Analogia, Double Gratuities & Apophaticisms, Oh My!
The following reflections and AI interrogations are a follow to:
How Far Apart are the Panentheist Ex Deo approaches of Boersma & Bracken?
Why Joe Bracken, DBH, JDW & Jens are All Correct
How Will We Know Jesus? His Presence known shall be by the holy harmony that it makes in thee!
In distinguishing between substantial, relative & accidental being as well as between native & obediential potencies, we needn't be implicating further distinctions such as between the intrinsic & extrinsic, natural & supernatural and nature & grace. Those distinctions of being & potencies can refer, rather, to the differences between those properties determined for us versus those co-self-determinined by us. The former would refer to how our acts of existence reduce the essential potencies of our substantial being, natively. The latter would refer to how our formal & synergistic acts of love reduce the final potencies of our theotic unitive becoming.
Regarding the manifold & multiform distinct ways of how we modally or formally know God, we all, already natively, experience degrees of both mediated & immediate divine presencings in terms of subjective beatitude (beauty, goodness & truth), objective theophany (AMDG) & intersubjective intimacy (friends becoming lovers). We thus need a less tidy category than im/mediacy to express the differences between the theophanic & supra-theophanic modes of knowing & degrees of union with God, love being such a many splendored thing.
We can still maintain the analogical interval, ex Deo, modally vis a vis the in/finite distinction, including that of Pure Act & theotic becoming. We can even sustain a double gratuity (not quite voluntarist but still abstractly counterfactual if some just insist) of creation & grace, only that it needn't refer to a super/natural distinction, but instead to that between our native substantial being, which is wholly determined, and our formal accidental being, which is synergistically self-determined, i.e. it distinguishes our modes of being & becoming, the former which still requires maturation, development & relative actualization, and the latter which represents further divinization or theosis & epektasis. What is not tenable is a radical apophaticism.
Bracken makes the following distinctions: “Through intersubjective relations, a person can know & understand others’ subjective experiences by prehending the structural objectifications of those experiences, objectively knowing & identifying with them but not subjectively identifying with them. Infinite persons objectively know & identify with each other in every way. The different subjective realities of each person precludes ontological identity (as in the logical principle of identity). Knowing & willing, then, pertain to both the divine nature and to each person.”
I asked Perplexity:
How might Joseph Bracken contextualize the beatific vision in terms of noetic identity considering he refers to divine intersubjectivity like this: “Through intersubjective relations, a person can know & understand others’ subjective experiences by prehending the structural objectifications of those experiences, objectively knowing & identifying with them but not subjectively identifying with them. Infinite persons objectively know & identify with each other in every way. The different subjective realities of each person precludes ontological identity (as in the logical principle of identity). Knowing & willing, then, pertain to both the divine nature and to each person.” Specifically, how might a finite person relate to the Trinity ad intra? I would qualify Aquinas' noetic identity in terms of a comprehensive experience of the thatness of that intimacy but only an inchoate intelligible grasp of its whatness. In other words, noetic identity couldn't refer to a quidditative comprehension, speculatively, but only to an ineffable operative knowledge, practically. This would not be to deny the Trinity's infinite speculative intelligibility, quidditatively, as variously known formally & modally, only to deny any exhaustive comprehensibility by finite creatures, both speculatively & practically (mystically).
Perplexity responds:
Joseph Bracken would contextualize the beatific vision in terms of *noetic identity* by drawing on his process-oriented, intersubjective understanding of the Trinity. For Bracken, as cited, intersubjective relations allow persons to objectively know and identify with others’ experiences by prehending their structural objectifications, but not to subjectively become those others-thus, ontological identity is always precluded[1]. This means that even in the most intimate union, such as the beatific vision, the finite person never becomes ontologically identical with the Trinity ad intra.
Instead, Bracken’s framework suggests that in the beatific vision, a finite person’s relation to the Trinity is one of maximal objective identification-an immediate, comprehensive experience of divine intimacy-without collapsing into subjective or ontological identity[1]. The finite person participates in the divine life through an “obediential beatific potency,” actualized by God’s agency, not by any innate creaturely capacity[1]. This corresponds to your qualification of Aquinas: the beatific vision grants a comprehensive experience of the “thatness” (the fact of intimacy), but only an inchoate, non-exhaustive grasp of the “whatness” (the essence or quidditative content) of the divine.
Bracken’s analogy to Trinitarian intersubjectivity means the blessed experience the divine presence in a way analogous to how the divine Persons objectively know and identify with each other, yet always as distinct subjects. The finite person’s knowledge in the beatific vision is thus an ineffable, operative knowledge-a practical participation in divine intimacy-never an exhaustive, speculative comprehension of the divine essence[1]. This preserves both the infinite intelligibility of the Trinity and the limits of finite creaturely knowing, aligning with your distinction between practical intimacy and speculative comprehensibility.
> “Divine immediate apprehensions & comprehensions will differ not only in terms of degrees but in qualitative terms related to distinct holistic aspects of our axiological epistemology. Those aspects will be analogous to how Bracken describes Trinitarian intersubjective dynamics. While we can successfully refer to, we can’t robustly define, this emergentist hierarchical analogue of noetic transcendence, or meaningfully conceive - much less predict - its novelties.”[1]
In summary, Bracken would see the beatific vision as a maximal, operative noetic union-objective identification without ontological fusion-mirroring the intersubjective but non-identical knowing within the Trinity, and always preserving the Creator-creature distinction[1].
Citations:
[1] Distinguishing a Universal Restoration from a Universal Beatific Vision https://theologoumenon.substack.com/p/distinguishing-a-universal-restoration
[2] The One, the Many, and the Trinity : Joseph A. Bracken and the ... https://dokumen.pub/the-one-the-many-and-the-trinity-joseph-a-bracken-and-the-challenge-of-process-metaphysics-1nbsped-9780813219004-9780813217949.html
[3] [PDF] ASPECTS OF AQUINAS'S THEOLOGICAL INTENTIONALITY TO ... https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Journals/The%20Thomist%20(1941-2024)/2003_Volume67_Number3.pdf
[4] [PDF] THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALOGY AND THE PROBLEM ... - CORE https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/216049544.pdf
[5] 2022 book reviews https://catholicbooksreview.org/2022/Bracken.html
[6] The Double Consciousness of Christ by Bertrand de Margerie, S.J. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55537/the-double-consciousness-of-christ-by-bertrand-de-margerie-sj
[7] A Defense of Double Agency – with a Goldilocks account of divine ... https://theologoumenon.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-double-agency-with-a
[8] Library : The Double Consciousness of Christ | Catholic Culture https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5793
[9] [PDF] Divine Energies: The Consuming Fire and the Beatific Vision https://philarchive.org/archive/HOLDET
I asked Perplexity:
Why do theologians juxtapose the analogy of being with idealism
Perplexity responded:
Theologians juxtapose the analogy of being (*analogia entis*) with idealism because both address how finite reality relates to the infinite or divine, but they do so with fundamentally different metaphysical assumptions.
- The *analogy of being* (developed by thinkers like Thomas Aquinas) holds that there is a real, though analogical, similarity between God and creation: created beings truly exist, but their existence is always dependent on and different from God's transcendent being. This analogy allows for both continuity and distinction between God and creatures, affirming that while God is the ground of all being, created things have real existence outside the divine mind[7][4].
- *Idealism*, by contrast, asserts that all of reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual-reality is either a product of mind or exists only as ideas within a divine or universal consciousness. In Christian idealism, this often means the material world is seen as a manifestation of God's ideas, with the ultimate reality being God’s mind itself, rather than a world existing independently of God’s perception or will[2][5].
The juxtaposition arises because both frameworks seek to explain how the finite (creation) relates to the infinite (God), but idealism risks collapsing all reality into the divine mind, potentially erasing the real distinction between God and creation. The analogy of being, meanwhile, preserves both God's transcendence and the genuine existence of creatures, avoiding the pitfalls of pantheism or monism often associated with idealism[7][2][4].
In summary, theologians compare these views to clarify the metaphysical status of creation: whether it participates analogically in divine being (analogy of being) or is ultimately reducible to divine mind (idealism). This comparison is central to debates about God's relationship to the world and the nature of reality in Christian theology[2][7][4].
Citations:
[1] Analogies for Idealism | The Divine Life Communion https://dlcommunion.org/2019/01/24/analogies-for-idealism/
[2] The Biblical Case for Idealism | The Religion That Started in a Hat https://thereligionthatstartedinahat.org/2024/08/10/the-biblical-case-for-idealism/
[3] Berkeley's Subjective Idealism and Theology - Veritas Vincit Tenebram https://sophoslogos.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/berkeley%E2%80%99s-subjective-idealism-and-theology/
[4] Theologians in Conversation; The Analogy of Being - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V_rkNfprqs
[5] Idealism - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
[6] [PDF] Universalising Idealism: The Cross-Cultural Case of Russian ... https://rprt.northwestern.edu/documents/research-scholar-articles/mj%C3%B8r-article-4.pdf
[7] Analogia Entis in a Monastic Vision: Thomas Merton's Answer to the ... https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/1/72
[8] Idealism and Christian Theology: Introduction (blog.kennypearce.net) https://blog.kennypearce.net/archives/philosophy/metaphysics/ontology/idealismphenomenalism/idealism_and_christian_theolog.html
I asked Perplexity:
But even Aquinas with his analogia would affirm a noetic identity, for example, in the beatific vision, and also the reality of how a divine presence can act on the intellect as form to matter? Is analogy safeguarded in these instances by the concept of obediential potency and further by the distinction between a constitutive presence or indwelling and that of grace?
Perplexity responded:
Aquinas does indeed affirm a kind of *noetic identity* in the beatific vision: in this eschatological state, the intellect is united to God in such a way that it “sees” God’s essence directly, not merely by analogy or through created forms[6][9][11]. This is a unique exception to the ordinary analogical mode of knowing God, made possible by a special elevation of the intellect through grace.
The safeguarding of analogy in these extraordinary instances is accomplished through several key Thomistic distinctions:
- **Obediential Potency:** Human nature possesses a passive potential (*potentia obedientialis*) to be elevated by God beyond its natural capacities, enabling direct participation in the divine life without destroying or transforming the essence of human nature[7][10]. This means the intellect can be acted upon by God as form to matter, but only because it is receptive and open to such supernatural elevation, not because it demands or contains it naturally.
- **Constitutive Presence vs. Grace:** Aquinas distinguishes between God’s constitutive presence (as the cause of being in all things) and the special indwelling of grace. The latter is a supernatural mode of presence, not identical with the ontological presence of God in creation, but an elevation that allows for union without confusion or absorption of the creature into the Creator[10].
- **Analogy Maintained:** Even in the beatific vision, the distinction between God and the creature is not erased. The intellect is elevated to a direct vision of God, but this is a gift, not a natural capacity, and thus preserves the analogical relation: the creature remains creature, even as it participates in the divine life in an extraordinary way[4][10].
In summary, Aquinas maintains the analogy of being even in the beatific vision and in the action of divine presence on the intellect, precisely by invoking obediential potency and distinguishing between different kinds of divine presence. This ensures that union with God does not collapse into univocity or pantheism, but remains a participation that respects the Creator-creature distinction[4][7][10].
Citations:
[1] Analogia entis - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogia_entis
[2] The Analogy of Being in the Works of Thomas Aquinas https://amymantravadi.com/2020/03/26/the-analogy-of-being-in-the-works-of-thomas-aquinas/
[3] analogia entis — Posts - thomistica https://thomistica.net/posts/tag/analogia+entis
[4] Analogia Entis - Syndicate Network https://syndicate.network/symposia/theology/analogia-entis/
[5] Analogia Entis: Metaphysics: Original Structure and Universal Rhythm https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/analogia-entis-metaphysics-original-structure-and-universal-rhythm/
[6] Project Dissertations - Marquette University https://academic.mu.edu/taylorr/Aquinas_and_the_Arabs/Dissertations.html
[7] Animals Have Souls, But They Can't Receive Grace. Here's Why ... https://roadkillrhapsody.com/2014/04/11/animals-have-souls-but-they-cant-recieve-grace-heres-why-potency-and-act-part-3/
[8] Reading Przywara's Analogia Entis - The Philosophy Forum https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15296/reading-przywaras-analogia-entis
[9] the Beatific Vision according to Gregory of Nyssa and Thomas Aquinas https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/77473
[10] The Concept of Specific Obediential Potency - Lex Christianorum http://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2011/02/balaams-ass-and-stained-glass-concept.html
[11] [PDF] Face to face - The Beatific Vision according to Gregory of Nyssa and ... https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/handle/2077/77473/Victor%20Hjort,%20Face%20to%20face,%20the%20beatific%20vision%20according%20to%20Gregory%20of%20Nyssa%20and%20Thomas%20Aquinas.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
I asked Perplexity:
Aren't there different conceptions of obediential potency, though, such as between Hart & Feser, where the obediential potency could be conceived in a manner more consistent with idealist notions?
Perplexity responded:
Yes, there are different conceptions of obediential potency, and the debate between figures like David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser illustrates this divergence.
- **Feser’s View:** Feser defends the traditional Thomistic understanding, where obediential potency is a real metaphysical inclination in creatures, rooted in their nature, that allows God to elevate them beyond their natural capacities-but only through a supernatural act. This potency is “built in” to human nature, allowing for elevation without implying a natural capacity for the supernatural[6].
- **Hart’s Critique:** Hart criticizes this Thomistic conception as ad hoc and insufficient, arguing that if obediential potency is merely a “non-repugnance” to the supernatural, it does not truly bridge the gap between nature and grace. Hart suggests that if obediential potency is conceived as a real, intrinsic openness to the supernatural, it risks collapsing into a kind of idealism or virtual indwelling, where the supernatural is already implicit in the natural[9].
- **Idealist Consistency:** Hart’s critique implies that a more “idealist” reading of obediential potency would see the creature’s openness to the divine as an intrinsic, even constitutive, feature-making the supernatural not just an extrinsic addition but something already virtually present or latent within the creature’s being[9].
- **Thomistic Safeguard:** Traditional Thomism, as Feser argues, maintains a strict distinction: obediential potency is a passive, not active, openness-it does not imply any natural claim or capacity for the supernatural, but only a metaphysical possibility grounded in God’s creative freedom[6][4][5].
In summary, the concept of obediential potency is contested: Feser upholds a Thomistic reading that avoids idealist implications, while Hart’s critique highlights how a broader or more intrinsic conception could align more closely with idealist metaphysics, blurring the line between nature and grace[6][9].
Citations:
[1] Theological Science, Subalternation, and Obediential Potency https://www.athomist.com/articles/theological-science-subalternation-and-obediential-potency
[2] [PDF] The Thomistic Doctrine of Potency - e-Publications@Marquette https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1796&context=phil_fac
[3] Potentia Obedientiae: A Recrudescent Thomistic Principle and Its ... https://avemariauniversity.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p17148coll1/id/57/
[4] [PDF] Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of ... https://philarchive.org/archive/SILTAA-7
[5] The Concept of Specific Obediential Potency - Lex Christianorum http://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2011/02/balaams-ass-and-stained-glass-concept.html
[6] Two Harts beaten as one - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/04/two-harts-beaten-as-one.html
[7] 1. Act and potency - FIU Faculty Websites https://faculty.fiu.edu/~harrisk/Notes/Philosophy%20of%20Science/Lecture%204b%20-%20Scholastic%20and%20Modern%20Notions%20of%20Causation.htm
[8] The Metaphysics of Miracles and Obediential Potency | 6 | Miracles in https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781003562177-6/metaphysics-miracles-obediential-potency-edmund-michael-lazzari
[9] Edward Feser's Sub-Christian Dualism - David Bentley Hart | Substack https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/edward-fesers-sub-christian-dualism
[10] Feser's Fifth: Why his up-to-date version of Aquinas' Fifth Way fails ... https://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/feser6.html
John Sobert Sylvest highly recommends, regarding DBH vs Feser on Obediential Potency: