What is "Divine Simplicity?"

[Light of the East]

I made a comment on an RC board and got this in reply:

ME: Recently, the Holy Father of Rome said that "In Orthodoxy, there is nothing lacking." Sounds like he is pushing for that reunion which so desperately needs to take place.

HIM: There is plenty lacking, I'm going to need the context of that quote. Four things immediately come to mind:

Firstly a belief in the indissolubility of marriage. Secondly, the dogma of the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, the rejection of the dogmatic definitions of the office of the Pope at Vatican I. Fourthly, the at least apparent rejection of the dogma of Divine Simplicity (seriously do the Orthodox believe God's existence is derived from His parts?).

I'm really interested in that last one. What the heck is this guy talking about? I'll do some Google searching on this, but I would like to understand from an Orthodox perspective, and this is the best place to come for it.

 

[HTacianas]

I made a comment on an RC board and got this in reply:

ME: Recently, the Holy Father of Rome said that "In Orthodoxy, there is nothing lacking." Sounds like he is pushing for that reunion which so desperately needs to take place.

HIM: There is plenty lacking, I'm going to need the context of that quote. Four things immediately come to mind:

Firstly a belief in the indissolubility of marriage. Secondly, the dogma of the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, the rejection of the dogmatic definitions of the office of the Pope at Vatican I. Fourthly, the at least apparent rejection of the dogma of Divine Simplicity (seriously do the Orthodox believe God's existence is derived from His parts?).

I'm really interested in that last one. What the heck is this guy talking about? I'll do some Google searching on this, but I would like to understand from an Orthodox perspective, and this is the best place to come for it.

It's actually the other way around. Divine Simplicity has it that God has no parts. That's why when discussing the Trinity we do label each divine Person as a "part" of God, but fully God.

I think whomever you were talking with has a simple misunderstanding is all.

 

[Light of the East]

It's actually the other way around. Divine Simplicity has it that God has no parts. That's why when discussing the Trinity we do label each divine Person as a "part" of God, but fully God.

I think whomever you were talking with has a simple misunderstanding is all.

?????????????????? Please....can you clarify that statement for me a little more?

That part in red, it sounds like what the poster is complaining about. Is he simply misunderstanding that we understand each Person of the Trinity to be fully God, but at the same time "parts" of God (did I say that correctly?)

 

[HTacianas]

?????????????????? Please....can you clarify that statement for me a little more?

That part in red, it sounds like what the poster is complaining about. Is he simply misunderstanding that we understand each Person of the Trinity to be fully God, but at the same time "parts" of God (did I say that correctly?)

Actually I made a typo. I should have said we do not label the Persons of the Trinity as parts.

I am truly sorry for that.

 

[Silmarien]

?????????????????? Please....can you clarify that statement for me a little more?

That part in red, it sounds like what the poster is complaining about. Is he simply misunderstanding that we understand each Person of the Trinity to be fully God, but at the same time "parts" of God (did I say that correctly?)

I am not Orthodox, but I'm fairly familiar with the concept of divine simplicity.

Divine simplicity means that God is absolutely simple. He possesses no parts. This is why ideas such as the convertibility of the transcendentals is so important in Catholicism: God does not possess beauty, truth, or goodness as properties. God is truth, and beauty, and goodness, and from the divine perspective there is no difference between any of these things. Being is Goodness. It goes back to Platonic philosophy and the idea that if God had parts, then these parts would be more ontologically fundamental than God himself, and we would need to find something simpler yet in which to ground reality.

I am not sure precisely how the Orthodox approach divine simplicity conceptually, but they certainly don't reject it. They might not be particularly keen on a more Thomistic formulation of it, though, which may look like rejection if someone is too wedded to the language of Catholic scholasticism.

The only theologians I know of who deny divine simplicity are Evangelical Protestants, since they sometimes reject the doctrine as unbiblical.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's actually the other way around. Divine Simplicity has it that God has no parts. That's why when discussing the Trinity we do label each divine Person as a "part" of God, but fully God.

To say that each divine person is a part of God would be to contradict the doctrine of simplicity. From a Roman (and also Reformed) view, each person of the Trinity is fully God and by virtue of perichoresis all of God is present in each person. The Father and the Spirit are in the Son, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Divine simplicity is that God is only Divine Nature. we believe God also has Divine energies which in no way add to Him or violate the simplicity of the Divine nature.

 

[icxn]

...
I am not sure precisely how the Orthodox approach divine simplicity conceptually, but they certainly don't reject it.

You are right, though we take it one step further, namely that God is beyond being. I hope you can make some sense of the following quote from St. Maximos the Confessor. He is probably one of the most difficult Orthodox teachers to understand:

Every intellection has either a multiple or at least a dual aspect. For it is an intermediate relationship between two extremes - an intellective being and an intelligible being - and links the one to the other. Hence neither extreme can possess an absolute simplicity. An intellective being is a subject/and so the capacity of apprehending some intelligible object is necessarily associated with it. And an intelligible being necessarily either is a subject or exists in a subject: as a subject it possesses the intrinsic capacity of being apprehended by an intellective being; as existing in a subject it presupposes a being in which it exists potentially. For no creature is in itself a simple being or intellection, in such a way as to constitute an indivisible unity. Thus, if we call God a being, then the capacity to be apprehended by a process of intellection is not inherent in His nature, for if it were He would be composite. Or if we call Him an intellection, then He does not possess an essence with a natural capacity for being an intellective subject, but He Himself is intellection in His very essence; the whole of God is intellection and intellection alone. But in terms of intellection He is also being: the whole of God is being and being alone. And yet the whole of God is beyond being and beyond intellection, because He is an indivisible unity, simple and without parts. Thus whoever, to whatever degree, still apprehends by means of intellection has not yet transcended duality. But he who has advanced altogether beyond intellection, and has renounced it because he has transcended it, has come to dwell to some extent in unity.

In the multiplicity of beings there is diversity, dissimilarity and difference. But in God, who is in an absolute sense one and alone, there is only identity, simplicity and similarity. It is therefore not safe to devote oneself to the contemplation of God before one has advanced beyond the multiplicity of beings. Moses showed this when he pitched the tent of his mind outside the camp (cf. Exod. 33:7) and then conversed with God. For it is dangerous to attempt to utter the inexpressible by means of the spoken word, for the spoken word involves duality or more than duality. The surest way is to contemplate pure being silently in the soul alone, because pure being is established in undivided unity and not among the multiplicity of things. The high priest, who was commanded to go into the holy of holies within the veil only once every year (cf. Lev. 16; Heb. 9:7), shows us that only he who has passed through what is immaterial and holy and has entered the holy of holies - that is, who has transcended the whole natural world of sensible and intelligible realities, is free from all that is specific to creatures and whose mind is unclad and naked - is able to attain the vision of God.

 

[Silmarien]

You are right, though we take it one step further, namely that God is beyond being. I hope you can make some sense of the following quote from St. Maximos the Confessor. He is probably one of the most difficult Orthodox teachers to understand:

Oh, I actually agree with the Orthodox rather than the Catholic position here. But I wouldn't say that it's a step beyond divine simplicity--this is divine simplicity in its original Platonic form. (Though I suspect that the difference is more a matter of methodology than a genuine theological dispute--if Catholics were to take Being Itself literally, they would end up at pantheism, and that's clearly not the case.)

I'd forgotten about it before ArmyMatt brought it up, but I'm guessing now that the initial confusion might have been due to Catholic hostility towards Palamism.

 

[Light of the East]

Oh, I actually agree with the Orthodox rather than the Catholic position here. But I wouldn't say that it's a step beyond divine simplicity--this is divine simplicity in its original Platonic form. (Though I suspect that the difference is more a matter of methodology than a genuine theological dispute--if Catholics were to take Being Itself literally, they would end up at pantheism, and that's clearly not the case.)

I'd forgotten about it before ArmyMatt brought it up, but I'm guessing now that the initial confusion might have been due to Catholic hostility towards Palamism.

You would be right on that last part. The one who posted his objections to me clearly thinks that Palamas is a world-class material and formal heretic.

 

[buzuxi02]

Divine simplicity- something never mentioned by the Fathers.

 

[truefiction1]

Divine simplicity -- a personal manner of living that I long for, but is nowhere in sight at this time.