วีดีโอ

That's an interesting view. Considering that a lot of people's first reaction to art, and a lot of the discourse surrounding art, is rooted in the concept of "beauty," I was wondering if you could elaborate why you believe that art is not "subservient to beauty."

@exploringthefaith3659 someone like the Spanish painter Goya who painted vivid images of suffering and cruelty. I suppose there is empathy at the heart of a lot of early Christian art, I think. The idea of being a servant is lovely, but it seems to me art is more than beauty.

@@exploringthefaith3659 I have to agree with mark here. The works of Otto Dix who painted what he saw and experienced in the trenches of WWI, or painter Zdzislaw Bekinski who came out of WWII Poland are pure nightmare fuel, but also certainly transcendent.

Etymologically, the term "art" is connected with the term "artifact." An "artifact" was a composite entity, that is, something made out of parts, wherein that which held together the parts was not its substantial form but something accidental. More specifically, artifacts were not things that occurred in nature; rather they were the result of humans bringing together certain things that, apart from human intervention, would not be connected, and bringing them together in an organized, coherent manner. Because the different parts of an artifact relate to one another in a coherent manner, they have a specific form; yet, because they relate to one another due to human intervention intervening on nature, their form is accidental. Art is related to the concept of "artifact" insofar as all art represents a type of artifact. St. Thomas Aquinas uses the term "art" as synonymous with the term "intellectual habit." Intellectual habit refers to when we have a habitual or dispositional knowledge wit regard to something to be done, that is, the knowledge of how to do something that we have even when we aren't explicitly thinking of it, or a knowledge of something wherein we are so familiar with how to do it that we don't need to explicitly think, "Okay, first step is to do A, then B, then C, then I'll get the result I want" (essentially, knowledge that is so engrained into us that it becomes a part of the very fabric of our psyche). He uses the example of a craftsman: a craftsman is considered good at his job not insofar as he desires to do certain things, but insofar as he actually has the knowledge necessary to carry it out. How does any of this have to do with what most people today when they think of art? Well, an artifact is anything that comes into existence as a result of the human effort to build it, and art refers to anything produced as a result of some skill that has been obtained and retained through a habitual disposition of the mind. So, "art" or "artifact" are rather broad terms. What we mean by "art" depends on the specific type of art we have in mind (just as the term "science" is a rather broad term, and what constitutes legitimate scientific knowledge and its proper acquisition depends on what sort of science we are talking about - the natural science or the social science, or biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). What most people today mean by art - poetry, painting, sculpting, etc. - is an artifact in the traditional Thomistic sense insofar as it is the result of human activity. It wouldn't exist unless all of its constituent elements were brought together by human effort. And it is an art insofar as its accomplishment is the result of a specific skillset that, as a result of training, becomes apart of us through a disposition of the intellect. But, what distinguishes this type of art from other types of art. Art, in the sense of paintings, music, poetry, etc., is inherently communicative in nature. As the French Catholic theologian and philosopher Jacques Maritain notes in a book on the nature of art (something I hope to discuss more in a future video), art gives expression to two things: firstly, the ability of the human person to express the core of their soul or mind, the core of what they are thinking or feeling at any moment; secondly, it reflects the capacity of the human soul for interpenetration with the rest of creation, that is, the ability to comprehend and create within oneself an image of the beauty inherent to the world around us, and the ability to see the beauty that defines us reflect in macrocosm in the world around us. Art, in the aesthetic sense, is an art in the more technical sense insofar as it requires a specific skillset - the ability to accurately represent the shape of things, the capacity for color balance, the ability to convey perspective (in the case of the visual arts); the ability to read sheet music, operate an instrument, to understand pacing, emphasis, etc. (in the case of music); the ability to memorize lines and communicate the emotional, moral and emotional state of the actors (in the case of the performing arts) - but it is a technical skillset ordered towards the end of communicating something profound about the world within us, or something intimate within us, to another

@@exploringthefaith3659 Do you think there is a universal standard for what is accepted as good art? Given your opinion in this video as to what makes art good it seems like you're kind of missing out on a lot of transcendence and divinity.

in what sense do you believe that I am missing out on opportunities for art to reflect the Divine or transcendent? I do not believe that the notion that there is a universal standard of beauty undermines the capacity of art to reflect the Divine or transcendent. In fact, part of the standard of beauty in art is whether or not it reflects certain broader, metaphysical considerations concerning the nature of beauty, one of which is its ability to reflect the Divine or transcendent.

@@exploringthefaith3659 Please clarify something if you would. Are you saying in this video that good art is a means of exploring or experiencing one's faith? Or, as it sounds like to me, good art comes from a divine source? Because if it is the latter it sounds like you believe the goodness, truth and beauty which you say defines good art is objective, or at least objectively sourced. It also suggests a nostalgic longing for when formal religious powers dictated what is good art, all too often for propagandistic reasons.

@@mikeswift2976 That’s an interesting point. Concerning whether or not Siri was elected, I doubt we will ever know for sure, considering the vow of secrecy that participants in the Conclave take, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Concerning whether or not he accepted the election and was forced to resign, most of the evidence is circumstantial and hearsay. Some of it is even conflicting. Some have said that Siri refused to talk about whether or not he was elected Pope (implying that he was still bound by the oath of secrecy, and therefore not elected), and others, such as Fr. Khoat, saying that he admitted directly that he was the Pope in hiding. The problem is that I see very little independently verifiable way of proving these claims. When the evidence is scant and indirect, I believe we need to expand our framework and look at the larger context of Siri’s life and ministry, and judge the probability of the evidence in light of that. A major reason why a lot of people are attracted to the Siri thesis is precisely because it provides an alternative to the “heresies” of the “post-Conciliar Church.” Yet, Siri attended Vatican II and never (at least not publicly) condemned it; he submitted to the authority of all the Popes since Pope St. John XXIII, and never publicly denounced them; he celebrated both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo liturgies. All of this implied that he saw all the Popes from John XXIII to John Paul II as valid Popes, Vatican II as a valid Council, and saw both the pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar forms of the Roman Rite as valid and licit. All of his public actions imply, at worst, that he was actually the true Pope, but didn’t believe that he was, and wasn’t trying to establish some underground movement to preserve the pre-Conciliar way of doing things. There is also the issue of, if Siri was truly the Pope, how far can one pretend to submit to false Popes or endorse heretical Councils without becoming complicit in the heresy. This, combined with the canonical issues I mentioned, make the theory self-defeating.

what

Yeah, no one's confused by that. 1)Borrowing architectural trends from the surrounding culture doesn't mean that Christianity is repackaged paganism. In fact, it is to be expected that Christianity, even if it isn't repackaged paganism, would have, in its early years, borrowed from certain trends in pagan architecture since, for the first three hundred years of its existence, was persecuted by the Romans, and thus didn't really build large churches (which would be like Jews putting large Stars of David outside of their hiding places). Early Christians, for the most part, worshipped in catacombs and in people's houses. 2)Archeologists have found copies of the Bible dating as early as the A.D. 2nd century. The earliest post-Biblical Christian texts include texts like the Didache, written sometime in the late A.D. 1st or early A.D. 2nd centuries, the letter of Pope St. Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth, written in the late A.D. 2nd century, and the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, written in the early A.D. 2nd century. 3)The earliest examples of religious art and symbolism dates back to the A.D. 2nd century (for example, paintings of Christ or of scenes from the Bible found in the catacombs of Rome or Christian symbols found in the homes or burial places of Christians). Essentially, not even most Jesus mythicists believe that Christianity was created by Constantine in the A.D. 4th century. That, based on the evidence available, seems somewhat absurd.

Believers continuously avoid the issue; believers commit the crime of indoctrinating children with a fantasyland vocabulary. Even Jesus Christ said faith was worthless, since you can't move mountains by voice command, expecting movement. Yours is a fantasyland, with fantasyland, prophecy, & resurrection. You don't get respect outside your camp of fellow believers. You can't handle any condemnation of your views, so you eliminate the comments you don't like. It is astounding, how the Christ fantasy ignores Jesus saying, "This is a wicked generation seeking signs, the only sign given is Jonah," a believer murdered by a larger number of believers. The King of the Jews is mounted on a stick, because Romans made a parody of the icon. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 We should all indoctrinate children with nonsense like prayer: Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. You trade your last cow for a handful of magic beans & pretend you should be respected for it. We are made illiterate servants of Caesar, "My sheep hear My voice" is the mindset of slavery & Jesus comes "not with peace, but sword", turning everyone to curse the other. The Romans defeated the Jews in war. What Jesus are you talking about? The one doing signs in every chapter or the one rebuking those seeking signs? "The only sign is Jonah:" a believer murdered by other believers because he was outnumbered. The Jew is hung from a tree for all time & the record of this is in the gospels themselves: th-cam.com/video/xyhv69EFuoM/w-d-xo.html Proof the Roman Government invented Jesus' story - in 12 minutes. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 1 Corinthians 9 20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. From <th-cam.com/video/LP3vvwDc2ls/w-d-xo.html> See videos: New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories. Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer Psalm 22:16 Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text me, / like a lion This verse, which is Psalm 22:17 in the Hebrew verse numbering, reads in most versions of the Masoretic Text as: כארי ידי ורגלי, which may be read literally as "like a lion my hands and my feet". Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[b] my hands and my feet.

There are three main problems: 1)Obviously, I don't think you would have a problem with people passing on their values to their children. But if I pass on my values to my children, and they turn out to be false, is it a crime (even if only in the colloquial sense of being "immoral" or "harmful"), even if I sincerely believe it to be true? 2)The sign of Jonah is not a reference to believers being killed by other believers. The sign of Jonah is a reference to the Resurrection. The sign that Jesus was the Messiah was that, firstly, his death could make satisfaction for our sins, and secondly, that He would rise from the dead. The text makes this clear when Jesus says, "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matthew 12:40). 3)The majority of Biblical scholars, even those who are not Christian or those of a less than orthodox theological persuasion, believe in the historicity of Christ.

1)A lot of what you said is more rhetoric than actual philosophical or theological arguments against Christianity, or a direct engagement with Christian teaching. 2)"How can you possibly take faith seriously?" It may not make a lot of sense to you, morally or experientially, why someone would believe in Christianity, of have faith in any religion. But, I'm pretty sure there were a wide-range of intelligent and well-educated individuals who were religious, and even members of the clergy, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Fr. Georges Lemaitre (who developed the Big Bang Theory). So, being religious is not necessarily a sign of low intelligence, ignorance/lack of education, intellectual dishonesty, or delusion. 3)"Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital". Have you debunked *every* or even *the majority* of stories of miracles or people having prayers answered before making that claim? 4)"indoctrinating children is criminal." So, passing on your values to your children is criminal? You obviously believe this because you clearly assume, and even outright say, throughout your response that faith inhibits critical thinking, which is psychologically dangerous. Which leads to my next point: 5)Faith is not simply belief without evidence. From a Catholic perspective, there are some moral and spiritual truths, including truths about God, that can be known through reason alone, but there are some that transcend the capacity of reason to know by its own effort. These require faith. Yet, what faith entails is the mind, by grace, being illumined by something above reason or the senses. It is not simply believing in something on the basis of some vague, positive, fuzzy feeling, or intellectual force of habit, or fear of hell. Even though people will often use these things as a justification for having faith, that's not how the Christian tradition, or Catholicism in specific, has historically understood faith. Faith is the mind being illumined by something infinitely greater than reason or the senses, the intellectual capacities of man being elevated to see the truth of something that would normally elude its ability to comprehend. The important thing to keep in mind is that faith is above reason, which is not the same as saying that it is in opposition to reason. The notion that faith is simply believing something without a good reason assumes that Christians, or religious people in general, have no good reasons to believe in anything they claim. This is not true. Take, for example, the philosophical arguments for the existence of God or the historical arguments for the existence of Jesus. You may, at the end of the day, find these arguments faulty or not entirely convincing, but it is not accurate to say that there aren't logically valid and/or historically or philosophically robust reasons to believe in Jesus. 6)"Faith comes with wolves dressed as sheep". Yeah, some people do take advantage of other people's faith. But this leads to two points: firstly, not all preachers, clergy, etc. desire to take advantage of their flock; secondly, faith doesn't require us to do away with critical thinking. 7)"Faith 'comes not with peace, but sword.'" Besides being an outright misrepresentation of the words of Christ in Matthew 10:34-36, it is also patently historically false to assume that all, or even most, missionary activity took place by virtue of violence. Examples: the missionary of the earliest Christians during the period of Roman persecution; the conversion of the Germanic tribes by Irish monks in the early Middle Ages; the missionary activity of St. Francis Xavier in India and East Asia; the missionary activity of St. Junipero Serra in Mexico and the American Southwest; the Jesuit missionaries in Japan; and the list could go on.

@@exploringthefaith3659 I know you by your works. You employ the vocabulary of fiction & are immoral by your indoctrinating children with your fantasyland & its vocabulary. You are like Moses, made the world's worst navigator & leader by faith. We should all indoctrinate children with nonsense like prayer: Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. You trade your last cow for a handful of magic beans & pretend you should be respected for it. "It is by faith we trade a cow for magic beans & thereby ascend to heaven." Bovine 3:21 We are made illiterate servants of Caesar, "My sheep hear My voice" is the mindset of slavery & Jesus comes "not with peace, but sword", turning everyone to curse the other. The Romans defeated the Jews in war. What Jesus are you talking about? The one doing signs in every chapter or the one rebuking those seeking signs? "The only sign is Jonah:" a believer murdered by other believers because he was outnumbered. The Jew is hung from a tree for all time & the record of this is in the gospels themselves: th-cam.com/video/xyhv69EFuoM/w-d-xo.html Proof the Roman Government invented Jesus' story - in 12 minutes. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 See videos: New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories. Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer Psalm 22:16 Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text me, / like a lion This verse, which is Psalm 22:17 in the Hebrew verse numbering, reads in most versions of the Masoretic Text as: כארי ידי ורגלי, which may be read literally as "like a lion my hands and my feet". Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[b] my hands and my feet.

@@exploringthefaith3659 A lot of what you say is rubbish. It is all interpretation. The God of Jesus Christ was not presenting when we had TH-cam videos.

@@Stupidityindex You say it is rubbish, and then refuse to elaborate on how it is rubbish.

@@coledesantis1406 What makes your views rubbish is the fantasyland vocabulary. I have told you many times. If you were looking through applications, you would toss the prophets in the circular file. You speak, knowing God is only a tool of fiction. Jesus Christ has been unconvincing for 2000 years. People who talk with your vocabulary are avoided like the old woman with too many cats. Faith makes wolves dressed as sheep, producing preaching to the choir, because the one who says "My sheep hear My voice" wants that mindset of slavery. We should all indoctrinate children with nonsense like prayer: Nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. You trade your last cow for a handful of magic beans & pretend you should be respected for it. We are made illiterate servants of Caesar, "My sheep hear My voice" is the mindset of slavery & Jesus comes "not with peace, but sword", turning everyone to curse the other. The Romans defeated the Jews in war. What Jesus are you talking about? The one doing signs in every chapter or the one rebuking those seeking signs? "The only sign is Jonah:" a believer murdered by other believers because he was outnumbered. The Jew is hung from a tree for all time & the record of this is in the gospels themselves: th-cam.com/video/xyhv69EFuoM/w-d-xo.html Proof the Roman Government invented Jesus' story - in 12 minutes. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree:" Galatians 3:13 See videos: New research expands on J Atwill's discovery that the story of Jesus is a parody of Emperor' Titus' victories. Paul the Apostle: Liar and Conman | James Valliant, Rabbi Tovia Singer Psalm 22:16 Dead Sea Scrolls and some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Septuagint and Syriac; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text me, / like a lion This verse, which is Psalm 22:17 in the Hebrew verse numbering, reads in most versions of the Masoretic Text as: כארי ידי ורגלי, which may be read literally as "like a lion my hands and my feet". Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce[b] my hands and my feet.

1)The notion that Jesus most likely or definitely did not exist, or that it is a myth derived from older pagan myths is rejected by the majority of Biblical scholars, even those who aren't Christian. Very often, the parallels between the Jesus story and certain pagan myths come from either a highly selective reading of the New Testament, or a highly selective reading of pagan mythology, or both. 2)"The story of Moses has parallels with the Jesus myth." I mean, most Christians readily admit this. Everything in the Old Testament was meant to be a prophesy of something in the New Testament. The New Testament authors specifically wrote the New Testament in such a way so as to show this parallel. The relationship between the two was seen as the relationship between prophecy and fulfillment. The notion that this was the underlying mindset of the New Testament authors is something admitted both by all New Testament scholars as well as all the saints and theologians of the Catholic tradition, and Christianity more generally. That's why certain symbols or phrases derived from the Old Testament are commonly used even in Christianity. For example, imagery surrounding animal sacrifice and the Passover is frequently used with reference to the Atonement (and thus, by extension, those Feast Days associated with Good Friday and Easter), and with the Mass. This doesn't mean that Jesus was a myth, but that there are parallels between what Jesus said and did and what was said and done by certain figures before Jesus because both were subject to God's larger plan of salvation. 3)There are many philosophically robust arguments for the existence of God. We could discuss Aquinas's Five Ways, the different variations on the Ontological Argument, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument. You may disagree with or find flaws with these arguments, but one thing that you can't say is that there aren't philosophically sophisticated and/or logically valid arguments that have been proposed for the existence of God.

@@exploringthefaith3659 The fine tuning argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from believers. The argument in question reveals a complete ignorance of space. No one has ever been able to provide any proof for the existence of god. And no one will ever present that. Religions are a waste of time and resources. Religion gathers fraudsters, mentally ill, uneducated and power-hungry narcissists. Religions should be banned from the world.

Say you are a slow boi without saying you are a slow boi.

Body ,soul and spirit is too far out for most cavemen.

For curiosity's sake, how would you interpret texts such as John 17, Matthew 26:36-46, and Mark 1:9-11 if not in a Trinitarian form?

@@exploringthefaith3659 I am not a Christian and I don’t know who John was. The author of the book of John is anonymous. And that goes for the rest of the gospel authors. And therefore they have no authority. The thing is you will never find that doctrine of the trinity in the Christian bible. I know God is one. Anyone who tells you otherwise is flat wrong.

​@BenM61 it's so funny how you ducked his refute

@@Maru_812 I am not ducking the ‘refute’. I don’t want to get into an argument about my book said this and my book said that. Jesus did not leave anything for us to read and tell us what he believed. You have books written by anonymous authors about Jesus and what he might have said. They portray Jesus in different ways according to their authors theologies. The person of Jesus for instance in the synoptic gospels overall is totally different from how he is portrayed in the book of John. The author of the book of john has Jesus a preexisting entity who came down from heaven but there is no mention of that in the synoptic gospels. Why is that? If Jesus was going around telling people I am this and that like in the seven ‘I am’ statements why don’t we find that in the synoptic gospels? The author of that book felt the liberty to stretch the truth and felt a liberty to put words in the lips of historical Jesus. And so when I read that book I am reading the theological views of that author instead of what the historical Jesus might have said and done. I think what the fellow wanted to say is that Jesus is the son of god. I have no issue with that if he does not take that as literal. Otherwise how is Jesus the son of god? Explain that in plain English. How did the father beget the son? And if god had one son why not a daughter or multiple sons and daughters. As it is the Christian bible came out of Roman influence and milieu where humans can also be gods, for example at his death, Augustus, the 'son of a god', was himself declared a god. The dividing line between the divine and the human in that culture was blurred. Humans can become gods and vise versa. The authors of the Christian Bible were not immune from that Roman paganism. I don’t see it that way, God is god and a the human is a human. And so I don’t believe Jesus was a god. He was a simple human being who was entrusted to deliver a message to the house of Israel and only to the Jews. You people commit a blasphemy by making that simple human being a god. Not just that you make the holy spirit a god also. You claim there are three different and distinct persons and each is a god and lord. But you also claim there are not three gods and lords but one. What kind of nonsense is that? It is irrational, unreasonable and false. People of the Book, do not be excessive in your beliefs, and do not say anything about God except the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is the Messenger of God; His word conveyed to Mary and a spirit from Him. Believe in God and His Messengers and do not say "Three." Stop this for your own good. God is only one God. So exalted is He, in His glory, from having a son. Everything belongs to Him that is in the heavens and on earth. None is as worthy to trust as He. Quran 4:171 That my friend makes sense and reasonable. The Quran as a revelation from God came to warn you people about your errors. Repent from your blasphemy before it’s too late.

@@BenM61 1)While the author of John's Gospel does not identify himself by name, he does identify himself as a disciple of Christ. Considering that most Biblical scholars, even non-Christians, atheists or Christians of a less than orthodox theological leaning admit that the Gospels were all written by the end of the A.D. 1st century (I've hear some say possibly as late as the first decade of the A.D. 2nd century), it's not outside of the possibility that those who wrote the Gospels were either followers of Christ or people who knew the followers of Christ. Further, even some relatively early Church Fathers attest to this. For example, Papias, who lived in the late A.D. 1st and early A.D. 2nd century, also states that the author of John's Gospel was John, an Apostle of Christ. St. Irenaeus, writing in the late A.D. 2nd century, also affirms that the author of John's Gospel was one of the disciples of Christ. St. Clement of Alexandria, writing in the late A.D. 2nd and early A.D. 3rd centuries, also states that John's Gospel was written by the Apostle John. Many early Christians living in the A.D. 2nd and A.D. 3rd centuries - people living within only a few generations of Jesus and His disciples - all attest to the traditional authorship of the Four Gospels. Given their proximity to the New Testament period, their statements are, again, not out of the realm of possibility, and in fact have a good deal of historical probability behind them. 2)You say, "I know that God is one." I actually agree with that point. The dogma of the Most Holy Trinity never states that there are multiple gods. Rather, what we are claiming is that One God subsists in Three Distinct Persons, without in anyway being divided. Again, to quote the Athanasian Creed, God exists as a "Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Essence," and as the Preface of the Trinity, one of the prayers in the Catholic Mass, says, we believe "not in the unity of a single [Divine] Person, but in the Trinity of a single [Divine] Nature." So, saying that you believe that God is one as a way to counteract the Trinity represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the Nature of the Trinity. 3)You say the Bible nowhere teaches the Trinity. This leads me back to the question: How do you interpret the verses that I put before you earlier? Those seem to imply the concept of the Trinity to me. But if I'm wrong, in what way am I wrong?

This is merely an analogy and one can easily fall into heresy if they take this at face value. NOTHING in creation is identical to the Trinity, so it's really hard for us to conceptualize. Even if there were something like God in that it was 3 Persons in creation, it would STILL be hard to conceptualize. Also, you should probably know that a spirit doesn't "return to God as its Source". It's not like things that are created by God "return to Him", as it's not like a piece of God's power is used to create us and then He "retrieves it".

@@SheboShack about "return to God," read Ecclesiastes 12:7. and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the SPIRIT (ha ruach) returns to God, who gave it. in hebrew: spirit=ruach soul=neshamah No explanation in this world can perfectly define God, and trinity is the only concept of God that was interpreted by people in the 2nd century and politically became a doctrine. Common people, especially non-Christians, NEED ANSWERS, and using unity (echad) of body, soul, and spirit is the closest thing to explaining trinity, where God is Omni Present (not bound by space), Omni Temporal (not bound by time, present at every point in time-past, present, and future) and Omni Morphic (able to have or take on all forms). There are many explanations, like whether water is solid, liquid, gas, or the same person as a father at home, a teacher at school, or a or a doctor at a hospital. These explanations are not wrong, but they make God not Omni Present and Omni Temporal and are called modalism or oneness. But "no explanation" or just saying "hard to explain" will end up making people think Christian God is 3 (three) or tritheism. And we must remember that Trinity is not the core of Christianity, and knowing this concept is actually pretty useless for common people, unless you are an apologeth, theological student, or servant of God like a pastor. For common people, the core of Christianity are the teachings of Jesus, which simplified the Torah into two great commandments and their simple implementation: to love, to forgive, and to bless.

Instead of assuming that religious people have no reason for believing what they believe, or that nothing good has ever come out of religion, why don't you look at the best or the most philosophically sophisticated arguments for the existence of God, and look at the history of the Church.

@@exploringthefaith3659 I have. FOOL. The Arguments a GARBAGE. The History of the Church is seeped in Blood, torture, OPPRESION and MURDER.

Not every religion is bad !

@@ДжесикаИванова-б8ф YES, YESY THEY ARE. All Religion is a LIE. Selling a LIE to frighten Sheep is an ABOMINATION. Get off your Knees. Be The Best HUMAN that you can BE. NO GODS REQUIRED. READ A DIFFERENT BOOK.

Everything? Really?! We're your finger poisoned when you wrote this comment? Seriously! At least listen to what you're saying.

To be honest, most artistic representations of the Trinity will never encapsulate all the nuances of the traditional Catholic/historical Christian doctrine of the Trinity. As a side note, the Holy Spirit is represented in the painting as the dove.

It is not heresy. One God, 3 persons.

It’s simply a visual representation of the Holy Trinity, which is permitted in the Catholic Church.

@@MB-ru8kg read exodus 20:4-5 from the Bible

Jesus did it for him.

@@bridgefin no He didn't.

@@Justas399 Jesus renamed Simon Cephas or ROCK and then said he was building his church on this cephas.

Yes he did.

@@Jamric-gr8gr where?

No Christian would make false accusations as you have.

Thank you! It would be great to have an interdenominational discussion/debate on the Papacy.

Thanks for watching

Yes, I understand that the standard interpretation of Palamism is that the light of the Transfiguration is uncreated. So I never claimed that the standard interpretation of Palamism claims that the light was a physical created reality. Though, I am pretty sure that Fathers from before the hesychast period (for example Maximus and John of Damascus) did not themselves literally claim that the light was above sensation and intellection. Interestingly enough in his latest book on Palamite metaphysics, Tikhon Pino pushes back against this interpretation by pointing out that Palamas more clearly distinguishes between the uncreated energy and the created effect that it brings about. What I was doing was pointing out that in the Western interpretation, the light that comes off of Christ's glorified body must be something created, even as Christ's glorified body is something created. This is because if it is really a corporeal light which is truly seen with the eye of the body (and Eastern authors accept this antecedent), then it must follow that the light is something created (and Eastern authors don't accept this consequent). This is for the simple reason that if the light is really seen by the eye of the body, then it must be the kind of thing that the organ of the eye is proportioned to see, i.e. photons of light. If the light is really "above sensation and intellection," then it obviously wasn't seen with a sense organ, i.e. the eye of the body. This of course does not deny that this corporeal light that is seen from the eye of the body is *caused* by an uncreated energy, in fact, it must be: Christ's soul is glorified by the divine life in which he shares, and his soul communicates that glory to the body, even as it communicates life to the body. So, from the Western perspective, the light is the effect or manifestation of the uncreated energy, but it cannot itself be the uncreated energy.

@@BrPeterTotlebenOP Fr. Totleben, thank you for taking the time to engage with my comment and provide additional thoughts. Before I respond to your comment I would like to preface that I myself have been within the Dominican circle and have sought the council of Dominican Spiritual Directors from the Western Providence for quite some time. We have had many deep theological discussions in this particular area. So needless to say, the Dominicans are near and dear to my heart. With that being said the heart of my disagreement with your assessment is not in any way an attack on the Dominican spirituality. May God continue to bless you richly in the Order founded by our Holy Father Dominic and increase the light of your intellect to expound more deeply on the mysteries of the faith. Now, to your points. I myself am an avid reader of both the scholastics and the fathers. Above all, Thomas Aquinas and Maximus the Confessor hold a special place in my spiritual life. To my knowledge Aquinas never forthright says any phrase in regard to the light which emanated from Christ face is “created.” In fact, (as you probably know) The Hesychasts that defended Thomas believed his ambiguity on the nature of the Light was to their favor and not against them. You are correct in saying that Christs soul overflowed and redounded to the body, but I have yet to find anywhere in Thomas’s works where he explicitly articulates his private judgement on the nature of that light. One can argue that applying Aquinas’s metaphysical approach will necessarily lead to that conclusion (though I myself am not fully convinced), but I do not believe Aquinas has ever given a metaphysical explanation as to the nature of that light. I am happy to be corrected in this area. Now, assuming what I have written is true, if Aquinas did not provide a thorough investigation into the Light I do not think it is because he didn’t want to. If anything, it’s because the Western patrimony prior to the Scholastic period appears fairly gnostic on the matter. Having sifted through all the works I can get my hands on from the Fathers, nobody in the West gave the kind of attention to the transfiguration narrative that we have in the East. Not even close. Augustine nearly passes it over in silence. Gregory the Great doesn’t mention it in His Morals nor in his Homilies on Ezekiel. Jerome makes a nod that it’s Christ Divinity but doesn’t explicitly state so. The closest we get can be found in the works of Saint Leo the Great, Saint Ambrose, and Gregory the Great indirectly. Saint Ambrose explicitly called the Light of Christ Transfiguration “His Divinity.” The same Ambrose in whom Augustine was indebted to in his letter to Paulina on the Vision of God. Saint Leo the Great, in his 53rd sermon, calls the light “the brightness of His glory.” In Gregory the Greats Dialogue letters, he expounds upon the experience of blessed Benedict to which he explicitly calls the Light that Benedict saw “Gods Light.” It’s this Light which Gregory said “enlarged” and expanded Blessed Benedict’s mind. Here we have a clear example of a distinction between the mind of Benedict which glowed from the internal Light, and the Light itself which made his intellect enlarged. Aquinas is sure Benedict did not see the Divine Essence. What then? Here you cannot shift the light to an overflow of Christs soul since Benedict did not see the Humanity of Christ overflowing with Divinity. And yet the Light is called “Gods light.” And the receiver of the light is “enlarged” by the light he saw. In such a way that he is “absorbed in God” as Gregory states. Remember Palamas appeals to Benedict’s experience in his favor. These experiences by the mystics need to be front and center in these conversations. Above I have laid out the best that I have found in the West. Notice, nowhere do we see any of these Fathers calling that Light “created.” In fact, I charitably disagree with your reading of Aquinas as well. In his commentary on Matthew, Aquinas says the body “received the brilliance,” from within. This “clarity” as a “quality” is not in the body as its subject but in the soul. No where in the Transfiguration narrative is this “light” reduced to the visible perception of the corporeal eyes. Aquinas is clear this light was not from the essence of his body but from the brilliance of the soul which shined forth in his body. The soul being such a nature as it is, cannot “shine” in the lower faculties of the body such that it is seen by corporeal eyes (no photons). What I believe is more probable is Christ body remained as the object of the corporeal eyes, and his soul was unveiled to their intellect as if they pierced through the garment of the Logos and beheld that soul of Christ illuminated with the Divine Brilliance (aka, Divinity). This beholding would’ve been likened to the beholding that the Fathers in the fringe hell had at the moment Christ glorified soul separated from his holy body and hooked Sheol by His Divinity. (He took captivity captive) Here the Fathers say he didn’t appear in the form of a man but in the form of God. Now, onto the response to your pushback on my reading of Maximus and the Damascene. Pino, I believe, has a certain understanding of the EED that necessitates him removing the kind of interpretation I am arguing for here (which I believe is the only interpretation). I won’t expound upon that further but will lay out the texts which you are welcome to push back on. First, Maximus. Consider a verbatim quotes. MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR: If a man seeks spiritual knowledge, let him plant the foundations of his soul immovably before the Lord, in accordance with God's words to Moses: 'Stand here by Me' (Deut. 5:31). But it should be realized that there are differences among those who stand before the Lord, as is clear from the text, "There are some standing here who will not taste death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power' (Mark 9:1). For the Lord does not always appear in glory to all who stand before Him. To beginners He appears in the form of a servant (cf. Phil. 2:7); to those able to follow Him as He climbs the high mountain of His transfiguration He appears in the form of God (cf. Matt. 17: 1-9), the FORM IN WHICH He existed before the world came to be (cf. John 17:5). Here we have a very unambiguous confession from Maximus that Christs transfiguration was “the form of God.” Couple this quote with his work to Thelassios (On difficulties in Scripture) and his 200 theological texts and you will find him clearly state that participables are not “objects of intellection.” When one sees God one does not “see” Him. For “seeing” by intellection necessitates an object to be known. And seeing by the senses requires an object of sensation. Maximus is clear that analogical predication is proper to intellection and sensation. But mystical theology (beyond apophatic that is non experiential) puts to rest all sensation and intellection which the Apostles foretasted on the mountain. I have tons of quotes in my EED series that your welcome to watch if you’d like to challenge this interpretation further. I don’t have the time to extract them. Now, the Damascene. His homily on the Transfiguration is very clear and leaves no wiggle room around his intention. He calls the Light “Divine Radiance,” “natural ray of God,” “Divinity,” “Glory,” and “unapproachable Light.” In his homily he says, “he was transfigured not because he received something that had no previously existed, nor because he was changed into what He had not been formerly, but he was manifested to his own apostles as that which He was, OPENING THEIR EYES and enabling them to see when they had been blind.” Later the Damascene quotes that “no eye has seen, no ear has heard” unless the Spirit permits and show them. What did the Spirit show them? “The glory that was eternal and enduring was shown” says the Damascene. For anyone who would like to read the Damascenes whole Homily you’re welcome to in Norman Russell’s “Gregory Palamas and the hesychast controversy.” Now it is true neither Maximus nor the Damacene say exactly “above sensation and intellection.” Nevertheless they will say things such as “eyes of the heart” can see the Transfiguration. Andrew of Crete, however, is very clear. In his homily on the Transfiguration he states “by a most perfect ekstasis of nature they fall into a deep sleep and gripped by fear they shut down their senses, entirely detaching themselves from every intellectual movement and understanding. Thus in that divine and supremely radiant and INVISIBLE darkness they were united to God, entering into TRUE SEEING THROUGH NON-SEEING, being provided with supreme unknowing through undergoing an experience beyond descursive reason, and being initiated IN THEIR SLEEP (of senses and intellection) into a wakefulness higher than any mental effort. THEY (apostles) became BEYOND ALL VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS, and even beyond themselves….” Andrew of Crete received most of this verbiage from Maximus writings to whom I am indebted greatly. Fr. Totleben, I apologize for the lengthy response but I felt it necessary to provide a defense of the initial comment I left. I appreciate you communicating with Eastern scholars and hope that you will engage with more of the writings of the Fathers which cannot be overlooked. If you would like, I recommend my series on the EED where I take the listener through the Eastern patrimony and the western patrimony and eventually come to a conclusion of the controversy by Gods grace. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts on it. th-cam.com/play/PL5NR25R609h5UD01UiVkIyNfNgVyjEweb.html&si=r8LPtadwJDWcdmOQ Your brother in the Faith -Irenaeus

@@BrPeterTotlebenOP I forgot to answer one statement you made and TH-cam won’t permit to add to my already lengthy response above. It is true Palamas confesses the eyes were the initial point of influx but this is because Christ as subject is composed of two natures. Nevertheless, Palamas is clear that an inner transfiguration took place within the minds of the Apostles so as to be unveiled to His godhead. In a sense, the natural proportionality between the eye and Christ body became a hook as of a connatural order through which divinity pulled back the veil of the Apostles to be temporarily suspended. This is why Andrew refers to this as “ekstasis” and a sleep which is sweet to both the senses and the mind. Andrew’s articulation should by no means be looked over since his homily is quoted in the Tomos as an accurate reflection of Eastern Theology. But, returning to Palamas, this is why he says the Light was only seen by the Apostles on the mountain and not anyone else in the world saw it though it was brighter than the sun. Because he was not only “transfigured,” but “was transfigured before them.” So sure, the starting point was the eyes, but this does not necessitate that the light be a physical emanation considering the necessity of divine illumination to perceive it. (That is, a glorified eye perceives it) Even as Benedict saw the Light but also was enlightened that he may see the light. For how else could he see what The Damascene says is invisible to human eyes? Therefore, “in your light, we see light.” Gods light illumined Benedict’s light that he may see Light. And in seeing that “light” he saw a cosmic perspective of the earth.

@@MountAthosandAquinas I'm afraid that your reading of Aquinas is mistaken here. For Aquinas, the only thing that is uncreated is the divine essence, absolutely everything else is created. Especially things that are seen with the bodily eye. If the light itself were uncreated, then it would be the divine essene; if it came to be in time at the behest of God's will, which Thomas unabiguously says that it does, then it follows immediately that the light is created, and it is impossible to think that it would be uncreated.There is simply no credible way of reading Thomas Aquinas on the Transfiguration and thinking that he was ambiguous on the created nature of the light itself at Tabor. Hence your reading of Thomas's commentary on Matthew is wrong. For Thomas, it is literal nonsense to say that a spiritual soul could have a corporeal property. What St. Thomas says in the passage that you quote is not that the light itself is a property of the essence of the soul. The light itself is a property of the body which is derived from the glory of his soul, which is in turn derived from the glory of his divinity. (In a manner similar to how our bodies will be glorified on account of the glory of our souls that will flow into them). In fact, it would be a big mistake to attribute the clarity of the transfiguration to the soul and not to the body, because that would mean that the body doesn't participate in the glory of the Transfiguration -- something that no one, not Thomas nor any Eastern Father -- would want to say. Here is St. Thomas: "The clarity which Christ assumed in the Transfiguration was the clarity of glory with respect to its essence, but not with respect to its mode of being. For the clarity of the glorious body is derived from the clarity of the soul, as Augustine says in his letter to Dioscororos. And likewise the clarity of Christ's body in the transfiguration was derived from his divinity, as Damascene says, and from the glory of his soul. That the glory of Christ' soul did not redound to his body from the beginning of his conception, came about from a certain divine dispensation, so that he might fulfill the mysteries of our redemption in a passible body, as was said above. Nevertheless on account of this, Christ was not deprived of the power of pouring out the glory of his soul to his body. And he did indeed do this with respect to clarity in the transfiguration, but otherwise than in a glorified body. For clarity redounds from the soul to the body to be glorified as a certain permanent quality that affects the body. Hence to shine bodily is not miraculous in a glorified body. But clarity is derived from the soul of Christ to the body of Christ not after the manner of an immanent quality which affects the body itself, but more after the manner of a transient passion, as when the air is illuminated by the sun. Hence the radiance which then appeared in Christ's body was miraculous, as it was also miraculous that he walked upon the waves of the sea. Hence Dionysius says, in his fourth letter to Caiaus, "Christ does those things which are of man in a superhuman way, his supernatural conception shows this, as well as the unstable waters bearing the weight of material and earthly feet." (IIIa, q. 45, a. 2) So St. Thomas is clear that the light itself is the light of the body, which is derived from the glory of his soul. However, the light from his body was not the refulgence of a glorified body (because that light is a stable property of a glorified body which Christ did not yet hyave), but it was a transient passion of that body which Christ allowed to appear to manifest his divinity before his passion, both to strengthen his disciples and reveal the ultimate goal of the passion and resurrection. Again, St. Thomas is not at all ambiguous on the created nature of the bodily light that came from Christ's body and was seen by the bodily eyes of his disciples. With respect to your quotes from the Greek Fathers, they (and your own admission) show that I was correct in what I said. It is anachronistic to read the later hesychast reading into what they said about the light. The perspective on the divine light that you have is not contradicted by the earlier Fathers, but it is not yet a part of their theology. Nor do the quotes that you provide from, e.g., Andrew of Crete and Gregory Palamas prove anything that is relevant to the point under discussion. No one denies that the apostles had a profound mystical experience during the transfiguration that went beyond merely seeing the glory of Christ's body. That is not the point under discussion. What is under discussion is the specific nature of the light itself that the apostles saw when they saw Christ transfigured in his body.

@@BrPeterTotlebenOP Fr. Totleben, having reread what you posted, I am still inclined to hold that the interpretation on Aquinas is not as clear cut as you have attempted to demonstrate. Sure, Aquinas is certain nothing is uncreated but the divine Essence. But in his further commentaries where he speaks of the glories of the saints he mentions a twofold glory. One, the glory of the body which one might call a “created likeness” (by inference) received from the souls overflow of Charity, and two, the beatific vision which the saints will receive in the light of glory. Being that it was Christ who was beheld on the mountain, both glories of “comprehender” are present momentarily (Christ is the End of the Economy in His restoration). If Aquinas wants to agree with the Damascene and the Eastern fathers he would’ve had to be open to the idea that this may have been a quasi beatific vision. Which means you may attempt to put the emphasis on the created nature of the Light but that created nature may not be the only “light” that is present. For Maximus the confessor, in his questions and doubts, he states that the Light from Christs face is characteristic of the divine Essence (the essential energy). These quotes by the Eastern Fathers need to be supplemented with Aquinas’s metaphysical approach so as to come to a harmonious agreement. Even if Aquinas might not have thought so. (His Catena Aurea shows he didn’t have many texts for the transfiguration segment) As to your point about the Eastern Fathers being irrelavent in how I present them seems to me to not be at all true. If Aquinas says A=B (as you attempt to demonstrate) and the Fathers say A=A, then we have what appears to be two interpretations. And these interpretations are about the LIGHT specifically. We cannot hand wave this but must attempt to harmonize as any good scholastic would do. Now, let’s just say I’m willing to concede the point (though I don’t agree) that Aquinas is only speaking as to the created overflow of the body. But if this is true, then in the end what the Thomist want to affirm and what the Hesychast want to affirm don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps the intellect does emanate its ray to overflow the body. But, it only emanates because it beholds the Lords Light which enlightens it. Thus, it’s possible Christs intellect shined like a candlestick shines, but only because the Ray of Glory was manifested within it and it is a mirror reflecting the enigma. But if the Apostles beheld His Glory than surely they were enlightened to see the light and the Logoi (thought will) within was naturally inclined to the Logos in which they are indivisible and absolutely One. “The glory which you have given to me I have given to them that they may be One in us.” Hence, the nature of that “light” may have two answers. One, it’s the gift of clarity which redounds to the body. And 2, as I have demonstrated by the Fathers, the “Light of glory” which is not created by any means (how can the form of God be created) was seen on that mountain. And this answer I have provided does not lack attestation from the early church. Evagrius himself asked rather the light was either A, the light of God, or B, the Intellect illuminated to which he came to the conclusion in his work that it is A and B. So, we may have both. Which means we’re talking past each other when the Orthodox only wants to challenge the Catholic on the uncreated aspect and the Catholic only wants to challenge the Orthodox on the created aspect. 2 glories for Aquinas. One, the wicked even see which is the gift of clarity. But, the wicked do not “see God,” since they have not pure hearts. But Peter John and James did not only see the body illuminated, but they saw the illuminator illuminating it. If they didn’t then Christs illumination would be empty of meaning, being no different than Moses and Elijah. Lastly, I’ll leave you and whoever reads this thread with a quote from Augustine showing his hesitancy to admit what the East always has. And yet, also his readiness to be wrong. We all could learn something from Saint Augustine. May his words humble extremist on both sides. “If bodily eyes will see it (the Divine Substance) in the resurrection after the character of our bodies has been changed,let those who can defend this view see to it. I am more influenced by the statement of Ambrose who did not attribute this to bodily eyes, even in the resurrection, but to clean hearts. And I do not refuse either to teach or to search out something concerning the character of the spiritual body that is promised to those who will rise,at least if in arguing about this issue we can avoid those vices that are very often stirred up by passionate discussions among human beings when one is puffed up with pride against another beyond what is written. Otherwise, in seeking to investigate through arguments how God can be seen, we might lose the peace and holiness without which no one can see God. May God keep this from our hearts in order that he may make them clean and keep them clean for the contemplation of himself. Nonetheless, since I do not have any doubt that the nature of God is not seen in any location, I do not ask about it. Now I am ready to hear with the peace of love from those who are able to prove through argument whether something that is not seen in a location can be seen by the eyes of the body.” (Letter to Paulina)

At the 1:00:00 mark I was not talking about deification, I was talking about one specific effect that the deified soul has on the classical western view, the gift of wisdom, where there is a love by savoring and connaturality. Actually, far from being intellective, this is a place where Thomas is at his most "Bonaventurian" -- like the Seraphic doctor he thinks that sapientia comes sapere ("to savor") and so he says that the Spirit's gift of wisdom gives quasi-experiental knowledge that comes about from the connaturality of love, and not from the analysis of concepts. The deified person is so conformed to God in love that he can judge about the beloved without reasoning--he "tastes" or "suffers" divine things. So, I never claimed that deification was intellective. I actually claimed that it was a synergy and that this synergy occurs at the level of *both* ousia (sancitfiying grace gives the essence of the soul a formal supernatural participation in the life of God) and of action (the theological virtues, the infused moral virtues, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit). In fact, I explained the synergistic notion of deification by using the iron-in-the-fire example, which is equivalent to the boiled-water analogy that you used.

@@BrPeterTotlebenOP thank you for the reply Fr Totleben. I do notice how you used iron-in-fire analogy but I failed to understand how it could affirms Thomistic created energy instead of Palamite uncreated energy. As Tikhon Pino pointed out St Palamas did acknowledge that there's distinction between uncreated energy and its created effects. I believe we can find created grace even in the writings of St Maximus. I don't think existence of created grace in the fathers undermine Palamite thesis. I think my question would be could Thomism affirm both uncreated energy and created effects? If not then beatific vision would be analogous to seeing God via zoom call. Because what we see in beatific vision would be created effects not real face of God. If Thomism could affirm Scotian formal distinction then significant progress in bringing East and West closer would be reality. In the boiled water and ignited sword analogies the introduction of heat as created effects and actual transformation of water into heated water or metal into heated metal are affirmed. The thing itself transformed by new reality. Prior water would cause object wet but steam from boiling water now would dry wet object as it acquires new reality. Similarly sharp metal before only capable to cut objects but now as ignited sword it could melt objects together. Both created effects and uncreated energies are affirmed in both analogies.

​@@AdithiaKusno Where Palamas (at least under Pino's reading, as I understand it) and Thomas differ is the relationship between the uncreated energies and the created effect in the soul that formally deifies. For Thomas, the uncreated divine energies are simply the divine essence conceived in a different way, where as for Palamas they are non-identical with the essence. For Thomas, God's action ad extra isn't a transient action of an agent on a patient, hence there isn't the need for some further determination of the agent by which it "makes contact" with a patient and acts on it. It can't be this, because (1) a transient action would require a further determination of God (a property, as Palamas conceives of the energies) by which he is not just God but by which he acts on a creature. But the divine essence is not further determinable by properties, nor is there anywhere for such a further determination to come from and (2) a transient action presupposes that the creature is a patient, but a creature cannot be a patient upon which God acts, because prior to God's acting, there is no patient for God to act on. Consequently, God's action ad extra must be an immanent action. In fact, God's action ad extra is the very same action by which he loves his own goodness as he understands it. God in knowing his own goodness knows all the ways in which it supereminently exemplifies creatures, and in affectively loving his own goodness, moved by that goodness as a final cause, he effectively loves creatures as participations in that goodness. But God's affective love for his own goodness and his effective love for creatures are two sides of the same coin. So, the Greek view thinks that you need divine energies to make the transcendent God immanent to the creature. But this problem of how to make the transcendent God immanent to the creature does not even arise on the Thomistic view, because it is precisely God's transcendence that makes him profoundly immanent to the creature. Uncreated energies aren't exactly superfluous, it's just that God's essence is itself "energetic." Greek theologians often claim that without the divine energies, the Latin view has no way of making God himself present to creatures, but they fail to see that Latin theology has no need to posit divine energies distinct from the to account for God's intimate presence to the creature, because creatures at every moment are deriving all of their being and everything about them from God. When we think of how God acts in the world, we think of God as operating on creatures, and so we think of God as engaging different creatures through different energies. But God's action to create the world is not like the action of a created agent that causes change within the world. To even though we think of God as reaching out to the world with his energies, this cannot be what is really happening. Rather God just is, and according to his understanding of his goodness creatures come to be out of nothing at all. So, to return to the iron-in-the-fire example, the way that this analogy limps is that the fire has to actually act on a pre-existing piece of iron. Since the iron is the patient which is to be heated, the iron specifies the object of the heating action of the fire, because every action requires an object. In this case the fire takes on a further determination of heating-the-iron by which it is actually ordered to heating the iron. But this isn't actually what happens with God. A more apt analogy would be if the fire just burned, and simply because the fire burned, there would be a glowing piece of iron. (But even then the analogy would still limp, because fire is a natural agent which would produce such a piece of iron by a natural necessity whereas God is an intelligent agent who acts according to his understanding, and therefore would produce such a piece of iron voluntarily). I don't think that Thomas's approach reduces the beatific vision to a Zoom call, because it is not correct to say that for Thomas you only see a created effect of God and not God himself. Thomas *does not* hold this. Thomas actually holds that what you see in the beatific vision is the uncreated essence of God itself. This is possible for Thomas because his doctrine of being allows him to say that God is transcendent by being supereminently perfect and intelligible in himself (though not to us naturally). Consequently, the spiritual nature of the creature is elevatable (by the supernatural gift of the light of glory). You see God himself, in his totality, but not totally, in the sense that you can't comprehend what you see. In the beatific vision, you behold God himself and it is the divine essence itself which actualizes your possible intellect, but you are completely unable to form a concept of what you see. God's glory remains forever unutterable to you. This doesn't work in the eastern tradition, because this tradition thinks of God's transcendence as making him beyond all being and thought (because in this to be a being isn't thought of as actuality and perfection, but as being a certain kind of a thing, which God is not). Consequently, you cannot literally see the essence of God, you must see a manifestation, an energy, of him. But, of course the energies of an uncreated essence must be themselves uncreated. (Thomists agree with this; what they disagree with is that the divine energies are non-identical with the divine essence). So, on this view, when you see the energy, you are seeing God insofar as he is see-able, you are participating in him according to the particular participation that is set by the logos which you instantiate. This is getting at the same idea that St. Thomas is getting at: you see God, but you never grasp what he is -- but it is said according to a different understanding of how God is transcendent over creation. I don't really think that the Scotist formal distinction has much of a role to play here. The Scotist formal distinction follows from Scotist ontology (which a Thomist is never going to accept), and that Scotist ontology is completely different from the Palamite ontology. They only share the superficial family resemblance of holding that things that can be distinguished in thought must be somehow distinguishable in extramental reality. What would really bring East and West closer together is not for them to come to an agreement about metaphysics (or worse, for everyone to become Scotists!!), but for them to recognize that they are both teaching the exact same theology of the spiritual life, and agree in their dogmatic affirmations, while they try to render those dogmatic affirmations intelligible with different metaphysical ideas. But that second-order concern should not be a church-dividing difference. Frankly, the only thing keeping the East and the West apart are ecclesiological issues, politics, and suspicions about losing their distinctive identity (which is, frankly, probably justifiable) A Thomist rejects the Scotist formal distinction for two reasons. First, because something must be distinct either prior to the consideration of the mind or after the consideration of the mind -- but then this only founds a distinction between real and rational distinctions. Thomists (unlike Scotists) do not hold that real separability is required for a real distinction, so they don't need a "formal distinction" to hold how metaphysical components within a thing are extramentally distinct. Second, the way in which Scotists hold that the metaphysical components within a thing seems to remove the substantial unity of a thing. To say, for instance that animality and rationality represent two different formalities in Socrates makes it hard to understand how Socrates is substantially one and how animality and rationality can both be essentially predicated of Socrates as one thing. As you can see, this has little to do with Palamism. Even when we come to God, the Palamite and Scotist positions are different. Scotus thinks that the divine attributes are so many distinct formalities of which the divine essence is composed, but are really identical with the divine essence. Palamas thinks that the divine attributes are properties that flow from the divine essence and are really non-identical with it. So appealing to Scotism doesn't really address any of the issues in play. I agree that in the ignited-iron and boild-water analogies, both created and uncreated energies act in synergy. That's what I said in the video above and the last post. But, as I pointed out, the question is not whether deification requires both the uncreated action of God and some sort of temporal effect in the creature by which it is rendered deiform. That much is clear. The question is, what is the relationship of the uncreated action of God to the uncreated essence of God. If the uncreated action of God is something more than or beyond or in addition to the divine essence (or even if it "flows from" the divine essence as a property), then the divine essence is further perfected by this uncreated action -- but where could this further perfection come from? God's action would also be specified by a creature, but this would make a property of God to be dependent on a creature. And besides, how can a creature specify God's act of willing before it exists? It can only do so as understood and loved in God's understanding and loving of his own goodness.

@@BrPeterTotlebenOP thank you for your thoughtful response Fr Totleben. At Byzantine Catholic Seminary there were extended discussions from Dr Minerd (Thomist), Dr Goff (Scotist), and Fr Kappes. Fr Kappes seems to say similar thing as you said that the goal is not to reconcile two different metaphysics but rather to recognize how the same reality is contemplated differently. In seminary we were trained to fully embrace our Eastern heritage which is Palamism. My wife graduated from Holy Apostles Seminary and my brother in law currently in priestly formation in Latin rite both are Thomists. Hopefully multiple traditions within the Church could appreciate each others differences with irenic spirit instead of distrust and hostility. In regards to Zoom call comparison, I was referring to created effects. IMO both Thomists and Palamites profess they see the "divine essence" but for Thomists it's through the created effects and for Palamites through the uncreated energies. When we do zoom call I can see you and not President Biden it's you Fr Totleben through the mediation of created pixels. When I meet you in person I would see you through the light reflected on your face. Both rely on mediation. Whether we saw the total solar eclipse through NASA livestream event or using UV protected lenses we see the sun through some sort of mediation. That mediation in Thomistic is created effects and for Palamites is uncreated energies but both profess they see God and not something else. St Palamas in the Triad argues that the rays are multiple but coming from one light the sun itself and not another. The distinction doesn't introduce separability or divisibility because the energy is essential not something else. If through the created effects one sees divine essence then through the uncreated energies one sees divine essence as well. Because the energy is essential. The heat from the bonfire is distinct from the fire itself but essentially the same as the heat is nothing else than extension of fire's own energy and not something else.

@@AdithiaKusno Thomists do not hold that we see the divine essence through created effects. The Thomistic position is that you see the divine essence directly. In the beatific vision the divine essence is the intelligible species which informs the possible intellect of the blessed person without any sort of created intermediary whatsoever (see Ia, q. 12, a. 2). The so-called "light of glory" is not the medium in which the divine essence is seen, but the supernatural strengthening of the intellect which proportions it to be united immediately and directly to the divine essence (see Ia, q. 12, a. 5). So I think here you have just misunderstood what St. Thomas's position actually is.