Fr. Boersma, you wrote: "What does Maximus mean when he speaks of an identity of human and divine energies?" and "[P]erhaps he simply means that the virtues of divinized human beings are the same ones as God’s virtues and in that sense identical. For example, our humility is a participation in Christ’s humility; our wisdom a sharing in Christ’s wisdom; and so forth. This would not preclude that, even when divinized, we will have our perfected virtues in an analogous, proportionate manner." and "As I hope to make clear in my forthcoming book, on his understanding, Christ’s divinization is archetypal and perfect, whereas ours is (and always remains!) merely a participation in his; ours is always analogously patterned upon his."
I find that Charles Sanders Peirce's categories of 1ns, 2ns & 3ns map well to essence, esse & energeia.
Because the divine essence = esse, not so for human essence & esse, an analogy of being with its implicit semantic univocity would necessarily hold, hence proportionality.
In the category of 3ns, which pertains to relations, habits & such, a formal - relational structural univocity could be applied, precisely to divine - human energeia/virtues. As you noted, they're the same, in that sense, identical!
Fr. Hans, thank you for sharing these truths. This is almost too good to be true, that God would do this for us, it almost makes me want to weep. If we as the church could get hold of this, we would be changed! I am asking God that he would bless your book!
Thanks for this; it's a helpful clarification of Maximus's usage of analogy. There has been a debate forming around this topic, led primarily by Tim Troutner who has been arguing against analogy both as a general linguistic limit in theology and specifically in Christology. I have written on Troutner's position here if you are interested: https://mindyourmetaphysics.substack.com/p/analog-christ-part-1-analogy-and
Fr. Boersma, thank you for all you do, it’s truly unique and invaluable. Could you share what kinds of writings you yourself would recommend for spiritual reading—as distinct from theological study?
“I haven’t been able to find in Maximus the precise language of becoming God “in all but essence””
Perhaps Amb 7.9 Constas trans.
“It belongs to God alone to be the end, and the completion… It belongs to beings, on the other hand, to be moved toward that end which has no beginning… passively to experience the Unqualified, without being or becoming it in essence, for everything which has come to be and is created is clearly not absolute.”
Fr. Boersma, you wrote: "What does Maximus mean when he speaks of an identity of human and divine energies?" and "[P]erhaps he simply means that the virtues of divinized human beings are the same ones as God’s virtues and in that sense identical. For example, our humility is a participation in Christ’s humility; our wisdom a sharing in Christ’s wisdom; and so forth. This would not preclude that, even when divinized, we will have our perfected virtues in an analogous, proportionate manner." and "As I hope to make clear in my forthcoming book, on his understanding, Christ’s divinization is archetypal and perfect, whereas ours is (and always remains!) merely a participation in his; ours is always analogously patterned upon his."
I find that Charles Sanders Peirce's categories of 1ns, 2ns & 3ns map well to essence, esse & energeia.
Because the divine essence = esse, not so for human essence & esse, an analogy of being with its implicit semantic univocity would necessarily hold, hence proportionality.
In the category of 3ns, which pertains to relations, habits & such, a formal - relational structural univocity could be applied, precisely to divine - human energeia/virtues. As you noted, they're the same, in that sense, identical!
I am looking forward to your book!
Fr. Hans, thank you for sharing these truths. This is almost too good to be true, that God would do this for us, it almost makes me want to weep. If we as the church could get hold of this, we would be changed! I am asking God that he would bless your book!
Fantastic
Wonderful distinctions.
Thanks Fr Boersma!
Thanks for this; it's a helpful clarification of Maximus's usage of analogy. There has been a debate forming around this topic, led primarily by Tim Troutner who has been arguing against analogy both as a general linguistic limit in theology and specifically in Christology. I have written on Troutner's position here if you are interested: https://mindyourmetaphysics.substack.com/p/analog-christ-part-1-analogy-and
Fr. Boersma, thank you for all you do, it’s truly unique and invaluable. Could you share what kinds of writings you yourself would recommend for spiritual reading—as distinct from theological study?
Very interesting. I need to dig into this topic more. When will your book be published?
Thanks, Amy! I hope to send off the MS to Eerdmans sometime in September or October, and it will likely be a year from then.
I’ll be on the lookout for it!
“I haven’t been able to find in Maximus the precise language of becoming God “in all but essence””
Perhaps Amb 7.9 Constas trans.
“It belongs to God alone to be the end, and the completion… It belongs to beings, on the other hand, to be moved toward that end which has no beginning… passively to experience the Unqualified, without being or becoming it in essence, for everything which has come to be and is created is clearly not absolute.”