A
Alexius
Guest
I follow that you do not agree with the essence/energies teaching? What does your priest teach regarding this?
- Status
E
East_and_West
Guest
He hasn’t ever said anything about it. But he does believe in the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility etc. He teaches that all Catholics are required to hold these teachings.
A
Alexius
Guest
Okay. Perhaps his opinion would be valid, no? I’m not familiar with the Latin equivalent: what is the Beautific Vision?
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am not a Thomist, nor a theologian, so I have had no exposure to that until now.
I am not sure that what he means is all that different, although what he says could be.
It may be that by stating one ‘experiences’ the essence of God, he is referring to what the East refers to as the energies, which can be experiential. I can’t say, but it sounds possible to me. I am glad you pointed that out.
I think that is worth exploring. I know that the notion of a Beatific Vision is generally rejected in the East, but he may or may not be referring to the same thing easterners will understand to be a beatific vision.
Basically, one cannot “see” God, but one can certainly have mystical experiences and I don’t see how that should necessarily end. The term Beatific Vision seems (to me, at least) to have a sense of finality to it, as if one has achieved the ultimate, like a goal or high point. Does a Beatific Vision have that sense? If so, it would probably not work in the eastern scheme AFAIK. But otherwise his notion of ‘experiencing’ the Divine may possibly be evidence of a shared core understanding between his theology of the Divine and some in the east.
I’ll admit that I am in over my head here. I should probably not speculate.
Michael
H
Hesychios
Guest
W
wynd
Guest
Here is one that I have seen: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…
“The essentially invisible God becomes visible by His energies. He is not visible in His essence, but in some of His characteristics.”
—St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Beatitudinibus 4
From what I understand, St. Gregory Palamas draws on and references earlier church fathers in his writings. However, not having read his works, I can’t say for sure.
A
Alexius
Guest
I knew he didn’t make it up, I just couldn’t come up with any ECF’s off hand…
Thanks, though 
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Alexius,
jimmy:
Brother Alexius, you will find many quotes from the early Fathers that distinguishes between the Essence OF God and the Energies OF God. The problem I (and I’m sure many Oriental Catholics) have with the Eastern theology is the claim that the Essence IS God and the Energy IS God to define the distinction, for this language is nowhere found in the early Church Fathers.
Now, I don’t agree with brother East and West that the distinction is a dangerous idea, for it certainly exists among the early early Church Fathers. Further, I DO accept the language of my Eastern Catholic brethren (i.e., Essence/Energies IS God) as a valid development of doctrine, which, properly understood, should pose no threat to the orthodox Catholic Faith.
However, I DO have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox dogmatically asserting that the Latin Church’s non-acceptance of their developed theology is an error in the Latin Church. The Latin Church is not in error on the matter, and neither is the Eastern Church. They have two ways of expressing the same truth (actually, THREE ways, if you include the middle way of the Oriental Church which does not use the language of Essence/Energies IS God, while nevertheless recognizing the distinction).
Certainly, all three traditions (Eastern, Western, and Oriental) recognize not only the reality of communion with the Divine (i.e., Energies), but also the utter otherness of the Divine from creation (i.e., Essence), though we may all express it differently. This is the beauty of Catholicism. We can look beyond the expressions, and nevertheless have a common FAITH once for all delivered to the saints. Let the Eastern Orthodox believe that Christianity is only expressed in Eastern theology. But that was not the intention of the Savior and that is not the meaning of the word “Catholic.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I knew he didn’t make it up, I just couldn’t come up with any ECF’s off hand…
Like my fellow Oriental Catholic Jimmy, I am also uncomfortable with the Essence/Energies distinction (I think most Oriental Catholics who have not been hellenized have the same outlook).
Brother Alexius, you will find many quotes from the early Fathers that distinguishes between the Essence OF God and the Energies OF God. The problem I (and I’m sure many Oriental Catholics) have with the Eastern theology is the claim that the Essence IS God and the Energy IS God to define the distinction, for this language is nowhere found in the early Church Fathers.
Now, I don’t agree with brother East and West that the distinction is a dangerous idea, for it certainly exists among the early early Church Fathers. Further, I DO accept the language of my Eastern Catholic brethren (i.e., Essence/Energies IS God) as a valid development of doctrine, which, properly understood, should pose no threat to the orthodox Catholic Faith.
However, I DO have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox dogmatically asserting that the Latin Church’s non-acceptance of their developed theology is an error in the Latin Church. The Latin Church is not in error on the matter, and neither is the Eastern Church. They have two ways of expressing the same truth (actually, THREE ways, if you include the middle way of the Oriental Church which does not use the language of Essence/Energies IS God, while nevertheless recognizing the distinction).
Certainly, all three traditions (Eastern, Western, and Oriental) recognize not only the reality of communion with the Divine (i.e., Energies), but also the utter otherness of the Divine from creation (i.e., Essence), though we may all express it differently. This is the beauty of Catholicism. We can look beyond the expressions, and nevertheless have a common FAITH once for all delivered to the saints. Let the Eastern Orthodox believe that Christianity is only expressed in Eastern theology. But that was not the intention of the Savior and that is not the meaning of the word “Catholic.”
Blessings,
Marduk
E
East_and_West
Guest
The Beatific Vision cannot be seen to have a finality to it because God is infinite. We, as finite creatures, can never experience all of his nature or essence at once. Thus, in the Beatific Vision, we continue to grow in deification/sanctification for all of eternity, partaking more and more of the divine nature. The experience of the Beatific Vision is dynamic, not static.
E
East_and_West
Guest
The Beatific Vision is the direct experience of God’s Divine Nature for all eterninty. There is no separation from God’s essence in the Beatific vision, as we enter into a more and more perfect communion with God for all eternity, while maintaining our individual identies. In Catholic theology, we cannot “know” God’s essence through reason, or any other method. However, we can “experience” it in heaven through the Beatific Vision. As the scriptures state, “We shall see him as he is,” and, “We are partakers of the divine nature.”
E
East_and_West
Guest
I have heard this arguement before but I don’t think it holds any water whatsoever. The members of the Trinity are one in essence filioque or not, and thus only one being. The only way the Filioque could devolve into ditheism is if only the Father is considered God in normal Christian theology. But that is not the case.
H
Hesychios
Guest
J
jimmy
Guest
Actually if you read about the Greek theology of the Trinity, you will see that they start with the persons of the Trinity. The Father is God. He begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from Him. He is the source of the Trinity. Making the Son into a source for the Spirit introduces a second source. Therefore ditheism. This was one of the arguements of Photius against the west.
You say the members of the Trinity are one in essence filioque or not. That is irrelevant because the three persons are just as important as the one essence. God is not essence before He is person. God is Father at the same time as He is essence. As was mentioned already, the Father is the source. Two sources means two gods.
J
jimmy
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly. That is the main reason I do not like the distinction.
Y
yeshua
Guest
E
East_and_West
Guest
Sounds like falicious reasoning to me. One essense means one being. Period. It doesn’t matter where you start from: plurality of persons, or oneness of being. The fact that they are one in essence means that they are one God.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I’ll have to find one when i get home this evening. This is how the beatific vision was explained to me.
E
East_and_West
Guest
I just found this in the CCC, #1028: Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:
Just a good Catholic description of the beatific vision. In order for us to exerpience God as he is, he must open himself ot us and give us the ability to experience his essence.
Just a good Catholic description of the beatific vision. In order for us to exerpience God as he is, he must open himself ot us and give us the ability to experience his essence.
M
mardukm
Guest
According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (from NewAdvent.org), the beatific Vision is not a GINOSKO of the Essence of God, but a GNOSSIS of the Essence of God. It is on the level of the creature’s intellect that one comes to “know” God in the Beatific Vision, not on the level of the creature’s essence (otherwise, the creature would BECOME God, which cannot happen). Does that help?
Blessings,
Marduk
E
East_and_West
Guest
St. Thomas stated that we cannot “know” it on our own. The inellectual “knowing” of God’s essence is not the same kind of apprehension that we think of here on earth. It is more of an experience.
- Status