Can the Orthodox define what "Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is"?

[RyanBlack]

Like I said, even if we go by Eastern concepts, the Energies would be as incomprehensible to man as the essence- so comprehending God nowhere enters the discussion. Man does not grasp God- period.

Then why do we bother to even attempt definitions of love, grace, mercy, etc.? The Roman Church has no lack of such definitions. Of course we agree that man does not comprehend God. But it makes no sense to me (without respect to the whole East vs. West thing, I was actually raised as a Protestant), that we can not understand God in any way whatsoever. After all, God has revealed himself in creation, in Sacred Scripture and tradition, and most perfectly, in the Incarnation. If if were indeed the case that no comprehension of God on any level at all is possible, the whole very Western tradition of theology as “faith seeking understanding” would be an exercise in stupidity, as would the very Western cataphatic approach to theology.

 

[RyanBlack]

Please take a look at this article discussing God’s transcendence and immanence from the Western perspective- it’s Thomist. Please note the parts that say that God is his own act of existing- He is the act by which he IS- but also that this is esse- is utterly unknowable by us. I thought this does a good job of explaining what I mean when I say that God simply must be, even though this is infinitely transcendent to us

aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100106.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100106.htm

Based on my knowledge of Aquinas, and my confidence in one of my former theology professors, who is a very serious student of the thought of Aquinas, I’m satisfied that St. Thomas’s approach to how God is both transcendent and immanent, and the notion of God as “Pure Act” make sense within the theological tradition and set of assumptions in which St. Thomas worked. I respect it as a legitimate expression of Catholic faith. However, as an Eastern Catholic, I’ll keep my own essence/energies tradition, which traces its roots at least as far back as the 4th century, and which I believe to be equally legitimate.

 

[Vico]

[/indent]I don’t see this as logical because it’s based on an assumption that absolutely separates God and his creatures. God IS the ultimate being, he’s the only one who MUST be- Whose very nature/essence it is to BE. Everything else has a derived being/existence and cannot exist as of necessity. Only God does. God cannot NOT be- He IS fully, always, infinitely and absolutely. He cannot be other than being- or existence- as this is exactly his own identification of himself to creatures through Moses. To be as of nature and necessity- This is the God of Moses, and therefore of the Jews and Christians. I don’t see how we can say that God is not being- when infinite and absolute being is exactly what he is. A thing is- exists- or it is Not. And God is the one that IS- The very thing that makes “being”, or “to be” be!

To keep in mind, the de fide dogma:

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t mean to be rude or combative,

Too late

but what business do you have telling us (Eastern Catholics) that we should not have a theological understanding of God that our particular Churches teach, and which the universal Church has not rejected, simply because it does not fit your own Western approach? There are aspects of your Western, Thomistic approach that make no sense to me, from within my own Eastern set of presuppositions. However, I recognize and respect how they fit within your own tradition. Would you please extend the same respect to our tradition?

What is your problem Ryan? Do you have a problem having your beliefs, theologies and approaches challenged? Then I’d suggest that CAF may not be the ideal place for you. Here, even our belief in God and Christ is constantly challenged. If you think Thomism is wrong on any point, who is stopping you from saying so? The E/E distinction is one Eastern concept that perplexes me and all I’ve shared here are reasons why I think it’s so perplexing to me. If you are very confident about it why are you getting hostile? It’s an immature attitude that reacts this way when beliefs are challenged. This is after all, a discussion board.

 

[milidrag]

I define essence precisely as St. Basil the Great defines it:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xxxix.html

Of all nouns the sense of some, which are predicated of subjects plural and numerically various, is more general; as for instance man. When we so say, we employ the noun to indicate the common nature

I think we can agree that St. Basil speaks here not only about the essence, but also about the substance and nature. It is interesting to examine The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus and what he had had to say about the same, particularly having in mind he had not referred to these notions as dogmatic ones, but as logical ones.

What is the essence of an ant? Examine several specific things that are called ants and learn of the commonality between them which causes us to identify them as ants.

I like what St. Gregory of Nyssa had said on the same subject

newadvent.org/fathers/290110.htm

…Let him, then, who boasts that he has grasped the knowledge of real existence, disclose to us awhile the nature of the ant, and then, and not till then, let him discourse on the nature of the power that surpasses all understanding.

I guess that we can agree that your method of determining ant’s essence can’t be applied to God’s essence and simultaneously remain monotheistic?

 

[Marybeloved]

To keep in mind, the de fide dogma:

All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)

Yes, Vico. This is absolutely true. But to be honest, I don’t really understand the point you were trying to make here. Did I miss something?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I think we can agree that St. Basil speaks here not only about the essence, but also about the substance and nature. It is interesting to examine The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus and what he had had to say about the same, particularly having in mind he had not referred to these notions as dogmatic ones, but as logical ones.

I like what St. Gregory of Nyssa had said on the same subject

newadvent.org/fathers/290110.htm

I guess that we can agree that your method of determining ant’s essence can’t be applied to God’s essence and simultaneously remain monotheistic?

Nature and essence are used by the Cappadocian Fathers as synonyms. Substance is simply a Latin translation of ousia, which is normally translated as substance.

We can use this method that St. Basil describes because while it is true that there is one God, the Father Almighty (as confessed in the creed), by begetting and projection there are two other divine persons who share in His essence. By investigating traits shared by them which are revealed by scripture, like being uncreated, being coeternal or being transcendent, we can come to know a little bit about the essence of God. Beyond what is revealed to us in scripture, however, it is true that there is no knowing what the essence of God is, only what it is not.

 

[RyanBlack]

Too late What is your problem Ryan? Do you have a problem having your beliefs, theologies and approaches challenged? Then I’d suggest that CAF may not be the ideal place for you. Here, even our belief in God and Christ is constantly challenged. If you think Thomism is wrong on any point, who is stopping you from saying so? The E/E distinction is one Eastern concept that perplexes me and all I’ve shared here are reasons why I think it’s so perplexing to me. If you are very confident about it why are you getting hostile? It’s an immature attitude that reacts this way when beliefs are challenged. This is after all, a discussion board.

My problem is not that you do not accept the essence/energies distinction-after all, it is not a matter of dogma, just as the Thomistic approach is not dogma. As to your question about having my beliefs challenged, I have no problem with that, and I think I could just as easily ask the same question of you, given frequent use of the shrug emoticon in response to persectives with which you disagree. What bothered me is what I perceived was more than being perplexed, but a lack of respect towards a legitimate tradition of the Church, as well as a mischaracterization of the essence/energies distinction through a refusal to address it on its own terms and an insistence on interpreting it from a Western framework. The essence/energies distinction makes perfect sense from when viewed in accordance with its own set of definitions and presuppositions, and given the particular problems it addresses. I would say the same about the Thomistic approach. For this reason, I have a hard time understanding why a Catholic from either tradition cannot accept and respect (not necessarily embrace) both approaches as perfectly legitimate, reasonable expressions of Catholic faith in God. If my perception was incorrect, I apologize, but to me, the general tone of your posts makes by perception perfectly reasonable.

 

[Vico]

Yes, Vico. This is absolutely true. But to be honest, I don’t really understand the point you were trying to make here. Did I miss something?

You wrote: “I don’t see this as logical because it’s based on an assumption that absolutely separates God and his creatures.” I am not sure what the assumption is. I do see that man was created out of nothing, therefore man does not eternally exist, only God does (as stated in the quote regarding the dogma de fide).

The eastern approach does not accept Metaphysics (Aristotle), it is apophatic rather than cataphatic. Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God.

 

[Marybeloved]

You wrote: “I don’t see this as logical because it’s based on an assumption that absolutely separates God and his creatures.” I am not sure what the assumption is. I do see that man was created out of nothing, therefore man does not eternally exist, only God does (as stated in the quote regarding the dogma de fide).

Considering that what you state in your last sentence above is exactly what I said in the rest of my quote that you left out, I don’t see how telling me that creatures are created and God is not helps either of our positions Here’s my whole quote; note the bold

[/indent]I don’t see this as logical because it’s based on an assumption that absolutely separates God and his creatures. God IS the ultimate being, he’s the only one who MUST be- Whose very nature/essence it is to BE. Everything else has a derived being/existence and cannot exist as of necessity. Only God does. God cannot NOT be- He IS fully, always, infinitely and absolutely. He cannot be other than being- or existence- as this is exactly his own identification of himself to creatures through Moses. To be as of nature and necessity- This is the God of Moses, and therefore of the Jews and Christians. I don’t see how we can say that God is not being- when infinite and absolute being is exactly what he is. A thing is- exists- or it is Not. And God is the one that IS- The very thing that makes “being”, or “to be” be!

The eastern approach does not accept Metaphysics (Aristotle), it is apophatic rather than cataphatic. Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God.

Taking this quotation with everything else you and others have said here, I’d say that this pretty much sums up what my issue is about how some Easterns approach this E/E distinction. You basically say here that the energies are not God, by separating that part of God with “characteristics” from God…do you see that?

The last part of your post “… Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God” is misleading. Like I said, comprehending God nowhere enters the discussion- The West teaches the incomprehensibility of God by creatures consistently. It’s not a feature of the East as opposed to the West- that is a feature of all major monotheistic faiths from Judaism to Islam.

 

[Marybeloved]

My problem is not that you do not accept the essence/energies distinction-after all, it is not a matter of dogma, just as the Thomistic approach is not dogma. As to your question about having my beliefs challenged, I have no problem with that, and I think I could just as easily ask the same question of you, given frequent use of the shrug emoticon in response to persectives with which you disagree.

You couldn’t, of course. The shrug emoticon expresses the fact that what I’ve said is something I had taken for granted. I’m not the one getting upset because someone has said that a position I hold does not make proper sense to her.

What bothered me is what I perceived was more than being perplexed, but a lack of respect towards a legitimate tradition of the Church, as well as a mischaracterization of the essence/energies distinction through a refusal to address it on its own terms and an insistence on interpreting it from a Western framework.

Since you define open and direct disagreement to your positions as “disrespect” I don’t see how you and I can keep conversing. I obviously disagree with that E/E distinction as explained by posters here and especially by you. I said early on that the E/E distinction that makes sense and is reconcilable to the West is the one that defines the distinction in terms of or between what we (the creatures) possess of God and what we don’t possess of him. That’s where I’m at at this time as I continue to become more and more exposed to this Eastern concept in such discussions. The truth is, I don’t see how this distinction *as explained by you *is reconcilable to the western belief that there are no distinctions in God except the three persons. I’ve explained why I don’t accept your explanations- Because I don’t . If that is what disrespect is to you, that I say a certain approach/position is wrong, I honestly don’t see what I can do about that. I am one who looks forward to re-union and that’s why such issues are of interest to me, and where there are true differences, like here, there’s nothing wrong with saying so.

The essence/energies distinction makes perfect sense from when viewed in accordance with its own set of definitions and presuppositions, and given the particular problems it addresses. I would say the same about the Thomistic approach. For this reason, I have a hard time understanding why a Catholic from either tradition cannot accept and respect (not necessarily embrace)

There’s no disrespect here, there’s disagreement- That’s what I’ve expressed. It does not make sense to me (at least not yet) on the whole. Like I said, better end this conversation before it turns into another long discussion about off-topic issues.

Peace

 

[Marybeloved]

The eastern approach does not accept Metaphysics (Aristotle), it is apophatic rather than cataphatic. Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God.

I’d also like to say that what you say here about the West is what I see many Eastern Catholics & Orthodox on this thread doing- Making a God with characteristics, and these characteristics they separate from what God is in himself. The Western notion of God is the exact opposite- God has no accidents. God is not simply “loving” or “powerful”, he is his own love, power, beauty, wisdom etc. And this love that is God is not different from the power that is him, or the beauty that is God or the wisdom etc that are him, they are all exactly one essence. These are not “characteristics” like with us and neither are they numerous. They are the very substance of God and are exactly one thing. What we creatures call “loving”, “powerful”, “beautiful” etc- in God are just one thing- him. So the way you’ve put it here is not representative of the West at all.

 

[Vico]

Considering that what you state in your last sentence above is exactly what I said in the rest of my quote that you left out, I don’t see how telling me that creatures are created and God is not helps either of our positions Here’s my whole quote; note the bold
Taking this quotation with everything else you and others have said here, I’d say that this pretty much sums up what my issue is about how some Easterns approach this E/E distinction. You basically say here that the energies are not God, by separating that part of God with “characteristics” from God…do you see that?

The last part of your post “… Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God” is misleading. Like I said, comprehending God nowhere enters the discussion- The West teaches the incomprehensibility of God by creatures consistently. It’s not a feature of the East as opposed to the West- that is a feature of all major monotheistic faiths from Judaism to Islam.

I would really like to know what is the “assumption that absolutely separates God and his creatures” that you mention.

You ask: “You basically say here that the energies are not God, by separating that part of God with “characteristics” from God…do you see that?”

Two different words are used: energies and energizing.

There are two concepts that are different: 1) God’s nature and 2) manifestation about God’s nature. If God’s nature is the Monadic substance (from Pagan philosophy, Aristotle) then these two loose distinction. The eastern expression is that these are different and the finite mind comprehends the manifestation about God’s nature.

West: distinguishes natural vs supernatural. Grace is created and supernatural. Being and act of God are one.
East: distinguishes created vs uncreated. Gifts of the Spirit are uncreated fruits of the divine energies. The essence is not communicable.

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

St. John of Damascus, Book III Chapter XIX

The divine nature, then, has communion with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and man is one and the same. …
This, then, the theandric energy makes plain that when God became man, that is when He became incarnate, both His human energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in His divine energy, and His divine energy was not without part in His human energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the other.

St. John of Damascus, Book IV, Chapter XIII:

Further, bread and wines are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine (6), He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

 

[milidrag]

Nature and essence are used by the Cappadocian Fathers as synonyms. Substance is simply a Latin translation of ousia, which is normally translated as substance.

The imprecise definitions of premises necessarily lead to wrong conclusions.

We can use this method that St. Basil describes because while it is true that there is one God, the Father Almighty (as confessed in the creed), by begetting and projection there are two other divine persons who share in His essence. By investigating traits shared by them which are revealed by scripture, like being uncreated, being coeternal or being transcendent, Beyond what is revealed to us in scripture, however, it is true that there is no knowing what the essence of God is, only what it is not.

Your choice. If you had a spiritual father, he would have warned you not to go forward that path.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The imprecise definitions of premises necessarily lead to wrong conclusions.

Your choice. If you had a spiritual father, he would have warned you not to go forward that path.

How shameful! You presume that you know me when you know nothing about me. Does your spiritual father know that you are giving out unsolicited spiritual advice to people you do not know? Such pride!

 

[RyanBlack]

You couldn’t, of course. The shrug emoticon expresses the fact that what I’ve said is something I had taken for granted. I’m not the one getting upset because someone has said that a position I hold does not make proper sense to her.

Since you define open and direct disagreement to your positions as “disrespect” I don’t see how you and I can keep conversing. I obviously disagree with that E/E distinction as explained by posters here and especially by you. I said early on that the E/E distinction that makes sense and is reconcilable to the West is the one that defines the distinction in terms of or between what we (the creatures) possess of God and what we don’t possess of him. That’s where I’m at at this time as I continue to become more and more exposed to this Eastern concept in such discussions. The truth is, I don’t see how this distinction *as explained by you *is reconcilable to the western belief that there are no distinctions in God except the three persons. I’ve explained why I don’t accept your explanations- Because I don’t . If that is what disrespect is to you, that I say a certain approach/position is wrong, I honestly don’t see what I can do about that. I am one who looks forward to re-union and that’s why such issues are of interest to me, and where there are true differences, like here, there’s nothing wrong with saying so. There’s no disrespect here, there’s disagreement- That’s what I’ve expressed. It does not make sense to me (at least not yet) on the whole. Like I said, better end this conversation before it turns into another long discussion about off-topic issues.

Peace

It is not being unpersuaded, perplexed, or finally disagreement with the essence/energies doctrine that seemed disrespectful to me, but rather what I perceived to be a persistent refusal to deal with that teaching on its own terms, instead, judging it entirely from a Western perspective. However, since I have no reason not to take at face value what you have written, I understand that no disrespect was intended.

I would like to point out something, though. The essence/energies teaching is not just Orthodox, it is Catholic (I believe you are already aware of this). When you call a legitimate Catholic tradition that is dearly held by someone as an expression of his understanding of and faith in God as being wrong, it’s not really that surprising when that is taken as being disrespectful, especially when the person towards whom you direct that comment is a fellow Catholic, whose own particular Catholic Church (which in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church) accepts the essence/energies distinction as a legitimate expression of Catholic faith concerning God. I suppose it’s not really that different of a reaction of my part than the (entirely understandable) reactions I’ve seen Roman Catholic have on a primarily Eastern Christian forum when some fellow Catholics (Eastern) attack the entire tradition of Western Scholasticism on the basis that it represents the acceptance of pagan systems of philosophy, as opposed to a legitimate theological expression.

 

[milidrag]

How shameful! You presume that you know me when you know nothing about me. Does your spiritual father know that you are giving out unsolicited spiritual advice to people you do not know? Such pride!

I am not ashamed at all. You are embracing and advocating a clearly heterodox theology, simultaneously posing as an Orthodox.

I think it is best to terminate any further communication between us.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am not ashamed at all. You are embracing and advocating a clearly heterodox theology, simultaneously posing as an Orthodox.

I think it is best to terminate any further communication between us.

Agreed. Interacting with a man who masquerades as an Orthodox Christian but lacks any sense of prudence is nothing but spiritual poison. There is no be benefit to continuing communication.

 

[Vico]

…

The last part of your post “… Where the west conceives of a God that is like man with characteristics, the east affirms the incomprehensible God” is misleading. Like I said, comprehending God nowhere enters the discussion- The West teaches the incomprehensibility of God by creatures consistently. It’s not a feature of the East as opposed to the West- that is a feature of all major monotheistic faiths from Judaism to Islam.

Surely it is a matter of faith, both east and west. There is a difference between Aliphatic and Cataphatic theology, which you can research.

Tomas Aquinas describes the essential metaphysical attributes of God known by natural reason, including God’s aseity, simplicity, immutability, eternality, unity, infinity, and morality.

God’s essence, unlike that of Mankind, is hyperousia “beyond-even-being” which means subject to no category or condition, even that of self-existence (aseity), per the eastern Mystic (one who lives the faith).