A
Alexius
Guest
I think that is what he is saying…
It really must be since there has been nothing from the popes to the contrary…The only “parts” God comes in are the parts we understand and the part we don’t…
- Status
E
East_and_West
Guest
You guys seem to want to cut him into essence and energies.
J
jimmy
Guest
You want to cut Him into essence and person. It is the same thing.
E
East_and_West
Guest
No I don’t. Each person of the Blessed Trinity is identified with the essence of God.
J
jimmy
Guest
What I am trying to say is that essence is not an important distinction. Personhood is the important distinction and foundation of essence. When you speak of the Father you can not distinguish His person from His essence. His person is His essence. Since He is a personal being He is in relationship with others. Those others are the Son and the Spirit.
M
mardukm
Guest
I hope you are not accusing Orientals of believing God comes “in parts.” We recognize that we can experience God, and we say that this experience is through His energies. We also recognize that God cannot be comprehended in His essence. We say nothing more than that. We do NOT ever speak about “parts of God.”
We do not say nor believe “we experience part of God and we call that part His energy.” Rather, we say and believe “we experience God in His energy.”
We do not say nor believe “there is a part of God that is unfathomable or unknowable.” Rather, we simply say and believe “God is unfathomable or unknowable.”
This is the orthodox Catholic Tradition of the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers. This is the Oriental Tradition.
The Easterns, on the other hand, are a bit more dogmatic on the matter than the Orientals. Easterns not only recognize the essence and energies of God, but they have also sought to DEFINE that the Essence IS God and the Energy IS God. Making such definitions about the Essence and Energy can easily lead to misunderstanding, if not error. I can see why you would have a problem with the Eastern theology - heck, there are not a few Copts I know who have thought that to say the Essence IS God and the Energy IS God is heretical as it means there are five Persons in God. That is a wholly different accusation than your own “God is split into parts.”
In any case, I don’t see how you can impugn in any way the Oriental theology.
Having said that, I must say that you are misunderstanding the Eastern (as distinct from Oriental) theology on the matter. Though there is certainly a possibility that one can interpret (or misinterpret) the Eastern theology to extremes, isn’t that the same polemic mentality that tends to exaggerate the Latin understanding of filioque to mean that there are two sources of the Spirit? If you want to base your misunderstanding/rejection of the Eastern theology of Essence/Energies on possible extrapolations of the doctrine, then would it not be fair for the Orthodox to continue in their misunderstanding and rejection of filioque based on their own possible extrapolations of that doctrine? May I exhort you to fairness and understanding in dealing with the issue?
Blessings,
Marduk
J
jimmy
Guest
mardukm, I am just curious, which specific church do you belong to? Are you Chaldean? Your post is very good.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
Did you ever have a chance to read the thread entitled “My Witness”? It was about the process of my translation. It’s not here anymore by virtue of the new Forum. I hope the Admin will consider adding that thread into this current Forum instead of archiving it, as I don’t have a copy of it.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Did you have a chance to read my final posts in the “Difference between papal primacy and papal supremacy” thread? There are not too many posts on it yet, so it should be a quick read. If you have the time, I would like your comments on it, as I recall you had some good (name removed by moderator)ut in the “Papal prerogatives” thread/poll I started several months back.
I am a Coptic Catholic. I translated to the Catholic Church about four years ago from Coptic Orthodoxy. As I swam the Tiber instead of being born into Coptic Catholicism, I consider myself a Coptic Orthodox in communion with Rome, being very close to my Coptic Orthodox roots.
Did you ever have a chance to read the thread entitled “My Witness”? It was about the process of my translation. It’s not here anymore by virtue of the new Forum. I hope the Admin will consider adding that thread into this current Forum instead of archiving it, as I don’t have a copy of it.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. Did you have a chance to read my final posts in the “Difference between papal primacy and papal supremacy” thread? There are not too many posts on it yet, so it should be a quick read. If you have the time, I would like your comments on it, as I recall you had some good (name removed by moderator)ut in the “Papal prerogatives” thread/poll I started several months back.
J
jimmy
Guest
I remember seeing your thread ‘my witness’ but did not get a chance to read it. I would have liked to have read it.
I haven’t read the papal primacy and papal supremacy thread yet.
A
Alexius
Guest
You do not understand the distinction…:nope:
It is easy to say the same with the Filioque…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I dont mean to jump in, but “experiencing through His energies” sounds like it is another “part” of God rather to me. Im not accusing you of heresy or anything, Im not even a theoloian.
Here is the image that my mind creates of the Essence and Energies distinction - I could be wrong. God’s Essence can be seen as the sun and His Energies can be seen as the rays. This is where the notion of “parts” comes in (for lack of a better term
). To say you experience the rays without experiencing the sun doesnt sound right to me. I rather think of the rays as less intense experience of the same sun, similar to how humans on earth experience the real sun at a “safe distance”. I hope what Im saying makes sense and especially hope Im not saying anything heretical.But in the sun/rays example arent the EO saying the sun is “unknowable” while the rays are “knowable/experienced”?
According to that article just linked it was Palamas that really defined these concepts, I assume far beyond what the Eastern Fathers taught.
I agree such “definitions” are dangerous. If Essence is God and Energies is God then why arent Essence and Energies the same?
Im all for fairness and proper understanding and Im sure East and West is as well. I dont want to speak for E&W but Im sure we are not the only ones around here who would love to hear an explanation for this Essence/Energies distinction which to many of us seems unnecessary at the least and even false at the most.
Also I want to conclude by making it clear that Im not accusing you of heresy.
A
Alexius
Guest
Understood. Your points are good. All I can say is that the sun/sun ray analogy is just that–an analogy.I dont mean to jump in, but “experiencing through His energies” sounds like it is another “part” of God rather to me. Im not accusing you of heresy or anything, Im not even a theoloian.
Here is the image that my mind creates of the Essence and Energies distinction - I could be wrong. God’s Essence can be seen as the sun and His Energies can be seen as the rays. This is where the notion of “parts” comes in (for lack of a better term
But in the sun/rays example arent the EO saying the sun is “unknowable” while the rays are “knowable/experienced”?
According to that article just linked it was Palamas that really defined these concepts, I assume far beyond what the Eastern Fathers taught.
I agree such “definitions” are dangerous. If Essence is God and Energies is God then why arent Essence and Energies the same?
Im all for fairness and proper understanding and Im sure East and West is as well. I dont want to speak for E&W but Im sure we are not the only ones around here who would love to hear an explanation for this Essence/Energies distinction which to many of us seems unnecessary at the least and even false at the most.
Also I want to conclude by making it clear that Im not accusing you of heresy.
How I understand it is this–God is unknowable. He does; however, reveal Himself to us. He reveals Himself through His Energies. God is still unknowable in His Essence. I can elaborate later, but I need to go…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Catholic Dude,
I will offer you something to consider. Latin theology teaches that while God is utterly “other” than creation, and that even in the Beatific Vision, the experience is not tantamount to a complete knowledge of God, we can nevertheless experience God. Doesn’t Latin theology, if one extrapolates hard enough, also divide God into parts? I mean if Latin theology admits our experience of God can never be complete, that automatically implies there is a “part of” God that can never be known, while there is a “part of” Him that can. You say God is simple, but really, we cannot know ALL - or, in other words, we can only know a PART - of Him.
In truth, the concept of “parts of” God is inherent in all our theologies. But it is really nothing more than a philosophical convenience that necessarily and unavoidably presents itself to our minds that cannot fully grasp the magnitude of the Divine. We really DO NOT know the ontology of God.
Blessings,
Marduk
Thank you for expressing your concerns. I’m the last person who will attempt to explain the Essence/Energies “distinction” to you. I simply believe it is, nothing more. I don’t feel the necessity to say anything more about it. Indeed, it is inconceivable for me to do so, for anything more would be an attempt to define the ontology of God, which is impossible.I dont mean to jump in, but “experiencing through His energies” sounds like it is another “part” of God rather to me. Im not accusing you of heresy or anything, Im not even a theoloian.
Here is the image that my mind creates of the Essence and Energies distinction - I could be wrong. God’s Essence can be seen as the sun and His Energies can be seen as the rays. This is where the notion of “parts” comes in (for lack of a better term
But in the sun/rays example arent the EO saying the sun is “unknowable” while the rays are “knowable/experienced”?
According to that article just linked it was Palamas that really defined these concepts, I assume far beyond what the Eastern Fathers taught.
I agree such “definitions” are dangerous. If Essence is God and Energies is God then why arent Essence and Energies the same?
Im all for fairness and proper understanding and Im sure East and West is as well. I dont want to speak for E&W but Im sure we are not the only ones around here who would love to hear an explanation for this Essence/Energies distinction which to many of us seems unnecessary at the least and even false at the most.
Also I want to conclude by making it clear that Im not accusing you of heresy.
I will offer you something to consider. Latin theology teaches that while God is utterly “other” than creation, and that even in the Beatific Vision, the experience is not tantamount to a complete knowledge of God, we can nevertheless experience God. Doesn’t Latin theology, if one extrapolates hard enough, also divide God into parts? I mean if Latin theology admits our experience of God can never be complete, that automatically implies there is a “part of” God that can never be known, while there is a “part of” Him that can. You say God is simple, but really, we cannot know ALL - or, in other words, we can only know a PART - of Him.
In truth, the concept of “parts of” God is inherent in all our theologies. But it is really nothing more than a philosophical convenience that necessarily and unavoidably presents itself to our minds that cannot fully grasp the magnitude of the Divine. We really DO NOT know the ontology of God.
Blessings,
Marduk
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I dont see it that way. It cant be complete experience because God is infinite, thus from what I understand we can only experience him to the degree our finite minds can grasp. The closer you go near to a fire the hotter it gets, but you are always experiencing the same fire yet to a differing degree. I would not think of that as experiencing “part” of the fire.
M
mardukm
Guest
If you speak of “degrees” than I do not see why you cannot accept the sun/rays analogy. For the rays of the sun is merely a certain degree of the experience of the sun itself, correct?
Blessings
G
Ghosty
Guest
Ahh, the old Essence/Energy debate, an East versus West favorite. 
The real difficulty here is that we are using human philosophical concepts to build a theological language about God, and were using two different philosophical/theological “lineages” to do so. Much of this argument boils down to HOW we describe, in human terms, what is ultimately indescribable, and much time and ink has been wasted on this project, IMO.
One thing to keep in mind is that the “Latin” theological tradition and explaination of “participation in God”, expressed most thoroughly and coherently by St. Thomas Aquinas, is directly derived from St. John of Damascus who utilized the Essence/Energy distinction in his work “The Orthodox Faith”. In fact, I’d argue that St. Thomas Aquinas uses pretty much exactly the same theology as St. John of Damascus, but just translates it into the Latin theological language.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the discussion of Essence and Energies is often very confusing and not at all uniform. Two different Eastern theologians will have very different explanations of them, and some explainations are much better than others IMO. For example, some theologians will speak in a way that practically divides the Essence and the Energy of God, making the Essence the “unparticipated” and the Energy the “participated” in a manner that sounds like there are two Gods, the hidden and unknowable and the knowable. St. John of Damascus, on the other hand, doesn’t make such a sharp distinction at all, and neither do most of the other ancient theologians.
What happens between the Latin tradition and the Byzantine tradition, however, is that the terms are used slightly differently, and that can lead to confusion. In the Latin tradition, “energy” and its equivalents (such as “operations”) are used to describe, for lack of a better term, the activities of God. In the Byzantine tradition it is used more broadly to describe both the activity AND the “traits” of God. It’s noteworthy, however, that St. John of Damascus makes it very clear that these “traits” and “activities” are utterly simple and not composite, meaning that what we perceive as distinctions (such as God’s Love versus God’s Justice) are actually one and the same thing. This is due to God having an utterly simple Essence, according to St. John, which points to how closely related to two things are.
The Essence, in the Byzantine tradition, is more akin to “being God”, where in the Latin tradition it is the broad term that includes both “being God” and the traits of God (what it means to be God, in other words). So in the Byzantine tradition you would never say that we share in the Essence of God, because we never ARE God in the absolute sense, even though we share in everything God “has” other than “being God”. This sharing, then, is of the Energies of God. In the Latin tradition it is said that we share in the Essence of God without being God, because the Latin use of Essence incorporates both the “traits” and the “being God”, so we can be said to participate in the Essence without at all implying that we become God (which is what would happen if you used the same terminology in Byzantine theology).
There is really no conflict at all once we remember that we’re simply using human philosophical terms to come to an analogical description of God. Both sides are saying that we participate in God without being God, and both are very, very adamant that anything less than a real participation in God destroys the foundation of the Faith (in the East this debate occured between Palamas and Barlaam, in the West it occured between the Realists and the Nominalists, with the Protestant reformers following the Nominalist theology and the Catholic Church following the Realist). The only real difference is in terminology, because where the Latins would say that we participate in the essence of fire, without becoming fire, by growing hot, since being hot is of the very essence of fire, the Byzantines would say that we share in the fire’s essential energy of heat without becoming fire.
Both are ultimately just very nitpicky ways of trying to explain a central Mystery of our Faith: we share in the Divine Nature by Grace, yet we never become God in an absolute sense. Whether you say it by using the philosophical distinction between essence and energy, or the philosophical distinction between sharing in something and being that something, you are making exactly the same analogy.
We may have our own preferences in how to express this mystery, but they remain human preferences even if one is better at highlighting certain aspects than another (and visa versa); God is not defined, He’s merely sloppily explained to the extent that human language allows.
Peace and God bless!
The real difficulty here is that we are using human philosophical concepts to build a theological language about God, and were using two different philosophical/theological “lineages” to do so. Much of this argument boils down to HOW we describe, in human terms, what is ultimately indescribable, and much time and ink has been wasted on this project, IMO.
One thing to keep in mind is that the “Latin” theological tradition and explaination of “participation in God”, expressed most thoroughly and coherently by St. Thomas Aquinas, is directly derived from St. John of Damascus who utilized the Essence/Energy distinction in his work “The Orthodox Faith”. In fact, I’d argue that St. Thomas Aquinas uses pretty much exactly the same theology as St. John of Damascus, but just translates it into the Latin theological language.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the discussion of Essence and Energies is often very confusing and not at all uniform. Two different Eastern theologians will have very different explanations of them, and some explainations are much better than others IMO. For example, some theologians will speak in a way that practically divides the Essence and the Energy of God, making the Essence the “unparticipated” and the Energy the “participated” in a manner that sounds like there are two Gods, the hidden and unknowable and the knowable. St. John of Damascus, on the other hand, doesn’t make such a sharp distinction at all, and neither do most of the other ancient theologians.
What happens between the Latin tradition and the Byzantine tradition, however, is that the terms are used slightly differently, and that can lead to confusion. In the Latin tradition, “energy” and its equivalents (such as “operations”) are used to describe, for lack of a better term, the activities of God. In the Byzantine tradition it is used more broadly to describe both the activity AND the “traits” of God. It’s noteworthy, however, that St. John of Damascus makes it very clear that these “traits” and “activities” are utterly simple and not composite, meaning that what we perceive as distinctions (such as God’s Love versus God’s Justice) are actually one and the same thing. This is due to God having an utterly simple Essence, according to St. John, which points to how closely related to two things are.
The Essence, in the Byzantine tradition, is more akin to “being God”, where in the Latin tradition it is the broad term that includes both “being God” and the traits of God (what it means to be God, in other words). So in the Byzantine tradition you would never say that we share in the Essence of God, because we never ARE God in the absolute sense, even though we share in everything God “has” other than “being God”. This sharing, then, is of the Energies of God. In the Latin tradition it is said that we share in the Essence of God without being God, because the Latin use of Essence incorporates both the “traits” and the “being God”, so we can be said to participate in the Essence without at all implying that we become God (which is what would happen if you used the same terminology in Byzantine theology).
There is really no conflict at all once we remember that we’re simply using human philosophical terms to come to an analogical description of God. Both sides are saying that we participate in God without being God, and both are very, very adamant that anything less than a real participation in God destroys the foundation of the Faith (in the East this debate occured between Palamas and Barlaam, in the West it occured between the Realists and the Nominalists, with the Protestant reformers following the Nominalist theology and the Catholic Church following the Realist). The only real difference is in terminology, because where the Latins would say that we participate in the essence of fire, without becoming fire, by growing hot, since being hot is of the very essence of fire, the Byzantines would say that we share in the fire’s essential energy of heat without becoming fire.
Both are ultimately just very nitpicky ways of trying to explain a central Mystery of our Faith: we share in the Divine Nature by Grace, yet we never become God in an absolute sense. Whether you say it by using the philosophical distinction between essence and energy, or the philosophical distinction between sharing in something and being that something, you are making exactly the same analogy.
We may have our own preferences in how to express this mystery, but they remain human preferences even if one is better at highlighting certain aspects than another (and visa versa); God is not defined, He’s merely sloppily explained to the extent that human language allows.
Peace and God bless!
D
dessert
Guest
So in other words you are saying we can be like Jesus but we can’t BE Jesus?Ahh, the old Essence/Energy debate, an East versus West favorite.
The real difficulty here is that we are using human philosophical concepts to build a theological language about God, and were using two different philosophical/theological “lineages” to do so. Much of this argument boils down to HOW we describe, in human
One thing to keep in mind is that the “Latin” theological tradition and explaination of “participation in God”, expressed most thoroughly and coherently by St. Thomas Aquinas, is directly derived from St. John of Damascus who utilized the Essence/Energy distinction in his work “The Orthodox Faith”. In fact, I’d argue that St. Thomas Aquinas uses pretty much exactly the same theology as St. John of Damascus, but just translates it into the Latin theological language.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the discussion of Essence and Energies is often very confusing and not at all uniform. Two different Eastern theologians will have very different explanations of them, and some explainations are much better than others IMO. For example, some theologians will speak in a way that practically divides the Essence and the Energy of God, making the Essence the “unparticipated” and the Energy the “participated” in a manner that sounds like there are two Gods, the hidden and unknowable and the knowable. St. John of Damascus, on the other hand, doesn’t make such a sharp distinction at all, and neither do most of the other ancient theologians.
What happens between the Latin tradition and the Byzantine tradition, however, is that the terms are used slightly differently, and that can lead to confusion. In the Latin tradition, “energy” and its equivalents (such as “operations”) are used to describe, for lack of a better term, the activities of God. In the Byzantine tradition it is used more broadly to describe both the activity AND the “traits” of God. It’s noteworthy, however, that St. John of Damascus makes it very clear that these “traits” and “activities” are utterly simple and not composite, meaning that what we perceive as distinctions (such as God’s Love versus God’s Justice) are actually one and the same thing. This is due to God having an utterly simple Essence, according to St. John, which points to how closely related to two things are.
The Essence, in the Byzantine tradition, is more akin to “being God”, where in the Latin tradition it is the broad term that includes both “being God” and the traits of God (what it means to be God, in other words). So in the Byzantine tradition you would never say that we share in the Essence of God, because we never ARE God in the absolute sense, even though we share in everything God “has” other than “being God”. This sharing, then, is of the Energies of God. In the Latin tradition it is said that we share in the Essence of God without being God, because the Latin use of Essence incorporates both the “traits” and the “being God”, so we can be said to participate in the Essence without at all implying that we become God (which is what would happen if you used the same terminology in Byzantine theology).
There is really no conflict at all once we remember that we’re simply using human philosophical terms to come to an analogical description of God. Both sides are saying that we participate in God without being God, and both are very, very adamant that anything less than a real participation in God destroys the foundation of the Faith (in the East this debate occured between Palamas and Barlaam, in the West it occured between the Realists and the Nominalists, with the Protestant reformers following the Nominalist theology and the Catholic Church following the Realist). The only real difference is in terminology, because where the Latins would say that we participate in the essence of fire, without becoming fire, by growing hot, since being hot is of the very essence of fire, the Byzantines would say that we share in the fire’s essential energy of heat without becoming fire.
Both are ultimately just very nitpicky ways of trying to explain a central Mystery of our Faith: we share in the Divine Nature by Grace, yet we never become God in an absolute sense. Whether you say it by using the philosophical distinction between essence and energy, or the philosophical distinction between sharing in something and being that something, you are making exactly the same analogy.
We may have our own preferences in how to express this mystery, but they remain human preferences even if one is better at highlighting certain aspects than another (and visa versa); God is not defined, He’s merely sloppily explained to the extent that human language allows.
Peace and God bless!
But Jesus said greater works you shall do because I go to the Father.
Barb
E
East_and_West
Guest
Well I guess that pretty much shuts us all up. Thanks Ghosty. While i still think the distinction can be a dangerous place to go theologically and philosophically, I am certainly indebted to your explanation.Both are ultimately just very nitpicky ways of trying to explain a central Mystery of our Faith: we share in the Divine Nature by Grace, yet we never become God in an absolute sense. Whether you say it by using the philosophical distinction between essence and energy, or the philosophical distinction between sharing in something and being that something, you are making exactly the same analogy.
We may have our own preferences in how to express this mystery, but they remain human preferences even if one is better at highlighting certain aspects than another (and visa versa); God is not defined, He’s merely sloppily explained to the extent that human language allows.
Peace and God bless!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
This Essence/Energies link has been posted before, and it appears what the link is describing is the same problem which exists in the example you gave above.
You say the early Eastern Fathers dont make such sharp distinctions, but this link claims that Palamas in the 1300s did. Is that correct?
I looked up Eastern Orthodox Dogmatic Theology under the chapters of “Essence” and then “Attributes” (Energies) to get more info. Could you help explain how to think about passages like these
resent to your mind the essence of God, unmoving, unchanging, unalterable, dispassionate, simple,complex, indivisible, unapproachable light, unutterable power, infinite magnitude, resplen-dent glory, most desired goodness, immeasurable beauty that powerfully strikes the wounded soul, but cannot worthily be depicted in words.”
Such exaltation of spirit is demanded in order for one to speak of God! Nevertheless, under this condition the thoughts of man are capable only of dwelling on the attributes of the Divinity, not upon the very essence of the Divinity.
Code:
**Thus, one may speak only of the *attributes *of God, but not of the very essence of God** The Fathers express themselves only indirectly concerning the nature of the Divinity, saying that the essence of God is “one, simple, incomplex.” However, this simplicity is not something without distinguishing characteristics or content; it contains within itself the fullness of the qualities of existence.Thus, the negative form is really an *affirmation *of **attributes **that are without limit. We may find a model of such expressions in the *Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith *by St. John Damascene:
“God is unoriginate, unending, eternal, constant, uncreated, unchanging, unalterable, simple, uncomplicated,
bodiless, invisible, intangible, indescribable, without bounds, inaccessible to the mind, uncontainable, incomprehensible… …
In the above we see “simple” “eternal”, etc as ATTRIBUTES/Energies while the Essence is sharply distinguished as beyond naming/thought. This appears to me like the sharp distinctions you criticized.
E
East_and_West
Guest
How can God be “simple” as described above but have a distinction between his essence and energies?
- Status