” by sensation of “intellection” but by the rest of the two and the actualization of the Spirit they saw through the mediation of their own soul. So the image was tempered. “He was transfigured before them.” If he wasn’t transfigured in their soul then His Light would’ve been seen around the world since it was “brighter than the sun.” Hope this helps, -Irenaeus
@mountathosandaquinasfellow6607 I think that sort of helps. Thanks Irenaeus. But, wouldn't you agree that even this restrained glory of God must be uncreated? The issue I have, and the problem that bothers me, is that if it's a created glory, then the Transfiguration was nothing more than an illusion for the Apostles, and they thus weren't actually experiencing Christ in his eternal divinity, and thus didn't actually see the Kingdom of God, as Christ tells them before, "some of you here will see the Kingdom before you die."
Absolutely. The glory is altogether uncreated. In one way the Apostles did not “see” it and in another way they did. They did not see it by the natural ability of their faculties. They saw it by the energizing of the Spirit who, so to speak, linked up with them by its motion so as to glimpse the glory of the Godhead. Which glory was diminished not in itself but in their receptive capacity while still being in a wayfaring mode of existence. So in truth it was the uncreated light, but the light was mediated through the soul not yet glorified so that their minds did not link up to the consummation and sight of Truth subsisting in itself.
Since we are creatures, we are in time (even the highest part of our spirit), but the divine essence is timeless. Doesn't the beatific vision imply that we somehow need to enter timelessness to see the essence ? How can a temporal creature "enter" timelessness? In timelessness there is no change so there in no change from potency to act. Wouldn't this imply that only timeless and eternal spirits can experience the beatific vision?
@teadormalfoy267, Great question, Strictly speaking, only God alone is eternity since there is nothing outside of him to which He is bound. Even the angels aren’t “eternal” in the sense that they experience succession by the movement of the the intellect and will in regards to Act. Now, in a sense, God does wed the temporal to the eternal by the assumption of Human Nature in the Person of Jesus Christ. The ascension of Christ into Heaven signifies this to us. So then, what happens with the temporal? Is it obsorbed? No, but the rational agents boundedness by the circumscribed Laws of temporality give way to the better like the sun which permeates the air. It’s actually this consummation which destroys death since death is the motion of decay and in some since measured time. Maximus the Confessor asserts that the principles of nature will remain unchanging, but the motion of all things will be seen to be in God. “God will be all in all.” This paradox of motion in rest will take place in what’s called “the Aevum.” Or “Aeveternity.” Feel free to ask any follow ups. I typed this fairly quickly at work so I may not have hit it entirely. -Irenaeus
The intellect can NEVER see the full essence Intellect is by default materialist in nature, why eo you think Freemasons worship the intellect? Eve bit of the apple of knowledge, intellect...worship of the intellect is worship of man,
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
Hey, I am a bit confused about 1:43 where you give the dogmatic definition on the beatific vision. I had asked you about this a while ago, specifically in regards to the OT saints. You answered me, saying: "The church is pretty clear that at no time prior to Christ opening the door to the Beatific Vision did anyone possess it... So the limbus of the fathers, or the bosom of Abraham, waited for the light of Glory ... without the light of glory nobody can “see God.” ". Yet Benedict seems to say that those before Christ have seen and do see the beatific vision in its fullness. So my question is which one is it? Have I misunderstood?
Hey Desmond, Yes, the Old Testaments Saints do see God openly since Christ has ascended into Heaven. If you don’t know, Benedict the 12th was addressing those who held to soul sleep. Some said that the old testament saints and the new were “sleeping” until the resurrection of the body. Benedict was rejecting this as foreign to the Apostolic content. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Seems like this channel's purpose is to unite in fellowship between Orthodox and Catholics under the Catholic Church. So far all your videos appear to be going after divisive rhetoric among "Orthobros" - any chance you will be doing the same regarding divis9ve rhetoric of RCs against the Orthodox? Otherwise this just seems to be a missionary effort against Orthodox.
Thanks for the comment James. I myself am a avid reading Catholic who came across the ORTHOBROS by accident. Being that, I found the arguments against Catholics to be seriously mistaken (I am steeped in the West and East Fathers). My goal for this channel is not to go on offense against the Orthodox, but rather, to supply a reasonable “defense for the hope that is in you.” My position is defensive, not offensive. I’m not looking to convert anyone, but simply looking to give a cogent response for Catholics and Orthodox alike to consider and to hopefully reduce the stigma.
@@MountAthosandAquinas thank you for the comment, and I hope I didn't come off too aggressive. What fellowship do you see between Mt Athos and Aquinas specifically? I'm interested to see how you can bring the both into intellectual fellowship at least
@@jamesb0gginsw0rth63 It’s always difficult to read disposition in comments. Face to face interactions are always more fruitful in that respect. Thanks for clarifying your intentions. For me, I see a way to synthesize Aquinas with Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas. For instance, the “created vs uncreated grace” debate. The “uncreated light.” I also don’t think the Essence and Energy distinction is a necessity due to nearly every Western Saint (Augustine, Victorinus, Boethius, Gregory the Great, Ambrose) teaching a different form of “divine simplicity.” I have many more videos, Lord willing, to produce. Currently I am tied up with some family things but have already begun my script on the uncreated light dispute. I think some people will be surprised to see how narrow the gap is between the East and West on this question.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Hello, what is your view on Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses? I’ve seen disputes between Vatican II and SSPX as well as Sedevancantists.
I take a unique perspective. The different forms expressed in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo are actually expressions of a deeper Theological distinction which is at the substrate of the Church. One who looks at both with the eyes of faith will not see opposition but rather mutual operation. The forms themselves are reflective of the active and the contemplative life. He who gazes at both will draw in a deeper understanding of the Divine Mysteries.
You are twisitng words for the sake of twisting words when you say they saw the glory of God ij Jesus face thats not the same thing as saying you saw Gods face i mean where do you get off on this twisting of words?
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.
@@adothariman966 The sight Christ promises is nothing less then the Father. And since the Father is not “sent” in the economy, someone has one question to ask themselves? Where is the creature going? “In that day you will ask Me nothing.” Since Christ not only raised from the dead and returned man back to the pre fall gifts of impassability, clarity, and agility (which Maximus calls the eternal gifts of eternal being) but also took man where he was not before, namely “to the Father,” then “eye has not seen nor ear heard nor ascended into the hearts the things God has prepared for those who love Him.” And since this “ascension” is above where man was, then I dare say, with Gregory the Great, that God in His Essence will reveal Himself entirely to the Soul. She will not only be adorned with “uncreated” gifts, but will see the very Trinity intuitively in the Light of Glory.
@@MountAthosandAquinas I didn't ask you whether God will in His Essence reveal Himself. There is still room for ambiguity in this expression. What is exactly seen? Divine Essence? Or? No need to involve Sts. Maximus and Gregory in your performance. Just answer the above question
Time stamps:
Intro and preliminary: 0:00
Philosophical dilemma: 2:28
Scriptural objection: 6:43
Maximus the confessor: 10:45
Gregory the Great: 16:45
I dont think Gregory the Great was criticizing Chrysostom at all, but some "disciple" that thought that if we don't see the essence we would only contemplate some created symbom of divinity (If I'm not mistaken, this was Baarlam's position (and of many others in the west), he denied the beatific vision after death, he denied not only the Theoria but also the Beatific Vision). That is not teaching of Chrysostom, but that we see the "Condescension of the Essence", God himself, but not the "pure essence unveiled", this is the Energy in Chrysostom's theological language.
In the "Morallia" Gregory Dialogist also stated:
"Now in the height of the rewarding the Almighty may be found out *in the appearance afforded to contemplation,* yet He can never be found out to perfection. For though *sooner or later we see Him in His brightness, yet we do not perfectly behold His Essence."*
"Sooner of later"... that is, when we die we are going to see the "appearance afforded to contemplation"..."in his brightness" and this is not a "perfectly beholding of His Essence.". This is perfectly in line with the theoria of the Energy, as it is never separated from the Essence. As our Council have said:
"[The divine Energy] always remains undivided from ~it~ [the essence], coexisting from eternity with the divine essence, and being inseparably united with it... God's energy is inseparable from his essence... *Where the energy is deemed to be, the essence is also contemplated* with it..."
Therefore, this is what of the Essence is *"afforded to contemplation"* in St. Gregory thought. And not only Chrysostom, but the teaching of the Cappadocians is that not even in Heaven we are going to see the divine essence:
"As, then, she went, in the persistent curiosity of her understanding, through the whole of that supracosmic city and even among intelligible and incorporeal beings did not see the object of her desire." (Gregory of Nyssa, Honily on the Song of Songs).
The "supracosmic city" is heavenly Jerusalem, i.e., Heaven. Even there St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms that nor the saints neither the angels (incorporeal beings) see the Essence. He says the same in his "Life of Moses":
"Wherefore John the sublime, who penetrated into the luminous darkness, says, No one bas ever seen God, thus asserting that knowledge of the divine essence is unattainable not only by men but also by every intelligent creature." (Life of Moses, p.95).
If this is only in earthly life but afther death, in heaven, man could see the essence, he would not include "every intelligent creature", which is certainly a reference to the angelic host. Later in the same book he would comment about the difference of seeing the "backparts" of God and seeing him face-to-face, and nowhere he stated that "backparts" = energies, and "face" = essence. He already denied any vision of the essence in the aforementioned quote. The difference between them is that in this world even the participation in God's energy is not at its fullnes, we don't see his fullnes but only aspects of his Energy, the many forms of it (indivisibly multiplied in divisible things). God covered Moses with his hand, but in Heaven, God will shine his light at us in his fulnes, thats why is said to be "face to face".
19:05 Jesus indeed said: "No one can come to the Father except through me." But he also said: "He Who Has Seen *Me* Has Seen The Father...". By his incarnation the saints in heaven can see the theandric hypostasis of Christ trough his body seated in the heavenly Throne (Rv 5:6; 7:9-17) manifesting the fullnes of his divine energy as an eternal transfiguration, in this the Father is given, just as in the Transfiguration the Apostles knew him throug the hearing of his voice. Thats why is said: "And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the *glory of God did lighten it,* and the *lamp thereof is the Lamb."* , the Light/Glory of God (his energies) manifest themselves (as fire in a lamp) *in the theandric body of Jesus Christ,* its He that we see "face to face". Also, in revelation, when the "face" of God is referenced it is always about his manifested form on the throne, i.e., a theophany/energetic manifestation (Rv 4:2; 6:16; 20:11).
There is no reason at all to extrapolate that "come to the Father" is seein the Divine essence itself and the Person of the Father."
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
I think I just found my new favourite channel.
Is everything what the Apostles and the Prophets saw in their life on earth a created effect?
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
Did the Apostles see the Divine essence when they beheld the transfiguration of Christ? What was that light they saw.
Thanks for an answer in advance, love your channel bro
@disciplemike5821
Thanks for the comment,
Saint Leo the Great and John Chrysostom would affirm that the Apostles did not receive the fullness of that vision reserved for the end. The Apostles, therefore, received a “foretaste” according to the receptive capacity of their faith where they beheld the Light as an “enigma” (Paul in 1 Corinthians 13) and “mirror” (2 Corinthians 3-4) which is the proper glory of God but restrained. The apostles did not “see” by sensation of “intellection” but by the rest of the two and the actualization of the Spirit they saw through the mediation of their own soul. So the image was tempered. “He was transfigured before them.” If he wasn’t transfigured in their soul then His Light would’ve been seen around the world since it was “brighter than the sun.”
Hope this helps,
-Irenaeus
@mountathosandaquinasfellow6607 I think that sort of helps. Thanks Irenaeus. But, wouldn't you agree that even this restrained glory of God must be uncreated? The issue I have, and the problem that bothers me, is that if it's a created glory, then the Transfiguration was nothing more than an illusion for the Apostles, and they thus weren't actually experiencing Christ in his eternal divinity, and thus didn't actually see the Kingdom of God, as Christ tells them before, "some of you here will see the Kingdom before you die."
Absolutely. The glory is altogether uncreated. In one way the Apostles did not “see” it and in another way they did. They did not see it by the natural ability of their faculties. They saw it by the energizing of the Spirit who, so to speak, linked up with them by its motion so as to glimpse the glory of the Godhead. Which glory was diminished not in itself but in their receptive capacity while still being in a wayfaring mode of existence. So in truth it was the uncreated light, but the light was mediated through the soul not yet glorified so that their minds did not link up to the consummation and sight of Truth subsisting in itself.
1:57 bookmark
Since we are creatures, we are in time (even the highest part of our spirit), but the divine essence is timeless. Doesn't the beatific vision imply that we somehow need to enter timelessness to see the essence ? How can a temporal creature "enter" timelessness? In timelessness there is no change so there in no change from potency to act. Wouldn't this imply that only timeless and eternal spirits can experience the beatific vision?
@teadormalfoy267,
Great question,
Strictly speaking, only God alone is eternity since there is nothing outside of him to which He is bound. Even the angels aren’t “eternal” in the sense that they experience succession by the movement of the the intellect and will in regards to Act.
Now, in a sense, God does wed the temporal to the eternal by the assumption of Human Nature in the Person of Jesus Christ. The ascension of Christ into Heaven signifies this to us.
So then, what happens with the temporal? Is it obsorbed? No, but the rational agents boundedness by the circumscribed Laws of temporality give way to the better like the sun which permeates the air. It’s actually this consummation which destroys death since death is the motion of decay and in some since measured time. Maximus the Confessor asserts that the principles of nature will remain unchanging, but the motion of all things will be seen to be in God. “God will be all in all.” This paradox of motion in rest will take place in what’s called “the Aevum.” Or “Aeveternity.”
Feel free to ask any follow ups. I typed this fairly quickly at work so I may not have hit it entirely.
-Irenaeus
Ive had the Beatific vision and Im seeking help.
?
Nah, man. You still alive? Then nope.
Still walking, not resting yet.
The intellect can NEVER see the full essence
Intellect is by default materialist in nature, why eo you think Freemasons worship the intellect? Eve bit of the apple of knowledge, intellect...worship of the intellect is worship of man,
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
Hey, I am a bit confused about 1:43 where you give the dogmatic definition on the beatific vision.
I had asked you about this a while ago, specifically in regards to the OT saints. You answered me, saying:
"The church is pretty clear that at no time prior to Christ opening the door to the Beatific Vision did anyone possess it... So the limbus of the fathers, or the bosom of Abraham, waited for the light of Glory ... without the light of glory nobody can “see God.” ".
Yet Benedict seems to say that those before Christ have seen and do see the beatific vision in its fullness. So my question is which one is it? Have I misunderstood?
Hey Desmond,
Yes, the Old Testaments Saints do see God openly since Christ has ascended into Heaven. If you don’t know, Benedict the 12th was addressing those who held to soul sleep. Some said that the old testament saints and the new were “sleeping” until the resurrection of the body. Benedict was rejecting this as foreign to the Apostolic content.
Let me know if you need further clarification.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Ok, thanks for providing that context.
No problem!
Seems like this channel's purpose is to unite in fellowship between Orthodox and Catholics under the Catholic Church. So far all your videos appear to be going after divisive rhetoric among "Orthobros" - any chance you will be doing the same regarding divis9ve rhetoric of RCs against the Orthodox? Otherwise this just seems to be a missionary effort against Orthodox.
Thanks for the comment James.
I myself am a avid reading Catholic who came across the ORTHOBROS by accident. Being that, I found the arguments against Catholics to be seriously mistaken (I am steeped in the West and East Fathers). My goal for this channel is not to go on offense against the Orthodox, but rather, to supply a reasonable “defense for the hope that is in you.” My position is defensive, not offensive. I’m not looking to convert anyone, but simply looking to give a cogent response for Catholics and Orthodox alike to consider and to hopefully reduce the stigma.
@@MountAthosandAquinas thank you for the comment, and I hope I didn't come off too aggressive. What fellowship do you see between Mt Athos and Aquinas specifically? I'm interested to see how you can bring the both into intellectual fellowship at least
@@jamesb0gginsw0rth63
It’s always difficult to read disposition in comments. Face to face interactions are always more fruitful in that respect. Thanks for clarifying your intentions.
For me, I see a way to synthesize Aquinas with Maximus the Confessor and Gregory Palamas. For instance, the “created vs uncreated grace” debate. The “uncreated light.” I also don’t think the Essence and Energy distinction is a necessity due to nearly every Western Saint (Augustine, Victorinus, Boethius, Gregory the Great, Ambrose) teaching a different form of “divine simplicity.” I have many more videos, Lord willing, to produce. Currently I am tied up with some family things but have already begun my script on the uncreated light dispute. I think some people will be surprised to see how narrow the gap is between the East and West on this question.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Hello, what is your view on Tridentine and Novus Ordo Masses? I’ve seen disputes between Vatican II and SSPX as well as Sedevancantists.
I take a unique perspective. The different forms expressed in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo are actually expressions of a deeper Theological distinction which is at the substrate of the Church. One who looks at both with the eyes of faith will not see opposition but rather mutual operation. The forms themselves are reflective of the active and the contemplative life. He who gazes at both will draw in a deeper understanding of the Divine Mysteries.
You are twisitng words for the sake of twisting words
when you say they saw the glory of God ij Jesus face
thats not the same thing as saying you saw Gods face
i mean where do you get off on this twisting of words?
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
What is it exactly that is seen in the Beatific Vision? Essence or Energy?
Did you watch the video? If not, I am not going to waste time typing.
@@MountAthosandAquinas
No need for delay tactic. Just answer: What is seen in the Beatific Vision? Essence or Energy?
@@adothariman966 The sight Christ promises is nothing less then the Father. And since the Father is not “sent” in the economy, someone has one question to ask themselves? Where is the creature going? “In that day you will ask Me nothing.” Since Christ not only raised from the dead and returned man back to the pre fall gifts of impassability, clarity, and agility (which Maximus calls the eternal gifts of eternal being) but also took man where he was not before, namely “to the Father,” then “eye has not seen nor ear heard nor ascended into the hearts the things God has prepared for those who love Him.” And since this “ascension” is above where man was, then I dare say, with Gregory the Great, that God in His Essence will reveal Himself entirely to the Soul. She will not only be adorned with “uncreated” gifts, but will see the very Trinity intuitively in the Light of Glory.
@@MountAthosandAquinas
I didn't ask you whether God will in His Essence reveal Himself. There is still room for ambiguity in this expression. What is exactly seen? Divine Essence? Or?
No need to involve Sts. Maximus and Gregory in your performance. Just answer the above question
@@adothariman966 Watch the video. I’m tired of wasting my time.