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

[Fox]

The Orthodoxy does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam’s Fall.
Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of “the merits of Christ”. The Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam. In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodoxy does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam’s Fall.
Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of “the merits of Christ”. The Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam. In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ.

I agree the Catholic Church doesn’t accept the theory the Mother of God was born into original sin either. As does the Orthodox.

However when you say “no-one” is then you lost me, of what purpose is Baptism but for the remission of sins inherited to all of us from Adam? Sure it has other implications of Supernatural Virtue, yet still that sin is there. As far as children incapible by age of consciousness to sin, then are also different implications.

In St Marys situation the absense of original sin was a priviledge of divine grace. Without doubt there are priviledge’s God could have futher bestowed upon Mary and choose not to. She wasn’t a prophet for example.

I’m not postive on the “who” invented or coined the phrase of the IC. The theory without name existed a very long time. It was a feast day in the Angelican church before the Council of Basil 1439 approved it, which the Pope then rejected because it wasn’t a Ecumenical Council. Reason being defenders of the IC ridiculed the church for opposing the Doctrine. With or without Basel the IC had become by this time generally accepted in the West. Also as I believe Vico mentioned, just prior the debate between the Dominicans and Franciscans developed, thus Blessed Duns Scotus enters the picture which his work on the Theology of the IC.

Thus Trent 1545 held “sin is transmitted to the human race in accordance with Universal Law” though the Council added it was “not” its intention to include Mary in its accertion of the Universal Law of Original Sin.

So I don’t know, when we say there was no need? I don’t know if thats all together seeing that period, as it actually was. No doubt to jump to 1854 with “Ineffabilis Deus” is to miss close to 1000 years of the doctrine in the making.

I know this the Church isn’t as quick as some would like to believe to jump to conclusions in regards to St Mary. For example you may hear about this or that apparition. Truth is just look at how many were approved by the Church… One in the last 100-years. I rarely see them make any moves in the small window of time I have been here on earth, without in-depth research.

Peace

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Orthodoxy does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam’s Fall.
Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of “the merits of Christ”. The Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam. In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ.

Question? How did the Holy Spirit prevent Mary from inheriting the “guilt of Adam”?

Immaculate Conception never adds that Mary was born different from any other human being, you appear to be interjecting a fallacy to the Immaculate Conception.

How did the Holy Spirit prepare the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God?

When and where did Mary get filled with this **"Uncreated Energy **of the Holy Spirit of God?

I am sorry but your terminology is beginning to sound very much like “New age” heresy.

What is the “guilt of Adam”? is it an expressed guilt from emotions?

I never heard of any Christian having Adam’s guilt of sin?

 

[Vico]

The Orthodoxy does not accept the idea that the Mother of God was born with the (inherited) guilt of Adam; no one is. She did, however, inherit the mortality which comes to all on account of Adam’s Fall.
Therefore, there is no need to do what Latin theologians have done. There is no reason to invent a theory to support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There is no need to teach that, on account of “the merits of Christ”. The Holy Spirit was able to prevent her from inheriting the guilt of Adam. In fact, she was born like every other human being. The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ.

The Orthodox do not use the same concept or terminology. The Catholic Church makes no dogmatic statement regarding the mortality, but the general belief is that she died at the Dormition before the Assumption into heaven. What both agree on is that all are born without actual sin, and all need redemption. What the Immaculate Conception dogma states is that the Theotokos was redeemed from the first moment of her conception, which is the equivalent of being baptised at fist moment of her conception.

Fox, have you not read this, St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6?“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
Infants are baptized, although sinless, for they are lacking something brought by death, true in Latin or Eastern Catholic or Orthodox theology; They need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom explains, they receive: “sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance”. These are what we have lost through the effects of the ancestral sin, and are one dimension of death.

 

[RyanBlack]

Question? How did the Holy Spirit prevent Mary from inheriting the “guilt of Adam”?

Immaculate Conception never adds that Mary was born different from any other human being, you appear to be interjecting a fallacy to the Immaculate Conception.

How did the Holy Spirit prepare the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God?

When and where did Mary get filled with this **"Uncreated Energy **of the Holy Spirit of God?

I am sorry but your terminology is beginning to sound very much like “New age” heresy.

What is the “guilt of Adam”? is it an expressed guilt from emotions?

I never heard of any Christian having Adam’s guilt of sin?

There is absolutely nothing New Age about referring to the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, or the uncreated energies of God. This is part of the Eastern understanding of God, and it goes back at least as far as St. Basil the Great, who is recognized by the Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is absolutely nothing New Age about referring to the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, or the uncreated energies of God. This is part of the Eastern understanding of God, and it goes back at least as far as St. Basil the Great, who is recognized by the Catholic Church as a Doctor of the Church.

I have never heard of an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit. If St.Basil is referencing this uncreated energy as the Holy Spirit and not an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit indicating something other than the Holy Spirit in this context is very foreign to me and my Catholic understanding. Unless there is something here that is missing from a translation?

Do you have the quote from St.Basil when he writes about this uncreated energy of the holy Spirit?

I know the ECF’s write about, substance, essence, even accidents, but I have never read an Early Church Father reference the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit? To this point I know of nothing that St. Basil teaching contrary to Catholic Teaching.

 

[Vico]

Question? How did the Holy Spirit prevent Mary from inheriting the “guilt of Adam”?
Immaculate Conception never adds that Mary was born different from any other human being, you appear to be interjecting a fallacy to the Immaculate Conception.
How did the Holy Spirit prepare the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God?
When and where did Mary get filled with this **"Uncreated Energy **of the Holy Spirit of God?
I am sorry but your terminology is beginning to sound very much like “New age” heresy.
What is the “guilt of Adam”? is it an expressed guilt from emotions?
I never heard of any Christian having Adam’s guilt of sin?

Are you familiar this this from the Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, S.J.)?

UNCREATED GRACE

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision.

In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person.

In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God’s own life.

All three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. *But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982
*

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Vico;8801014]The Orthodox do not use the same concept or terminology. The Catholic Church makes no dogmatic statement regarding the mortality, but the general belief is that she died at the Dormition before the Assumption into heaven

.

Just for clarification Vico;

I would like to make a correction to this incorrect notion that the Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Virgin Mary died. The Catholic Church has never taught that the blessed Virgin Mary died. Mary’s body never saw any corruption. Our Catholic faith is suspended in mystery here and the Catholic Church does not emphatically teach that Mary suffered a mortal death.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches CCC 966 … “when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory”…

The finishing of her life is placed upon God’s will on how this was done. We know, we have no tomb, no relics, of Mary, even though the Vatican possesses the bones of St.Paul and Peter and many saintly relics before Mary, during Mary’s time and after Mary’s time including burial tombs of various Catholic Saints and martyrs. But none of these exists of Mary.

Mary was never resurrected, and Mary was never assumed into heaven by her own powers. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul by the power of God.

Elijah, Enoch were both taken up without tasting death. The assumption of Mary is biblical and is not new.

I understand that in the Byzantine Liturgy it speaks of Mary’s Dormition.

Catholic understanding is suspended in faith how God himself assumed the blessed Virgin Mary to himself in heaven, " when the course of her earthly life was finished". The Catholic Church does not place an emphasis on a mortal death to Mary, because her body did not suffer mortal death corruption but reveals the mystery to come in the resurrection.

Just as the Byzantine Liturgy calls her “earthly life finished” as Dormition.

Dormition appears not to place a mortal death upon the BVM as if her body fell into a corruption of death, but reveals a state of being pertaining to the flesh other than a mortal corruption of death.

You can feel free to expound on your meaning of Mary’s Dormition?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you familiar this this from the Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, S.J.)?

UNCREATED GRACE

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision.

In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person.

In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God’s own life.

All three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. *But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982*

I understand “Grace” is the saving action of God, which comes from God is uncreated, because God is not created.

But how does “uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit” defines this uncreated Grace of God, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

Am I to understand that Orthodox theology reveals “uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit” to mean the same as the Catholic definition “uncreated grace of God”? Need a little help here?

 

[Nine_Two]

I have never heard of an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit. If St.Basil is referencing this uncreated energy as the Holy Spirit and not an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit indicating something other than the Holy Spirit in this context is very foreign to me and my Catholic understanding. Unless there is something here that is missing from a translation?

Do you have the quote from St.Basil when he writes about this uncreated energy of the holy Spirit?

I know the ECF’s write about, substance, essence, even accidents, but I have never read an Early Church Father reference the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit? To this point I know of nothing that St. Basil teaching contrary to Catholic Teaching.

While I’m not sure about St. Basil in particular, he is correct. “Uncreated Energy” is terminology that is widely used in the East. It is particularly strong in the tradition of hesychism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We know, we have no tomb, no relics, of Mary, even though the Vatican possesses the bones of St.Paul and Peter and many saintly relics before Mary, during Mary’s time and after Mary’s time including burial tombs of various Catholic Saints and martyrs. But none of these exists of Mary.

Then what is this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary’s_Tomb

Mary was never resurrected, and Mary was never assumed into heaven by her own powers. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul by the power of God.

The tradition of the Dormition states that Mary was resurrected by Christ on the third day and immediately assumed into heaven.

Elijah, Enoch were both taken up without tasting death. The assumption of Mary is biblical and is not new.

Where does it say in the Bible?

Note that the tradition on the Dormition is older. Can you point to anyone in the First Millennium that taught that Mary did not die?

 

[Vico]

.

Just for clarification Vico;

I would like to make a correction to this incorrect notion that the Catholic Church teaches that the blessed Virgin Mary died. The Catholic Church has never taught that the blessed Virgin Mary died. Mary’s body never saw any corruption. Our Catholic faith is suspended in mystery here and the Catholic Church does not emphatically teach that Mary suffered a mortal death.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches CCC 966 … “when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory”…

The finishing of her life is placed upon God’s will on how this was done. We know, we have no tomb, no relics, of Mary, even though the Vatican possesses the bones of St.Paul and Peter and many saintly relics before Mary, during Mary’s time and after Mary’s time including burial tombs of various Catholic Saints and martyrs. But none of these exists of Mary.

Mary was never resurrected, and Mary was never assumed into heaven by her own powers. Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul by the power of God.

Elijah, Enoch were both taken up without tasting death. The assumption of Mary is biblical and is not new.

I understand that in the Byzantine Liturgy it speaks of Mary’s Dormition.

Catholic understanding is suspended in faith how God himself assumed the blessed Virgin Mary to himself in heaven, " when the course of her earthly life was finished". The Catholic Church does not place an emphasis on a mortal death to Mary, because her body did not suffer mortal death corruption but reveals the mystery to come in the resurrection.

Just as the Byzantine Liturgy calls her “earthly life finished” as Dormition.

Dormition appears not to place a mortal death upon the BVM as if her body fell into a corruption of death, but reveals a state of being pertaining to the flesh other than a mortal corruption of death.

You can feel free to expound on your meaning of Mary’s Dormition?

Not sure why you thought that since I posted “The Catholic Church makes no dogmatic statement regarding the mortality, but the general belief is that she died at the Dormition before the Assumption into heaven”.

Munificentissimus Deus, does refer to the belief in the death and resurrection of the Blessed Virgin Mary:* See numbers 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 35, 40 here:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

So, although not dogma de fide, it is a teaching of the Magisterium being placed in this Constitution.
Dormition means the falling asleep. Read the Account of St John the Theologian of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God, here:

monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/686

 

[Vico]

I understand “Grace” is the saving action of God, which comes from God is uncreated, because God is not created.

But how does “uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit” defines this uncreated Grace of God, when the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father?

Am I to understand that Orthodox theology reveals “uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit” to mean the same as the Catholic definition “uncreated grace of God”? Need a little help here?

Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote once that it may be a semantic difference. St. John of Damascus makes a distinction between the energeia and the consequence of them called energima. The energeia is the uncreated Grace that energises and the energima is the created effect of God’s energising activities. For the Latin Church God’s energies may be energima of the eastern.

Grace is the western concept. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is used in the east. The west has the concept of the pure act of God.

Personally I use this outline to relate the two theologies:

A. Uncreated

1. essence / substance
2. energies / supernatural

B. Created

1. preternatural
2. natural

The Indwellng of the Holy Spirit is the supernatural grace of God, A2.

Also:

***Procession, ***also from the Modern Catholic Dictionary:
The origin of one from another. A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin. An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.

 

[RyanBlack]

I have never heard of an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit. If St.Basil is referencing this uncreated energy as the Holy Spirit and not an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit indicating something other than the Holy Spirit in this context is very foreign to me and my Catholic understanding. Unless there is something here that is missing from a translation?

Do you have the quote from St.Basil when he writes about this uncreated energy of the holy Spirit?

I know the ECF’s write about, substance, essence, even accidents, but I have never read an Early Church Father reference the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit? To this point I know of nothing that St. Basil teaching contrary to Catholic Teaching.

In Eastern Christian thought, within God there is the divine essence (which is absolutely simple, undivided, transcendent, and entirely beyond human comprehension), the three hypostases, and the divine energies. The divine energies are those eternal attributes of God, such as love, grace, mercy, etc. We cannot be united with the divine essence, but we encounter God and are united to God by our encounter with the uncreated energies of God. There is nothing whatsoever novel or New Age about this. As I said, the idea goes back as least as far as St. Basil the Great (see his letter 234). Generally, the idea is associated with St. Gregory Palamas; however, the idea had been around for several centuries by his time, he just dealt with it more extensively than his predecessors had.

As to the specific statement “The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ,” which was made in this thread, I would take it to mean that when the BVM, or anyone, is filled with the Holy Spirit, it is by way of the uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to being filled with the divine essence (which Eastern Christians hold to be impossible, since the divine essence is absolutely transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable).

 

[GaryTaylor]

Those are not my theories, but the teaching of the Church Fathers from the early Church and passed on to the monks and bishops and priests and theologians of contemporary times until today. Eastern theology is also heavily based on St. Paul’s writings, as well as everything else we find in the New Testament.

I laid out the different views of East and West not to say one is right and the other is wrong. I am showing the difference in understanding so you and others would know where the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are coming from. Especially the Eastern Catholics like myself, we never see the differences as contradictory, but rather complimentary. I don’t know what your tirade is all about and why you all of a sudden got so defensive about what I said. What is wrong in what I said?

Understood!

And all I’ve been asking for pages is to show me those ECFs patristic teachings? Which once again you state exist? Do I have permission to ask where without being labeled?

What tirade? You act like its above being confronted, and we should assume all this is understood. Its not! If we are to accept both East/West as YOU claim, then the IC itself would not be in question. Which is obviously an issue. The accusation of “tirade” I view as an automatic defense mechinism to avoid direct confrontation, thats why its called “ANSWERS” forum. I’m sorry if this is painful in the inversion process. I certainly didn’t choose to make it that way.

Wrong or right, was never my implication to the Eastern Church. I have no issue with the Eastern Church, in fact I was raised in an Eastern Catholic Church.

When you say "the teachings of the ECFs? I’m asking “WHERE” are they? Its that simple:thumbsup:

You state St Paul, I’m asking “where”?

St Paul has been quoted “numerous” times on this thread. ROMANs…CC theology is based on Bible and St Paul. - “As by one mans sin entered the world and death by sin” That continues through TRENT till today.

I don’t think its asking much to say…“SHOW ME”? Isn’t that whats constantly asked of the Catholic Church, and we then “show you”. There seems to be a failure to reciprocate here. Isn’t this “why” its called ANSWERS forum?

At least to me, well…

Its not a mystery what happened Biblically through Christ being Baptised. I don’t miss that Supernatural Virtue as I’ve explained in-depth already. Its significant John the Baptist states I Baptise with Water, the one who follows me will Baptise with the Holy Spirit. {to badly paraphrase}. I get all that. I’m postive thats why we Bless ourselves with Holy Water when we enter the Church. Water continues from OT-NT. Water to Wine, Christ on the Cross Water/Blood. I got all that. Water in the Temple of the Holy of Holys in the period of Mose’s etc. I see the connection throughout time, none of this is in question. However its distracting now from the confrontation. If Sin and Death are not passed in Eastern Church early teachings “fine” no problem, is it OK to ask “where” are these teachings. Can I do this without being labeled and counseled?

SIN and Death passed on by Adam and Eve is where I’m focused. The disobedience of Adam and Eve is corrected by the Obedience of Jesus and Mary. I’m here.

Is it seriously asking much, where is this Eastern patristic historic support of the theory that no Sin is passed by Adam and Eve? I’ve stated “clearly” guilt is not of issue to me, the Virtues passed are not in question. “SIN” thus DEATH is the “point” I’m stuck on which directly relates to the IC. When we state “we” accept each others teachings. Then why is the IC in question?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I never said anything contrary to that. Infact I wrote about such miracles in our church. It is the looking for signs that is the issue, not the existence of them.

I agree.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

While I’m not sure about St. Basil in particular, he is correct. “Uncreated Energy” is terminology that is widely used in the East. It is particularly strong in the tradition of hesychism.

Understood; Can the Orthodox define what “Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is”? So that the new ager’s don’t run away with your theology of “uncreated energy”.

I having difficulty relating “uncreated energy” to the person of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RyanBlack]

Understood; Can the Orthodox define what “Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is”? So that the new ager’s don’t run away with your theology of “uncreated energy”.

I having difficulty relating “uncreated energy” to the person of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit Himself is not “uncreated energy,” anymore than the Father is of the Son is. Uncreated energies from the Holy Spirit, or from the Father, or from the Son, are those eternal attributes of God, such as love, grace, mercy, etc. Anything that God “is,” apart from the divine essence and the three Persons, is an uncreated energy, for God does not change.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Not sure why you thought that since I posted “The Catholic Church makes no dogmatic statement regarding the mortality, but the general belief is that she died at the Dormition before the Assumption into heaven”.

Munificentissimus Deus, does refer to the belief in the death and resurrection of the Blessed Virgin Mary:* See numbers 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 35, 40 here:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html*

So, although not dogma de fide, it is a teaching of the Magisterium being placed in this Constitution.

Dormition means the falling asleep. Read the Account of St John the Theologian of the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God, here:

monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/686

Maybe you missed my point; The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven does not define a mortal death of Mary suffering bodily corruption.

For a body to suffer a death of mortal corruption the soul leaves the body. No Catholic theologian teaches Mary suffered mortal bodily corruption at death nor when she was assumed into heaven, did Mary’s body suffer mortal corruption, which death implies. The Assumption does not teach this mortal bodily decay of the blessed Virgin suffered from a death. Not even 3 days later, if some believers chose to believe this, but this 3 day event is not binding on all believers. Mary in heaven is binding on all believers.

The assumption of Mary is not dealing with Mary dieing a death. The assumption of Mary deals with her body and soul assumed into heaven. If we stop here what the doctrine of the assumption declares. None of the ECF’s teachings contradict this doctrine of Mary in heaven. In fact Iam sure all these ECF’s are celebrating this doctrine which is binding on all believers that Mary is in heaven body and soul, because we celebrate with them from our liturgies on earth, this great eternal reality of Mary in heaven.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote once that it may be a semantic difference. St. John of Damascus makes a distinction between the energeia and the consequence of them called energima. The energeia is the uncreated Grace that energises and the energima is the created effect of God’s energising activities. For the Latin Church God’s energies may be energima of the eastern.

Grace is the western concept. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is used in the east. The west has the concept of the pure act of God.

Personally I use this outline to relate the two theologies:

A. Uncreated

1. essence / substance
2. energies / supernatural

B. Created

1. preternatural
2. natural

The Indwellng of the Holy Spirit is the supernatural grace of God, A2.

Also:

***Procession, ***also from the Modern Catholic Dictionary:
The origin of one from another. A procession is said to be external when the terminus of the procession goes outside the principle or source from which it proceeds. Thus creatures proceed by external procession from the triune God, their Primary Origin. An internal procession is immanent; the one proceeding remains united with the one from whom he or she proceeds. Thus the processions of the Son and the Holy Spirit are an immanent act of the Holy Trinity. An internal, divine procession signifies the origin of a divine person from another divine person (Son from the Father), or from other divine persons (the Holy Spirit from Father and Son) through the communication of numerically one and the same divine essence.

Forgive my ignorance of the term uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit. You are introducing uncreated grace as describing this uncreated energy is this correct?

The Catholic Church reveals how God’s grace flows via the sacraments.

Can you put in sentence describing how this "uncreated energy ( works) from the Holy Spirit. When do you see this uncreated energy? is it in the sacraments, or liturgy?