Can Someone Explain The Divine Essence-Energies To Me?

[Gabriel_of_12]

TOmNossor;14192337]Why would the Eucharist be both Essence and Energies?
The Essence is totally unknowable/unperceivable…
…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.

In Catholic (Latin) understanding, our apostolic faith expresses God’s Presence, while the Essence of God is mysteriously hidden, in the presence of each person of the Trinity. For no man can see God as God is in Essence and live.

Nothing is impossible with God, who loves us. Jesus being fully human and fully divine in presence yet, His divine Essence is hidden in His presence.

The Eucharist is never “Energies only”. The Eucharist is a substantial “Presence” of the Person (never energy) Jesus Christ body, blood, soul and divinity. The Trinity is present in liturgy, when the third person of the Trinity, Who reveals and recalls to our hearts and minds the act of God (Eucharista) not “Energies only”.

God the Holy Spirit, reveals divine revelation and recalls to our hearts and minds, what God has done once and for all, made present, in space and time in and for every age.

Energies or Energy is not a word used by the Church in Catholicism to define God’s presence or God’s Essence.

We speak of God’s presence made known in space and time, and God’s Essence eternal existence which does not come down to us. If? we speak of God’s power and revelation, we don’t necessarily describe the latter as “Energies”, but we relate to them as God giving divine revelation, made known by the One (Personal) God and no other, revealed in and through the procession of the blessed Trinity.

The procession of the presence in Trinity, is not a subject of Energy either; For that who proceeds is a person of the Trinity, never an Energy. And the one that does not proceed, but sends and begets, is the Father, who is personal, who is never an energy. The procession of the Trinity is personal, living and present.

I give thanks to God our Father for sending us His only eternally begotten Son to reveal these mysteries to our humanity, who revealed God is Love and personal and knows each one of us by name and counts the hairs on our head daily. I am so blessed to know, that my Catholic faith teaches and reveals that God is not a ball of energy suspended in space and time, or that our Father is an unknown energy that is not personal.

Peace be with you

 

[Rohzek]

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

Even if it is both, it does not mean you can comprehend both.

 

[TOmNossor]

Gabriel of 12 and Rohzek,
Thank you for your response. EO thought often trips me up as I am a westerner who is generally enamored with dialectic reasoning (partially because I am an Engineer).
Charity, TOm

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12 and Rohzek,
Thank you for your response. EO thought often trips me up as I am a westerner who is generally enamored with dialectic reasoning (partially because I am an Engineer).
Charity, TOm

Your welcome TOmNossor; In regards to EO thought, although it reaches into depths that are mystical and raises ones intellect and understanding when it is in agreement with the ECF’s. When it doesn’t it is non-Orthodox.

I would be interested in knowing which EO or Othordox theologian who teaches; that the divine Essence is “Energy or Energies”. To my knowledge I know of No EO who teaches that the divine Essence of the One God is “Energy”.

Peace be with you

 

[TOmNossor]

Your welcome TOmNossor; In regards to EO thought, although it reaches into depths that are mystical and raises ones intellect and understanding when it is in agreement with the ECF’s. When it doesn’t it is non-Orthodox.

I would be interested in knowing which EO or Othordox theologian who teaches; that the divine Essence is “Energy or Energies”. To my knowledge I know of No EO who teaches that the divine Essence of the One God is “Energy”.

Peace be with you

I am not sure what you mean by, “Essence is “Energy or Energies”” If I said something like that I must have misspoke.
I would say that the distinction between Essence and Energies has roots in EO thought from at least one of the Cappadocian Fathers, John of Damascus, and Dionysius. Gregory Palamas drew together their thought and produced his view of Theosis. Man can participate in the Energies of God, but the essence remains unknowable. Most treatments of the Essence vs. Energies distinction I have seen utilize Gregory of Palamas’s thought.
Thomas Aquinas did not agree with this distinction.
Charity, TOm

 

[SalamKhan]

From what I understand, it goes something like this:

Barlaam of Calabria found that the monks of Mount Athos, who were of the hesychast movement, claimed to experience the Uncreated Light. To Barlaam, to say that there was something eternal and divine besides God was polytheism. Gregory of Palamas defended hesychasm, by making the Divine Essence-Energies distinction.

The Divine Essence was unknowable. But how could this be since Christians are to become “partakers of the Divine nature”? Well, that’s where the Divine Energies come in.

Incidentally, this Essence-Energies distinction had existed among the Muslims in the Mutazilite school. Sunnis say that some of the divine attributes (Names) are of the Essence and some are of Being. By the Mutazilite tawhid, the essence is unknowable, and none of the attributes are of the Essence; these attributes or Names are reduced to a kind of demiurgic level.

This unknowability of God led the Mutazilites to deny the generally accepted idea that those whom salvation brings into paradise have a "vision" of God, arguing that such "seeing" of God would place Him within space. The Asharite and Sunni position is that God is knowable; that some Divine Names are names of the Essence and not some created energy. This controversy became symbolized by the question of “beatific vision” in Paradise. Muhammad is credited with saying that the inhabitants of paradise would see God. When asked how, he is supposed to have said “as people see the full Moon;” i.e. by “reflection” as the Moon reflects the light of the Sun.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

TOmNossor;14194476]I am not sure what you mean by, “Essence is “Energy or Energies”” If I said something like that I must have misspoke

.

For the record in Western Catholic thought, we do not apply the term “Energy” to define God’s Essence nor any of God’s Attributes and divine revelations. In conclusion, you did not misspeak in your post from which I responded too.

I would say that the distinction between Essence and Energies has roots in EO thought from at least one of the Cappadocian Fathers, John of Damascus, and Dionysius

.

The subject of Energies is a theological expression found in some EO “thought” which you have alluded too. The subject “Energies” when applied to the divine is not a universal doctrine binding upon all Christians. In Western (Catholic Rite) Christendom, “Energies” when applied to the divine is rejected.

Gregory Palamas drew together their thought and produced his view of Theosis. Man can participate in the Energies of God, but the essence remains unknowable

.

Palamism theology of the Energy subject became supported by an Emperor which gained the favor of some to accept it as doctrine and rejected by others, those who rejected Palamism converted to the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

In layman terms for the OP. When the Palaminist followers apply “Energy” to God’s attribute’s. They are simply re-naming those invisible attributes of God such as Love, Reason, Will to name a few, which are realities to our humanity, though invisible to the eye, they call these “Energies” of the divine.

One can debunk the Palamism doctrine of “Energies”, because Jesus did not reveal them as “Energies” of the Father. Theology would be an acceptable standard to apply such a term as “Energy” to the invisible attributes of God, but I don’t see how such a term ever reached a doctrinal position in EO thought?

Grant it the subject of Energy in EO thought is entertaining and interesting, but the term itself is not a universal doctrine of Christendom.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SalamKhan;14194546]From what I understand, it goes something like this:

Barlaam of Calabria found that the monks of Mount Athos, who were of the hesychast movement, claimed to experience the Uncreated Light. To Barlaam, to say that there was something eternal and divine besides God was polytheism.

My history here is hazy at best, so feel free to correct or fill in the blanks if need be?

Barlaam was not rejecting the disciplines of the monks of Mount Athos. It is said that, informants, informed Barlaam that the hesychast claimed to experience the same “Uncreated Light”, the apostles experienced at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Which the informants claimed was not of divine Essence but of another deity or hypostasis. Barlaam’s objection placed their claim in check.

The way I read this history, Gregory Palamas came to the rescue of the hesychast and defended them with the new and invented subject of “Energy or Energies of God”. Palamas’s Greek Philosophical undertakings defended the hesychast “Uncreated Light” and justified it using the new “Energies of God”. Although others would take up the fight later against Palamas’s theology on the Energies of God.

The Divine Essence was unknowable. But how could this be since Christians are to become “partakers of the Divine nature”? Well, that’s where the Divine Energies come in.

Not so, and debatable as later councils would object to Palamas “Divine Energies”. Simple answer to becoming divine partakers of the divine nature, is summed up in one divine reality, Holy Spirit, not Energy of the divine.

Incidentally, this Essence-Energies distinction had existed among the Muslims in the Mutazilite school. Sunnis say that some of the divine attributes (Names) are of the Essence and some are of Being. By the Mutazilite tawhid, the essence is unknowable, and none of the attributes are of the Essence; these attributes or Names are reduced to a kind of demiurgic level.

That is good information thank you. Gregory Palamas theology of the divine Energies of God came about in the 1340’s. Do you know what time period did the Muslims begin teaching “this Essence-Energies distinction”?

This unknowability of God led the Mutazilites to deny the generally accepted idea that those whom salvation brings into paradise have a "vision" of God, arguing that such "seeing" of God would place Him within space. The Asharite and Sunni position is that God is knowable; that some Divine Names are names of the Essence and not some created energy. This controversy became symbolized by the question of “beatific vision” in Paradise. Muhammad is credited with saying that the inhabitants of paradise would see God. When asked how, he is supposed to have said “as people see the full Moon;” i.e. by “reflection” as the Moon reflects the light of the Sun.

That sounds like a very difficult theological undertaking. Speaking as a Christian, one does not and cannot place oneself before God’s beatific vision. It is divinely revealed, that “no one goes before the Father except through the Son”. And no can see or know the Father unless the Son reveals the Father to him/her. Simply stated, no one can go before God on his own. It takes an act of God for one to enter God’s presence. How so? One might ask? Answer; Sacraments are a visible sign instituted by God to part Grace to the believer.

Peace be with you

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

The essence of God is God as He is known to Himself. The energies of God are God as He is know to us. Yes, energia can be translated as activities or operations. We are co-workers with God. This co-working or synergy with God allows us to experience Him through His energies, His operations within creation. This process is called theosis.

As we progress through theosis, we experience synergy with God at a deeper and deeper lever, and therefore partake of His energies more and more. Theosis occurs in this life, but also continues in the next. So, it is an eternal process of experiencing increasingly more of the energies of God.

The essence-energy distinction is a distinction from the point-of-view of creation. As God is infinite, it would be be impossible for our process of increasingly experiencing God to end. It is an eternal process. At any given time then, there must be some extent to which we have knowledge of God, which we assign the name energies, and there must be some extent to which God remains unknown to all except Himself, which we assign the name essence. From God’s perspective, there is no essence-energies distinction.

I feel like sometimes people mistakenly think the essence-energies distinction implies a deep ontological division in God, as if somewhere there is an divine essence and a divine energies sitting beside each other…or they think that the energies are a discrete piece of God. Not so.

Furthermore, the thought that some can know or see the essence of God is off-putting, as it implies that someone completed the process of theosis, or going deeper in the knowledge of God. This total knowledge or seeing would seem to imply that either (a) the knowledge of God, and therefore God Himself, is finite, or (b) a creature can achieve infinite knowledge of God as He Himself has, and therefore that creature has become equal to the Trinity. Neither of these scenarios is possible, and so the notion that we can know or see the essence of God in any absolute way is absurd.

I doubt Aquinas would accept such an absolute knowledge of the divine essence either. My inkling is that Aquinas conceived of a more relative sort of knowing, taking into consideration the limitations of creatures and their inability to know in the way God knows. However, I am not a scholar on either Byzantine or Latin theology, and this has just been the :twocents: of a unlearnéd layman.

 

[SalamKhan]

My history here is hazy at best, so feel free to correct or fill in the blanks if need be?

Barlaam was not rejecting the disciplines of the monks of Mount Athos. It is said that, informants, informed Barlaam that the hesychast claimed to experience the same “Uncreated Light”, the apostles experienced at the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ. Which the informants claimed was not of divine Essence but of another deity or hypostasis. Barlaam’s objection placed their claim in check.

The way I read this history, Gregory Palamas came to the rescue of the hesychast and defended them with the new and invented subject of “Energy or Energies of God”. Palamas’s Greek Philosophical undertakings defended the hesychast “Uncreated Light” and justified it using the new “Energies of God”. Although others would take up the fight later against Palamas’s theology on the Energies of God.

Not so, and debatable as later councils would object to Palamas “Divine Energies”. Simple answer to becoming divine partakers of the divine nature, is summed up in one divine reality, Holy Spirit, not Energy of the divine.

Well, I’m not Eastern Orthodox, so you know as much as I do. I don’t agree with ‘Palamism’, or whatever you want to call it, not by a long shot.

That is good information thank you. Gregory Palamas theology of the divine Energies of God came about in the 1340’s. Do you know what time period did the Muslims begin teaching “this Essence-Energies distinction”?

Peace be with you

The Mutazilite controversy took place mostly throughout the 8th and 9th centuries AD; the school lost some steam when the caliph Al-Mutawakkil put an end to the pro-Mutazilite Inquisition. The Ashari school emerged in the 10th century AD at first as a direct counter to the Mutazilite school, and then the Ash`ari school was vindicated by Imam Ghazzali in the 11th century AD.

God bless.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;14194476:

I am not sure what you mean by, “Essence is “Energy or Energies”” If I said something like that I must have misspoke.

For the record in Western Catholic thought, we do not apply the term “Energy” to define God’s Essence nor any of God’s Attributes and divine revelations. In conclusion, you did not misspeak in your post from which I responded too.

What did I say that caused you to say that I said anything about “Essence is “Energy or Energies””

Having no idea what I said to cause you to ask me about “Essence is “Energy or Energies,””
I claimed that if I said something such as this I misspoke, but I still do not know what I said.

Your above response, that I did not misspeak (after I claimed if …, I misspoke) has me genuinely confused. It sounds quite confrontational when I see no reason for that either. Are you sure you are not responding to two different people?

Charity, TOm

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

That is good information thank you. Gregory Palamas theology of the divine Energies of God came about in the 1340’s. Do you know what time period did the Muslims begin teaching “this Essence-Energies distinction”?

That Palamas was influenced by Islamic philosophy is highly unlikely. Unlike in Iberia, where the proximity of Christians Muslims, and Jews led to an immense amount of cross-fertilisation of ideas, Medieval Byzantium is known for the stark absence of substantive interplay between its theologians and Islamic theologians. Most philosophical interactions between Muslims and Eastern Christians involved Syriac Christians (particularly the Assyrians), and I believe Syriac Christian-Muslim exchanges tilted more toward philosophical ideas flowing from Syriac Christians to Muslims than vice versa,

The influx of Latin translations of Islamic texts, and the subsequent influence of Islamic philosophy of Christian philosophical discussion seems to be primarily an Iberian phenomenon. I am not a historian though, so this is just my :twocents:.

 

[SalamKhan]

That Palamas was influenced by Islamic philosophy is highly unlikely. Unlike in Iberia, where the proximity of Christians Muslims, and Jews led to an immense amount of cross-fertilisation of ideas, Medieval Byzantium is known for the stark absence of substantive interplay between its theologians and Islamic theologians. Most philosophical interactions between Muslims and Eastern Christians involved Syriac Christians (particularly the Assyrians), and I believe Syriac Christian-Muslim exchanges tilted more toward philosophical ideas flowing from Syriac Christians to Muslims than vice versa,

The influx of Latin translations of Islamic texts, and the subsequent influence of Islamic philosophy of Christian philosophical discussion seems to be primarily an Iberian phenomenon. I am not a historian though, so this is just my :twocents:.

Perhaps, but Byzantine Iconoclasm is said to have been influenced by Muslims.

It’s worth noting, it was because of Islam’s contact with Christianity that early Muslim theologians began revising their own doctrines in order to defend them against the attacks of their Christian opponents. The early controversies and debates among Muslims such as the eternity of the Quran or the eternity of God’s distinct attributes were due to the influence of their beliefs being under Christian scrutiny. The Mu`tazilites held the positions they did due to the influence of Christians pointing out the blatant illogic among Muslims who would reject the Holy Trinity as polytheistic, yet believe that certain eternal things distinct in God’s essence is not polytheistic.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Perhaps, but Byzantine Iconoclasm is said to have been influenced by Muslims.

Scholars continually debate among themselves whether the Byzantine Iconoclasm was due to Islamic influence or due to a pre-existing strain of thought in Byzantium emboldened by the victories of an iconoclastic Islam. It is worth noting that Iconoclastic sentiments where concentrated among Christians in the unconquered territories, who had little direct contact with Muslims, while Iconodule sentiments dominated in areas under Islamic control. That doesn’t prove anything, I just mention it to show that why Iconoclasm occurred is not so straightforward.

It’s worth noting, it was because of Islam’s contact with Christianity that early Muslim theologians began revising their own doctrines in order to defend them against the attacks of their Christian opponents. The early controversies and debates among Muslims such as the eternity of the Quran or the eternity of God’s distinct attributes were due to the influence of their beliefs being under Christian scrutiny. The Mu`tazilites held the positions they did due to the influence of Christians pointing out the blatant illogic among Muslims who would reject the Holy Trinity as polytheistic, yet believe that certain eternal things distinct in God’s essence is not polytheistic.

Yes, Islamic theology was influenced by the challenges Christians had to Islam.

I have long found it ironic that the Sunni doctrine of the eternal Qur’an - that the Word of God eternally exists, while being in some sense one with God - sounds very reminiscent of the Christian concept of God the Word eternally existing with the God the Father and being one with Him. Always makes me wonder why the Trinity seems so absurd to them, when both these concepts follow the same basic logic.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

TOmNossor;14195093]What did I say that caused you to say that I said anything about “Essence is “Energy or Energies””

From your post #21 “While the Eucharist might be said to be Essence and Energies,”
I responded in kind to your statement, that in Catholic faith, especially the Euchariist which is the True Presence is never referenced as any type of Energy, although the Essence of God is hidden in His Eucharistic Presence.

Here is why? God is personal, present, God is not viewed as an object of Energy sending energy and leaving his energy elsewhere, as if God’s energy is at some time separated from God.

That which proceeds of God is not viewed in terms of energy that is suspended outside of God’s presence. That which proceeds from God, be it; Divine Revelation, Divine knowledge, Divine Will etc…, is not believed to be separated, independently from God’s Presence, as “Energy”, because God is personal, living and present. What is divine and that which proceeds divinely is eternal, thereby what is eternal and divine cannot be believed as separated from God’s Presence, because God is Eternity Existing.

One example is God’s Word. The Word of God, be it written (divinely inspired or divinely revealed) or flesh is never separated from God’s Presence, because The Word of God is living, God breathed. The Word of God is not Energy that has left the Essence of God at some time and place.

The same would apply with the Eucharist. There is no “Energy” in the Eucharist that is separated from God’s Presence, therefore there exist no “the Eucharist might be said to be Essence and Energies”.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Zabdi Premjit;14194941]The essence of God is God as He is known to Himself. The energies of God are God as He is know to us. Yes, energia can be translated as activities or operations.

When “energia can be translated as activities or operations”, it gives the notion that an act of God or operation of God has a beginning and an end. When it is divinely revealed that God IS the Alpha and Omega, who has no beginning and no end.

Can you give an example of an activity or operation of God that reveals divine energy to which a human person can participate in? Is the energy of God divine or not?

We are co-workers with God. This co-working or synergy with God allows us to experience Him through His energies, His operations within creation. This process is called theosis.

How can one be a co-worker with God, when your definition of the energies of God, belong only to God?

In Christianity, It is God working through us, in us and with us. The Christian does not do the work of God on his own.

One example of this is the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. The Blessed Virgin Mary did not conceive all by herself, or assisted God’s energy in conception. The blessed Virgin Mary’s fiat allowed God to do a wonderful work. The blessed Virgin Mary did not conceive by an energy, but by a person the Holy Spirit, who planted the seed of the Word of God in her womb.

To consider the Virgin birth conceived by an energy of God becomes deplorable and heretical. Because God is personal and living in Presence.

As we progress through theosis, we experience synergy with God at a deeper and deeper lever, and therefore partake of His energies more and more. Theosis occurs in this life, but also continues in the next. So, it is an eternal process of experiencing increasingly more of the energies of God.

Can you state clearly, what is the name of those “energies” that one can partake of God? Or is God energy unknown here, as God’s Essence?

The essence-energy distinction is a distinction from the point-of-view of creation. As God is infinite, it would be be impossible for our process of increasingly experiencing God to end.

When God said, “Let there be” in creation. Can you distinguish a distinction between God who speaks and the Word “Let there be”, and the energy which created?

Does the energy philosophical understanding borrow from the Christian Trinity doctrine? Or is the Energy distinction view of creation something other?

It is an eternal process. At any given time then, there must be some extent to which we have knowledge of God, which we assign the name energies,

To have knowledge of God, is an energy of God? To have knowledge of God is a divine revelation. Or, is energy saying the same thing as revelation but applying a new invented term, such as “energy”?

From God’s perspective, there is no essence-energies distinction.

Here we agree, because God does not give revelation to distinguish a distinction between Essence and Energy. Energy is a man made doctrine that is not revealed by God to our humanity. If? energy is placed in the subject of theology only, one need not reject it’s context. But, if? energy is place as a doctrine or a divine revelation of God, then you have 2000 years of Christianity and 4000 years of Judaism in contradiction to the energy doctrine.

I feel like sometimes people mistakenly think the essence-energies distinction implies a deep ontological division in God, as if somewhere there is an divine essence and a divine energies sitting beside each other…or they think that the energies are a discrete piece of God. Not so.

I agree with the way you “feel” here, because for one to contemplate upon God’s Essence-**Energies distinction **lends itself to confusion and many misunderstandings, just by the word distinction, supposes something distinct and different of God’s Essence and God’s Energies.

This new Essence-Energy distinction in theology, introduced by Muslims and later by an EO Greek philosopher appears to be wanting to say the same thing already revealed by Jesus Christ in the persons of the Trinity, but the energy theology takes on a new revelation that is taken from a combination of the Arian heretical view of God and an Islamic view of God, who’s Word can never take on flesh that places God in a box.

In short, the Christian Trinity was divinely revealed centuries before Islam’s prophet was born and long before the term Essence-Energy distinction was ever introduced by men.

I doubt Aquinas would accept such an absolute knowledge of the divine essence either. My inkling is that Aquinas conceived of a more relative sort of knowing, taking into consideration the limitations of creatures and their inability to know in the way God knows. However, I am not a scholar on either Byzantine or Latin theology, and this has just been the :twocents: of a unlearnéd layman.

Thomas Aquinas theology that God eternally exist, agrees with all the Early Church Fathers, that God’s Essence does not come down to us.

No one claims to have full knowledge of God , except One! Jesus Christ revealed; Luke 10:22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father. **No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.” **

Would you consider Jesus being an energy of God? Because the Son came from the Father.

Peace be with you