Can Someone Explain The Divine Essence-Energies To Me?
- Thread starter CathBoy1
- Start date
- Status
T
TheAtheist
Guest
If my Orthodox friends have done their work correctly in teach me:The title says it all, Can Someone Explain The Divine Essence-Energies To Me?
In layman’s terms please, I’m just interested in knowing what the theology is.
1.) Orthodoxy considers your God (who I assume they mean the being/entity you designate as “Father”) to be Unknowable. The dead, demons, the angels in heaven, etc. fundamentally cannot grasp everything about your Creator. His Essence (the most critical part of God’s being) remains incomprehensible to everything else in existence.
2.) But his “Energeia” from which we derive the English world “Energy” but is probably better translated as “Activities” are comprehensible to human beings. Things like the Creation of the world is an “Activity.”
3.) Some of the Orthodox hurl the accusation at Catholics, and specifically at the folks who propagate the philosophy/theology of Thomas Aquinas for confusing God’s Essence with his Energeia.
Thanks for the reply.
But this brings up some more questions:
In the Eastern Orthodox view, would the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion be:
- The Essence
- The Energy
- Both
T
TheAtheist
Guest
To the first 3 things you asked - that’s beyond my payscale. I’m sure perhaps one of your Eastern Catholic or an Orthodox member of CAF might be willing to shed some light on that.Thanks for the reply.
But this brings up some more questions:
In the Eastern Orthodox view, would the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion be:
And is The Divine Essence-Energies distinction compatible with Roman Catholicism?
- The Essence
- The Energy
- Both
To your last question - i think my “sample size” of opinions of that question might be biased… I have no way of telling actually because I’ve only seen full disputations of the Essence-Energeia dispute in the overall polemical debate to be had between Orthodox and Catholics, Aquinas vs. Palamas.
I have seen rather vicious fights between Traditional Catholics and the Orthodox wherein they have cited that the Essence-Energeia distinction seems like an unacceptable innovation as is the practice of hesychasm. Some have called it outright pagan.
Of course, the Orthodox tend to return fire saying the whole manner by which Western Christianity performs its theology is Pagan.
And yet i also see people on both sides of the divide saying that these issues are not insurmountable.
So as a person who is neither Western European/American nor a Christian, i have no clue as to whether you are all converging, diverging, or doing both.
R
Richca
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that the beatific vision of heaven, our final end, consists in the vision of the divine essence (CCC#599). The Church also teaches that in God “everything in them is one where there is no opposition of relationship” (CCC#255). This means that the only distinction found in God are the relations of the persons to each other, namely, the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Everything else in them is one, i.e, there are no other distinctions. The three persons are of one substance, one divine nature or they wouldn’t be one God.
Ok so I’m confused on the thought process here (I guess that’s why I asked the original question).
So we’ve got Essence (Incomprehensible) and Energy (comprehensible). Is that to say that God in His Essence makes Himself Comprehensible via His Energy, to human beings?
If so, what is incompatible here with Roman Catholicism.
If not, can I get a better explanation on this subject?
R
Rohzek
Guest
In answer to the Orthodox view, the Eucharist is both.Thanks for the reply.
But this brings up some more questions:
In the Eastern Orthodox view, would the Real Presence of Jesus Christ Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion be:
And is The Divine Essence-Energies distinction compatible with Roman Catholicism?
- The Essence
- The Energy
- Both
Thanks for answering my question.
So would this be the correct understanding of the Orthodox view of the Essence-Energy distinction:
So we’ve got Essence (Incomprehensible) and Energy (comprehensible). Is that to say that God in His Essence makes Himself Comprehensible via His Energy, to human beings?
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
That’s a good way to put it.
It should also be noted that this isn’t an Eastern Orthodox vs. Catholic perspective. It’s an Eastern Orthodox AND Byzantine Catholic perspective vs. the Latin perspective vs. the Syriac perspective vs. the Coptic perspective.
These Mysteries are great and there are a great many ways to explore the depth; much of it complementary if one chooses to look at one Tradition in depth and holistically, instead of importing the language from another Tradition and inserting it into the other. This latter action makes chaos instead of complementarity.
It should also be noted that this isn’t an Eastern Orthodox vs. Catholic perspective. It’s an Eastern Orthodox AND Byzantine Catholic perspective vs. the Latin perspective vs. the Syriac perspective vs. the Coptic perspective.
These Mysteries are great and there are a great many ways to explore the depth; much of it complementary if one chooses to look at one Tradition in depth and holistically, instead of importing the language from another Tradition and inserting it into the other. This latter action makes chaos instead of complementarity.
Thanks for the reply.
The only reason I asked the OP, is because I’m interested in understanding what the Essence-Energy distinction is, and to be honest, this (So we’ve got Essence (Incomprehensible) and Energy (comprehensible). Is that to say that God in His Essence makes Himself Comprehensible via His Energy, to human beings)is the way I’ve always understood God to operate.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Could you elaborate a little more on the last two? I’m rather curious as to what their perspectives might entail.
Well that’s a rather enlightened perspective,
On the rare occasion i’ve seen this argued out, someone invariably quotes an inflammatory passage from the work of Vladimir Lossky…and things just go down hill from there.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
The Syriac perspective is actually two almost separate schools of theology - the School of Edessa/Nisibis (commonly thought of as Nestorian/Eastern Syriac or Assyrian) and the Schools of TurAbdin and Mardin (commonly thought of as pre-Chalcedonian/West Syriac or Jacobite)
The Coptic school of Alexandria is unique in its own right.
There’s too much there for me to try an reduce it to an easy read.
What exactly do they quote? A lot of what Vladimir Lossky states as the “Eastern” is really Byzantine Eastern, not the totality of all Eastern thought. Just as Latins tend to overstate the case in referring to their theological speculations as the entirety of “Catholic teaching”, Byzantines tend to overstate the case on “mysticism”, as if that is the only perspective.
C
Contarini
Guest
Here’s an article by an Orthodox philosopher, David Bradshaw, on the subject.The title says it all, Can Someone Explain The Divine Essence-Energies To Me?
In layman’s terms please, I’m just interested in knowing what the theology is.
I tried using the link you provided, but it isn’t working.
C
Contarini
Guest
Try googling “David Bradshaw divine energies” or something of that sort. That’s how I got it, and it worked fine.
Edwin
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Care to suggest any books then? Although I’m pretty back-logged at this point - i’m currently part of a Neoplatonic study group with a few friends. Has given me some rather wonderful insights into Western philosophy and the three abrahamic faiths actually…
The last one i remember seeing a while back was some sort of dispute with a man named Yves Cognar - although i will admit I wasn’t quite certain exactly what the topic was being argued about.
Byzantine v. Latin Catholic fights tend to sprawl all over the place - one minute its that addition to the Creed, the next its Apophatic/Cataphatic, role of the Papacy, etc.
Occasionally I do get to run across something that’s rather…scholarly. I’m most attracted to those posts because its less polemical and more a delineation of differences.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Divine Essence does not come down to us.The title says it all, Can Someone Explain The Divine Essence-Energies To Me?
In layman’s terms please, I’m just interested in knowing what the theology is.
Divine Presence is made known to our senses or our humanity in space and time.
Faith is called for here.
I would not use the word “energies” to try and describe God’s action or presence. Power is secondary to the divine Essence and Presence.
In other words, power, action, “energy” is what proceeds from that which does not proceed in divinity the blessed Trinity, who is primary.
We have not discussed the procession of distinct persons in Trinity.
In lay man’s terms, Jesus said it best in John 10:36
can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated* and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
37
If I do not perform my Father’s works, do not believe me;
38
but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize [and understand] that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
39
[Then] they tried again to arrest him; but he escaped from their power.
E
eddie_too
Guest
i am not sure what is meant by divine energies.
i was taught that God’s existence is His essence. we cannot make a distinction between God’s existence and His essence. They are One and the Same.
i do wonder what the OP is thinking when he speaks of divine energies. could it be God’s sanctifying and actual graces?
i was taught that God’s existence is His essence. we cannot make a distinction between God’s existence and His essence. They are One and the Same.
i do wonder what the OP is thinking when he speaks of divine energies. could it be God’s sanctifying and actual graces?
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Why would the Eucharist be both Essence and Energies?
The Essence is totally unknowable/unperceivable.
It is only through God’s Energies that we interact with Him in Palamas’s thought (which is usually embraced as EO thought).
While the Eucharist might be said to be Essence and Energies, the human would have no contact with the Essence as it is impossible for humans to experience the Essence EVER (even after death). I have never seen this discussed in EO thought, but I just assumed that the Eucharist would be Energies only. I could be wrong.
Palamas and Aquinas went very different directions here.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Would you agree it is a Gregory Palamas vs. Thomas Aquinas perspective?
I do not see an agreement in this, but I do recognize that Palamas is not EO Christianity and Aquinas is not Catholicism.
Charity, TOm
- Status