Hi all -
(and hi Earl - and I'm not stalking you, honest!)
As a Catholic one is often faced with a paradox, as here, that 'giants' of Catholicism appear to be endorsing a doctrine which is contrary to the articles of faith. The resolution of the dilemma lies in the understanding that such voices speak from within the tradition itself. (As opposed to say, Arius or Tertullian, who eventually took a stance outside it.) One is obliged (surely?) to interpret their teachings from the standpoint of their profession of faith. Otherwise one is obliged to accept that they professed something other than what they believe in.
Again, Eckhart, St Maximus and Eriugena were at times to called to defend their faith, and championed orthodoxy most vigourously, especially in the case of St Maximus and notably in his spiritual successor, Eriugena, in their stand again monothelitism and monophysitism as doctrinal error and errors, might I suggest, that allow for a discreet panentheism.
To accept this apparent panentheism (according to the term as it is commonly understood) requires the abandonment of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo - that God created the world from nothing (that God brought the world into being by a free act of will, and not through any modification or determination of his own mode of being), and furthermore renders void the Chalcedonian definition of the two wills of the Incarnate Christ - a dithelitist doctrine of which St Maximus was the architect and because of his defence of the true faith we honour him with the appelation 'the Confessor.'
I believe the question turns on the distinction of a panentheism by grace as oppsed to a panentheism by nature.
The latter lies finally in a monism (everything is God), refined by pantheism to say that God is in everything (a subtle distinction), refined again to add that God is in everything and simultaneously transcends everything.
The former (panentheism by grace) in spirit validates and is validated by every other article of faith. In the letter it would be refined, as panentheism is too indeterminate a term and paves the way for confusions, which arise all too easily, even in the face of the most dogmatic expression.
This perspective allows that creation is absolutely 'other than' God (ex nihilo) and in no sense can be considered any mode of penentheist determination. Ex nihilo states that creation was not fashioned from some pre-existing primordial and unmanifest Substance, nor does its source and foundation lie in any pre-existing essence - creation encompasses the principle of Substance and Essence, it is not the product of a causal manifestation.
In 'looking upon' His creation, as it were, God saw that it was 'good' (as Genesis states) and in so doing chose to dwell therein - this shekinah, indwelling, Immanent Presence, is in all things in an absolute sense - by which I mean that God chooses to be 'in' and not 'near' in any relative sense of a distance from a given being, but rather that God is in the very core of the being itself, so much so that God actually underlies the nature of being, and any given being.
This 'underwriting' of being - the reception of the Word - is Immanent in the nature of things but forms no part of it; and according to St Maximus, Christ has implanted in each created thing a characteristic logos, a “thought” or “word,” which is the divine presence in that thing, which gives it a sense of itself as 'real' (the logos is real), and at the same time draws it towards God.
Christ as Creator-Logos constitutes at once the source and the end of the particular logoi, and in this fashion acts as an all-embracing and unifying cosmic presence (by, through, in and with according to the Liturgy) that transcends the being in its every dimension.
see:
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/older-issues/through-creation-to-the-creator
As Bishop Kallistos says:
Thus the logoi of all things are embraced by the Logos,
but the Logos is not embraced by any thing.
Thomas
(and hi Earl - and I'm not stalking you, honest!)
As a Catholic one is often faced with a paradox, as here, that 'giants' of Catholicism appear to be endorsing a doctrine which is contrary to the articles of faith. The resolution of the dilemma lies in the understanding that such voices speak from within the tradition itself. (As opposed to say, Arius or Tertullian, who eventually took a stance outside it.) One is obliged (surely?) to interpret their teachings from the standpoint of their profession of faith. Otherwise one is obliged to accept that they professed something other than what they believe in.
Again, Eckhart, St Maximus and Eriugena were at times to called to defend their faith, and championed orthodoxy most vigourously, especially in the case of St Maximus and notably in his spiritual successor, Eriugena, in their stand again monothelitism and monophysitism as doctrinal error and errors, might I suggest, that allow for a discreet panentheism.
To accept this apparent panentheism (according to the term as it is commonly understood) requires the abandonment of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo - that God created the world from nothing (that God brought the world into being by a free act of will, and not through any modification or determination of his own mode of being), and furthermore renders void the Chalcedonian definition of the two wills of the Incarnate Christ - a dithelitist doctrine of which St Maximus was the architect and because of his defence of the true faith we honour him with the appelation 'the Confessor.'
I believe the question turns on the distinction of a panentheism by grace as oppsed to a panentheism by nature.
The latter lies finally in a monism (everything is God), refined by pantheism to say that God is in everything (a subtle distinction), refined again to add that God is in everything and simultaneously transcends everything.
The former (panentheism by grace) in spirit validates and is validated by every other article of faith. In the letter it would be refined, as panentheism is too indeterminate a term and paves the way for confusions, which arise all too easily, even in the face of the most dogmatic expression.
This perspective allows that creation is absolutely 'other than' God (ex nihilo) and in no sense can be considered any mode of penentheist determination. Ex nihilo states that creation was not fashioned from some pre-existing primordial and unmanifest Substance, nor does its source and foundation lie in any pre-existing essence - creation encompasses the principle of Substance and Essence, it is not the product of a causal manifestation.
In 'looking upon' His creation, as it were, God saw that it was 'good' (as Genesis states) and in so doing chose to dwell therein - this shekinah, indwelling, Immanent Presence, is in all things in an absolute sense - by which I mean that God chooses to be 'in' and not 'near' in any relative sense of a distance from a given being, but rather that God is in the very core of the being itself, so much so that God actually underlies the nature of being, and any given being.
This 'underwriting' of being - the reception of the Word - is Immanent in the nature of things but forms no part of it; and according to St Maximus, Christ has implanted in each created thing a characteristic logos, a “thought” or “word,” which is the divine presence in that thing, which gives it a sense of itself as 'real' (the logos is real), and at the same time draws it towards God.
Christ as Creator-Logos constitutes at once the source and the end of the particular logoi, and in this fashion acts as an all-embracing and unifying cosmic presence (by, through, in and with according to the Liturgy) that transcends the being in its every dimension.
see:
http://www.incommunion.org/articles/older-issues/through-creation-to-the-creator
As Bishop Kallistos says:
Thus the logoi of all things are embraced by the Logos,
but the Logos is not embraced by any thing.
Thomas
