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

[Marybeloved]

Hey, people. I’ve been (still am) attending to my very ill father in Hospital, sorry I’ve made no replies to your posts. Please say a prayer for him, for his soul and his body, to Our Merciful Lord, the Theotokos and the holy saints.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Lord have mercy!

 

[Hesychios]

Hey, people. I’ve been (still am) attending to my very ill father in Hospital, sorry I’ve made no replies to your posts. Please say a prayer for him, for his soul and his body, to Our Merciful Lord, the Theotokos and the holy saints.

May God grant your father restored good health, long life and eternal joy in His abundant mercy.

 

[Marybeloved]

Thank you for your prayers and good wishes. May God hear you and grant you also sanctity and happiness on Earth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hey, people. I’ve been (still am) attending to my very ill father in Hospital, sorry I’ve made no replies to your posts. Please say a prayer for him, for his soul and his body, to Our Merciful Lord, the Theotokos and the holy saints.

Prayers are with him.

 

[dvdjs]

I think according to Cappadocian theology, she couldn’t have done so. Receiving the divine essence would have made her divine through some sort of hypostatic union. Her essence remained very much human, but she was permeated with the deifying grace of God (a super-natural or super-essential energy of God), which is what we mean when we speak of theosis…

To receive and to become are two very different things. Of course there was no hypostatic union. At the same time, she did carry and did give birth to divine essence. And there is more to that exceptional connection than is reflected in the posts here.

Receive God, not divinity. She received a person of the trinity within her womb, but to say that she received the divine nature as one of her properties or came to know what the divine nature ‘is’ (to be more precise, the divine nature is beyond being or existing) goes beyond the teachings of the Eastern Fathers, who taught that the divine nature is unknowable (think Pseudo-Dionysus) to created beings. Of course that doesn’t mean she’s not special among the saints (our prayers like axion estin say she is), just that there still a difference between the three divine persons and all of creation, no matter how highly she is to be honored for bringing our savior into this world.

Yes of course she is not divine in essence and is not considered to be by anyone AFAIK. But again, receiving divine essence does not mean changing one’s essence or somehow “knowing” divine essence. Tell me: when you receive communion, do you think you are not receiving divineessence?

 

[dvdjs]

However, I do not see how we can say that she received the divine essence in the sense of any sort of personal union with the divine essence, because the divine essence entirely transcends creation.

The Theotokos physicall recieved God in her womb, but she did not undergo a personal union with the divine essence.

Ditto above. My point again is that she did carry and did give birth to divine essence. There is more to this connection, which has weighty implications, than is reflected in the posts here.

 

[Vico]

From couponfit:

“Imagine that when a person is born either during or after conception but before birth they come upon a pit if you would, fall in, and then are saved by Christ. In Mary’s case she was redeemed, so we can picture Mary as having been saved by Christ before she fell into the pit. Yes she needed saving, but no she never fell into original sin.”

For the analogy, how about: Imagine that when a person is created, from the first moment of conception they are in a pit, from which they are saved from by Christ at baptism. But Mary was created, from the first moment of conception, not in a pit, from which she was saved by Christ at her conception.

 

[RyanBlack]

Ditto above. My point again is that she did carry and did give birth to divine essence. There is more to this connection, which has weighty implications, than is reflected in the posts here.

This is problematic language. When you say “she did carry and did give birth to divine essence,” it can be easily misunderstood to mean that the Theotokos is the source of divinity. Furthermore, human mothers don’t give birth to essences or natures, they give birth to persons. The Theotokos gave birth to the person Jesus Christ, who has both a divine nature and a human nature. She in no way was the source of the divine essence (which I’m fairly certain you are not claiming), and was in no way personally united with the divine essence. The divine essence is hypostatically united to true humanity in one–and only one–unique case: that of our Lord Jesus Christ. When our Lord was in the womb of his mother, the divine essence was present within her womb, but ONLY because our Lord was in her womb.

 

[dvdjs]

This is problematic language. When you say “she did carry and did give birth to divine essence,” it can be easily misunderstood to mean that the Theotokos is the source of divinity. Furthermore, human mothers don’t give birth to essences or natures, they give birth to persons. The Theotokos gave birth to the person Jesus Christ, who has both a divine nature and a human nature. She in no way was the source of the divine essence (which I’m fairly certain you are not claiming), and was in no way personally united with the divine essence. The divine essence is hypostatically united to true humanity in one–and only one–unique case: that of our Lord Jesus Christ. When our Lord was in the womb of his mother, the divine essence was present within her womb, but ONLY because our Lord was in her womb.

We say on the Feast of the Nativity - that a virgin gave birth to divine essence. (Mothers give birth to persons who do have an essence). Yes, this sentence could be misunderstood. But I think it unrealistic to think that it would. I am more concerned with the misunderstanding of the profundity of this relationship, which is similar to our receiving of the Eucharist. So I put to you the same question that I had asked Cavaradossi: what are your thoughts on the Eucharist?

 

[RyanBlack]

She say on the Feast of the Nativity - that a virgin gave birth to divine essence. (Mothers give birth to persons who do have an essence). Yes, this sentence could be misunderstood. But I think it unrealistic to think that it would. I am more concerned with the misunderstanding of the profundity of this relationship, which is similar to our receiving of the Eucharist. So I put to you the same question that I had asked Cavaradossi: what are your thoughts on the Eucharist?

I don’t think it’s at all unrealistic to think that the statement could be understood, especially considering the misunderstanding many Protestants have about the term “Mother of God.” As to your concerning about “the misunderstanding of the profundity of this relationship,” who are you asserting misunderstands it, and what exactly is being misunderstand? Finally, as to the question of receiving the divine essence in the Eucharist, no, I do not believe we do. I believe that we receive divinity in the Eucharist (I think to claim that we only receive the Lord’s humanity amounts to denying the hypostatic union), but not the divine essence per se, as the divine essence eternally remain totally transcendent and impenetrable.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t think it’s at all unrealistic to think that the statement could be understood, especially considering the misunderstanding many Protestants have about the term “Mother of God.”

I am not sure that I agree that there is “misunderstanding”. If misunderstanding were the issue it would take minutes to clear things up. I think that there is a willful effort to cling stubbornly to and to propagate distortions. Or an implicit rejection of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.

As to your concerning about “the misunderstanding of the profundity of this relationship,” who are you asserting misunderstands it, and what exactly is being misunderstand?

The posts that I have responded, IMO, send an unfortunate message that downplays the significance of the Theotokos in the plan of salvation. The reality is that Eastern Christianity and the whole CC celebrate her, without apology, in the strongest terms.

Finally, as to the question of receiving the divine essence in the Eucharist, no, I do not believe we do. I believe that we receive divinity in the Eucharist (I think to claim that we only receive the Lord’s humanity amounts to denying the hypostatic union), but not the divine essence per se, as the divine essence eternally remain totally transcendent and impenetrable.

I have seen this point debated on EO fora, usually in the context of discussion about the real presence, and transubstantiation. There is a range of opinions, but the clergy from the more conservative groups hold an opinion that differs from yours.

And that is the point of my posts. You start with a particular notion about the division of essence and energies that leads you to draw certain conclusions about the Eucharist which may need some reconsideration. However, there is evidence from the teaching that a human gave birth to divine essence that could help in that reconsideration. Something to think about.

 

[RyanBlack]

I am not sure that I agree that there is “misunderstanding”. If misunderstanding were the issue it would take minutes to clear things up. I think that there is a willful effort to cling stubbornly to and to propagate distortions. Or an implicit rejection of orthodox Trinitarian Christianity.

The posts that I have responded, IMO, send an unfortunate message that downplays the significance of the Theotokos in the plan of salvation. The reality is that Eastern Christianity and the whole CC celebrate her, without apology, in the strongest terms.

I have seen this point debated on EO fora, usually in the context of discussion about the real presence, and transubstantiation. There is a range of opinions, but the clergy from the more conservative groups hold an opinion that differs from yours.

And that is the point of my posts. You start with a particular notion about the division of essence and energies that leads you to draw certain conclusions about the Eucharist which may need some reconsideration. However, there is evidence from the teaching that a human gave birth to divine essence that could help in that reconsideration. Something to think about.

On the first point about “a willful effort to cling stubbornly to and to propagate distortions,” you might be entirely correct. In some individual instances, I’m sure you are. However, for most of my life as a Protestant, I rejected the title “Mother of God” as bordering on idolatrous. When I took a Church History course, and was explained that the title is more about our Lord, and that it affirms his full divinity, I understood why we use the title.

I entirely disagree that I, or others in this thread, are downplaying the significance of the Theotokos in the plan of salvation. Indeed, we do celebrate her without apology. However, affirming that our Lord took his humanity from her and that she did indeed give birth to the Incarnate Word of God does not mean that she received in her actual person the divine essence. Yes, during the time our Lord was in her womb, she contained within her body God the Son, and so we can say, in a very narrow sense that she received the divine essence, but not on the level of being united to it. I fail to see how the denial that she was not personally united to the divine essence fails to appreciate her unique role in salvation. On the other hand, I think when we state that she did receive the divine essence in her actual person, then we place ourselves in the position of denying the divine transcendence, and make her out to be something other than what she is, viz., a human (albeit a very special one), just like the rest of us.

As to the question about Eucharist, I spoke with my priest about this. His position is the same as mine, which is that if we say that we receive the divine essence in receiving the Eucharist, we deny the teaching that that the divine essence is eternally transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive the body and blood of our Lord. We also receive his divinity (and therefore, are assimilated to God), but in terms of the divine energies, not the divine essence. Again, to say that we receive the divine essence ultimately destroys the teaching of divine transcendence and the distinction between God and his creatures, the logical end of which is pantheism. Something to think about.

 

[dvdjs]

On the first point about “a willful effort to cling stubbornly to and to propagate distortions,” you might be entirely correct. In some individual instances, I’m sure you are. However, for most of my life as a Protestant, I rejected the title “Mother of God” as bordering on idolatrous. When I took a Church History course, and was explained that the title is more about our Lord, and that it affirms his full divinity, I understood why we use the title.

One additional, and more troublesome point that I made. As I looked over the Mother of God thread, it seemed clear that by developing an antipathy for this language some have fallen into a misunderstanding of orthodox Trinitarian theology.

I entirely disagree that I, or others in this thread, are downplaying the significance of the Theotokos in the plan of salvation. Indeed, we do celebrate her without apology. However, affirming that our Lord took his humanity from her and that she did indeed give birth to the Incarnate Word of God does not mean that she received in her actual person the divine essence. Yes, during the time our Lord was in her womb, she contained within her body God the Son, and so we can say, in a very narrow sense that she received the divine essence, but not on the level of being united to it. I fail to see how the denial that she was not personally united to the divine essence fails to appreciate her unique role in salvation. On the other hand, I think when we state that she did receive the divine essence in her actual person, then we place ourselves in the position of denying the divine transcendence, and make her out to be something other than what she is, viz., a human (albeit a very special one), just like the rest of us.

But that is what you seem, at least to me, doing, even in this paragraph. She is a very special human. Not albeit, not just because, but by divine plan. We affirm this point over and over again in our liturgy - especially in stichera and irmoi of Marian feasts. Of course we have already stipulated that her connection was not a union in the sense of a change of her essence, but it was profound and mystical - beyond understanding in human thought.

That is rhetoric of the Nativity - approaching the ineffable and affirming its transcendance through paradox. A virgin gives birth; human essence bears divine essence; the unapproachable one is approached by shepherds; they join the angels in the doxology; He who is without beginning begins - the Eternal God is born; the Almighty God appears as a infant child. This mystery is not, I think, to be worked out rationally, but to be savored for its very incomprehensibility.

As to the question about Eucharist, I spoke with my priest about this. His position is the same as mine, which is that if we say that we receive the divine essence in receiving the Eucharist, we deny the teaching that that the divine essence is eternally transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable. When we receive the Eucharist, we receive the body and blood of our Lord. We also receive his divinity (and therefore, are assimilated to God), but in terms of the divine energies, not the divine essence. Again, to say that we receive the divine essence ultimately destroys the teaching of divine transcendence and the distinction between God and his creatures, the logical end of which is pantheism. Something to think about.

As I said before, I am not an expert on the essence/energy distinction, but I see trouble in the extrapolations of what you have written, in particular as it pertains to incarnation and Eucharist, I think that I disagree, but the disagreement is subtle. I looked around and found this comment from Fr. Deacon Matthew Steenberg (11/11/2006 Monachos.net), which both holds to the distinction that you want to make, but also holds to the point that I think needs to be be defended.

… The one born of Mary is the Son by nature, God in essence. He is ‘the One Who Is’, the essential, natural reality of the divine Son; and thus when one encounters the incarnate Christ, one encounters the divine nature (essence) of God. And yet, one encounters the divine nature energetically; for even in God’s incarnation, one cannot know the nature of God qua essence. In Christ one experiences in energy the divine essence in the fullest degree.

This is true also of the eucharistic mystery. One receives into one’s body the full reality of the essentially and ever-existing God; but it is precisely in God’s energy that one thus receives him fully and truly. The experience of God ‘in his energies’ is not an experience ‘less than’ an experience of his essence. …

Maybe this: we can receive God essentially but can only perceive and realize energetically.

 

[Vico]

…
Maybe this: we can receive God essentially but can only perceive and realize energetically.

In agreement with post 53 from Modern Catholic Dictionary (Latin theology):

“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.”

 

[RyanBlack]

As I said before, I am not an expert on the essence/energy distinction, but I see trouble in the extrapolations of what you have written, in particular as it pertains to incarnation and Eucharist, I think that I disagree, but the disagreement is subtle. I looked around and found this comment from Fr. Deacon Matthew Steenberg (11/11/2006 Monachos.net), which both holds to the distinction that you want to make, but also holds to the point that I think needs to be be defended.

Maybe this: we can receive God essentially but can only perceive and realize energetically.

It seems to me that Fr. Deacon Matthew is attempting to deal with the problem of how it is that we affirm the reality of the Incarnation and the Church’s traditional teaching concerning the Eucharist, while at the same time affirming our beliefs that God is eternally transcendent.

When he states “when one enounters the inarnate Christ, one encounters the divine nature (essence) of God,” I agree with him, with qualifiers. In the presence of the Incarnate Christ, those who encountered him were in the presence of the divine essence, as they were in the presence of our Lord, who is both fully God, and fully man, just as when we encounter the Eucharist, we are in the physical presence of the divine essence, since the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of our Lord, and his humanity is not divided from his divinity. However, to be in the presence of the divine essence, as we will be for all eternity in heaven, is not the same as to receive the divine essence, other than in a physical sense. In my opinion, to state otherwise gets us back into the problem of denying the divine transcendence and seriously blurring the distinction between God and creatures. I think that this is more or less what Fr. Deacon Matthew is stating when he writes “And yet, one encounters the divine nature energetically; for even in God’s incarnation, one cannot know the nature of God qua essence.”

We cannot receive in our persons the essence of God, because the essence of God, which we cannot comprehend or penetrate, is that which is unique to God, and makes God exactly God, if I dare be so bold to attempt to explain that which the Fathers have taught is beyond our ability to define. However, being made in God’s image and likeness, we are capable, to an extent of being assimilated to God. It is in our encounter with and assimilation to the divine energies that we are deified. This happens in a very real sense in our reception of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

 

[dvdjs]

It seems to me that Fr. Deacon Matthew is attempting to deal with the problem of how it is that we affirm the reality of the Incarnation and the Church’s traditional teaching concerning the Eucharist, while at the same time affirming our beliefs that God is eternally transcendent.

Yes that is precisely the issue. I think he says it well, distinguishing receiving from understanding, comprehension, penetration.

We use the word “receive” so often in talking, for example, of the Eucharist that it is dangerous, IMO, to put all of the nuance on that word. If you cay that in a communicant does not receive the divine essence, I think it would be natural to understand the statement as denying that the Eucharist is the essential Christ, rather than a meaning than distinguishing physical receiving from something else. And similarly with the Theotokos.

… blurring the distinction between God and creatures…

This distinction is very clear, both in the East and West. I suppose, however, that this may be an important issue in our modern times.

… if I dare be so bold to attempt to explain that which the Fathers have taught is beyond our ability to define.

Yes. The problem arises when one pushes one aspect of the problem so hard that it causes a problem with other aspects.

 

[Marybeloved]

But I think that St. Athanasius’ argument goes further. His argument seems to be that the begetting of the Son is not an act of will at all.

Hello Cavaradossi,

Yes, I believe that the Son’s procession is by intellection, and the Holy Spirit by the Divine will.

He says that the Son is begotten by nature in the same way that the Father is good by nature. To recast this argument by St. Athanasius in St. Gregory Palamas’ terminology, there must be a difference between how the Son and Holy Spirit have communion with the Father (essentially), and how we have communion with the Father (energetically) or else we are uncreated and the Son and the Holy Spirit are created. And yet we cannot say that the energies which we interact with are created. St. Gregory Palamas draws on St. Maximos the Confessor, who says this about ‘works (energies) without beginning’:
All immortal things and immortality itself, all living things and life itself, all holy things and holiness itself, all good things and goodness itself, all blessings and blessedness itself, all beings and being itself are manifestly works of God. Some began to be in time, for they have not always existed. Others did not begin to be in time, for goodness, blessedness, holiness and immortality have always existedI hope maybe this at least shows where the Eastern Christians are coming from, when they say that there is a real distinction between essence and energies.

In the West, God is his own holiness, goodness, blessedness, life- They are not simply “works” of God. So perhaps that’s the difficulty with this distinction from the western perspective.

 

[Marybeloved]

No, God’s love is not his essence. God is indeed love, but God is more than love. Therefore, God’s love is not his essence, neither is spirit, nor grace, nor goodness, nor holiness, nor any other divine attribute we can name, all of which are indeed eternal and divine, but none of which defines God’s essence, for God is beyond the capacity of creatures to define. We do not know what God’s essence is, because God’s essence is utterly transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable.

God’s love, goodness, holiness, is his essence . God is not other than his wisdom, he’s not other than his power, goodness, etc That’s you and me, the limited beings, not God. He’s one perfect being that is all these things.

We do not know what God’s essence is, because God’s essence is utterly transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable.

Comprehending God’s essence is besides the point. I don’t know ANY Catholic who has ever said that ANY****aspect of God can be comprehended by man. If we follow this logic, then, am I to understand that you personally belief that these divine energies you describe are comprehensible? Is God’s love comprehensible? Is his power? his holiness? are any of these comprehensible by anyone apart from God?

Of course we don’t comprehend the Divine essence- we don’t comprehend God, period . That does not mean we do not possess him in his essence- To the West, essence is what God is. Saying we have no union with him in his essence is saying we have no union with him, period. That’s how it’s understood from our perspective.

 

[Marybeloved]

My dad is doing much better, Thanks to all of you who prayed for me (him). :hug3: