Debate on Essence and Energies

  • Thread starter Thread starter East_and_West
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean no ill will towards Eastern Christians at all by this discussion. I myself, participate in a great deal of the riches provided by Eastern Catholicism. In fact, I attend a Ruthenian parish every Sunday. However, i do not believe that the essence/energies distinction is intrinsic to Eastern spirituality, just as many in the east feel that scholasticism is not necessary for a western Catholic.
 
Marina14 said:
I have been on this Forum since seriously considering reuniting with Rome; however, now I am seriously reconsidering my consideration. It would be absolutely nuts of anyone to even think of joining the Catholic Church after reading your posts here!
Click to expand...
Of course, that, in itself, is a fallacy.
 
I think Pope Benedict XVI first encyclical “God is Love” or if you get the handbook Walking in Love explains how the esscense and energies of God work together, it is inseperable.
D.
 
I have been reading a bit on this issue lately. While I am somewhat uncomfortable with the essence/energies distinction in that I think it is an overly scholastic approach, something western Catholics are often accused of (transubstantiation) and rightly so in my opinion. Philosophical descriptions can only go so far and I think making Palamas’ idea, since he was one generation removed from Martin Luther, to essential is a mistake. Saying we can commune with God in His energies but not His essence is saying to much given what the previously stated scriptures indicate. HOWEVER I think it is a true idea as far as it goes, but the language is not helpful to our generation (“energies” has far to much cultural baggage). But it is essentially saying that God is transcendent and immanent. If we think of it like that the essence/energies issue is not a real issue. It can just as easily be restated as transcendence/immanence and the problems go away.

I do agree that the palamite theology of partaking of the energies/immanence of God in a sharply distinct manner from his essence/transcedence is true to a degree but also says to much and really does seem catophatic and not apophatic. I think this one is best left ot mystery. I think Zizioulos’s approach on this is much better than Lossky’s, since Zizioulos focus is Eucharistic and not so philosophical as is Lossky’s. It is a situation where it an be said that eastern thought is mystery focused except when it is not. 😉

Essence/Energies = Transcedence/Immanence. That should help latin Catholics understand that it is a kosher distinction (if I am in fact understanding it correctly).

Mel
 
I do not truly understand the full implications of the Essence/Energies theology, but I think that your transcendence/immanence observation is a good starting point…
 
East_and_West said:
…However, i do not believe that the essence/energies distinction is intrinsic to Eastern spirituality, just as many in the east feel that scholasticism is not necessary for a western Catholic.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised by this, but I don’t necessarily disagree with you.

Michael
 
East_and_West said:
By distinguishing some thing from God’s essence, you are creating a separate being. Thus the energies are an entirely different being, no matter how loud hesychasts protest. The sun and its rays image does not work either. The rays of the sun are not the sun itself but a product of the sun. Are you suggesting that God’s “energies” are a product of God?
Click to expand...
And the same logic could be used to say that the Latin west teaches that there are two gods. The Father is the source of the Trinity. The west introduces the Son as a cause of the Spirit. Therefore there are two causes and since there are two causes then there are two gods. You are consequently ditheists.

The energies are Gods action within time. Saying that Gods energies are seperate from His essence is the same as saying the Father and the Son are seperate. You will not say that Christianity in general teaches there are three gods due to the fact that there are three persons of the Trinity but you object to the distinction between the essence and energies based on a preconception that it makes two gods. Just as the Trinity is not three gods, the essence and energies is not two gods. The energies proceed from the essence as the rays of the sun proceed from the sun.

Please do not get into technicalities about the metaphores, the early Christians did not know particle physics and they did not know the properties of light. To get into the technicalities would be the same as a non-Catholic condemning the Catholic Church because the trial of Gallilleo.
 
jimmy said:
And the same logic could be used to say that the Latin west teaches that there are two gods. The Father is the source of the Trinity. The west introduces the Son as a cause of the Spirit. Therefore there are two causes and since there are two causes then there are two gods. You are consequently ditheists.

The energies are Gods action within time. Saying that Gods energies are seperate from His essence is the same as saying the Father and the Son are seperate. You will not say that Christianity in general teaches there are three gods due to the fact that there are three persons of the Trinity but you object to the distinction between the essence and energies based on a preconception that it makes two gods. Just as the Trinity is not three gods, the essence and energies is not two gods. The energies proceed from the essence as the rays of the sun proceed from the sun.

Please do not get into technicalities about the metaphores, the early Christians did not know particle physics and they did not know the properties of light. To get into the technicalities would be the same as a non-Catholic condemning the Catholic Church because the trial of Gallilleo.
Click to expand...
Amen!
 
I find the Essence/Energies theology to be interesting. I am concerned however that there has been no evidence from scripture and the ECF’s to back this up. I am very much interested in hearing what they have to say about God’s Essence and Energies.

Also, what are the Energies of God? I just think that since we receive Grace from God, wouldn’t that imply that we receive His Essence? As I think about it, the Energies of God have an Essence. That Essence is the same Essence as God. Am I missing something here?🤷
 
dbacks5439 said:
I find the Essence/Energies theology to be interesting. I am concerned however that there has been no evidence from scripture and the ECF’s to back this up. I am very much interested in hearing what they have to say about God’s Essence and Energies.

Also, what are the Energies of God? I just think that since we receive Grace from God, wouldn’t that imply that we receive His Essence? As I think about it, the Energies of God have an Essence. That Essence is the same Essence as God. Am I missing something here?🤷
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I can’t give you any ECF’s who taught this (it sounds like a weak argument without them to reference) 🤷 I know Gregory of Palamas taught this, but he is post-schism…

As for your question about the Energies of God, God reveals Himself to us through His Energies. They are not just the means, though, as they are also God, Himself. God remains unknowable in His Essence, but we may still know Him by His revelations to us. His Energies include that grace which He extends to us in order to grow in Him. This grace is also Him, however, it is not something created. It is God Himself, as revealed to us…
 
Alexius said:
I’m sorry I can’t give you any ECF’s who taught this (it sounds like a weak argument without them to reference) 🤷 I know Gregory of Palamas taught this, but he is post-schism…
Click to expand...
It does sound like a weak argument. However, since the ECF’s cannot be cited, it raises some problems. One, it gives me the sense that doctrine is somewhat “invented” since Gregory of Palamas is post-schism. Second, if the ECF’s did make a vague reference to Essence/Energies and Gregory expands on that, then it could be considered development of doctrine.

My previous questions are still in play. What does scripture have to say and isn’t Grace the Essence of God and not His Energies?
 
dbacks5439 said:
It does sound like a weak argument. However, since the ECF’s cannot be cited, it raises some problems. One, it gives me the sense that doctrine is somewhat “invented” since Gregory of Palamas is post-schism. Second, if the ECF’s did make a vague reference to Essence/Energies and Gregory expands on that, then it could be considered development of doctrine.

My previous questions are still in play. What does scripture have to say and isn’t Grace the Essence of God and not His Energies?
Click to expand...
Please see my last post regarding the question of grace…
 
Alexius said:
I’m sorry, but I can’t give you any ECF’s who taught this (it sounds like a weak argument without them to reference) 🤷 I know Gregory of Palamas taught this, but he is post-schism…

As for your question about the Energies of God, God reveals Himself to us through His Energies. They are not just the means, though, as they are also God, Himself. God remains unknowable in His Essence, but we may still know Him by His revelations to us. His Energies include that grace which He extends to us in order to grow in Him. This grace is also Him, however, it is not something created. It is God Himself, as revealed to us…
Click to expand...
Other than grace, what are the energies of God? What is the essence of God’s Energies?
 
They reference the capadocians and St. Maximus as sources for the distinction. If you read Lossky’s books you will see what the references are.
 
dbacks5439 said:
Other than grace, what are the energies of God? What is the essence of God’s Energies?
Click to expand...
Basically, every encounter you can have with the Divine is the energies of God.

God is beyond your power (or mine) to understand completely, by anyone. Thus, God cannot be “known” in essence. God cannot be ‘contained’ in your mind nor in your heart.

That includes the Holy Theotokos, even she cannot ‘know’ God in essence. Impossible for creatures. This is why the name of God could not be uttered in the Old Covenant, naming is a way of categorizing, defining…even limiting.

God is unreachable…this is why there is no “final theosis” as has sometimes been claimed by certain individuals. It is actually a continuing eternal striving.

God is infinity (not merely infinite, infinity itself)…we are not. In that sense only God is capable of knowing God, to know God one must BE God. That is basically what is meant by all of this, the ‘essence’ in our terminology can represent for us the concept of the unknowable of the Divine. In other words, “essence” to us is that quality of the Divine that we cannot encapsulate, it’s that transcendence.

Sometimes I think that many Christians really do not get the concept of transcendence, really. I have met more than a few who seem to be something like what has been called “pantheists” although they would never understand that. I think that for many years I was a pantheist in reality, though I thought I was a Christian.

“God is all” of course, but beyond “all” as well, that’s the part that befuddles us.

Analogically one might think of how the universe is sometimes described: having no edge, and no center either. How does one wrap their mind around that? As Frank Sheed might say, one can conceive of, but not imagine it.

If we lack the ability to understand the universe of matter and energy, how much more impossible would it be to understand the Divine, who transcends all? Infinitely impossible, actually.

So back to the original point…everything you can ever know about God is what He has chosen to reveal, and that is just a glimpse…through His energies.

I get the feeling that through this discussion people are metally dividing God up…like in a diagram of some sort. Like perhaps a circle with a dark inner core, like the yolk of an egg that cannot be known. That’s a bad image.

Perhaps we should imagine ourselves in the yolk, and God’s essence everything to infinity outside of the shell! Still an inadequate image, but possibly more helpful.

All you can really know is that you don’t know, and a little bit of His image He has given you to experience. A gift…through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
*
Michael*
 
I am a Latinized Byzantine Catholic, meaning with the exception of the sign of the cross, I believe in Latin theology, but I noticed they retranslated one is substance to one in essence in the Divine Liturgy as I still go to the Divine Litugy about once a month or so. What does this mean. Is this what this thread is about?
 
Hesychios said:
Basically, every encounter you can have with the Divine is the energies of God.

God is beyond your power (or mine) to understand completely, by anyone. Thus, God cannot be “known” in essence. God cannot be ‘contained’ in your mind nor in your heart.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that in Thomasitic theology, we will never “know” God’s essence. Rather, we simply EXPERIENCE it in the Beatific Vision.
 
wjp984 said:
I am a Latinized Byzantine Catholic, meaning with the exception of the sign of the cross, I believe in Latin theology, but I noticed they retranslated one is substance to one in essence in the Divine Liturgy as I still go to the Divine Litugy about once a month or so. What does this mean. Is this what this thread is about?
Click to expand...
My condolences on your Latinization 😛 jk

I have never heard it said one in “substance…,” only “one in essence.” 🤷

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top