Does the Divine Essence subsist in the Eucharistic species in Eastern theology?

[DL82]

I have heard that (some?) Eastern Christian theologians draw a distinction between the Essence of God and the Uncreated Energies of God. The blessed in heaven share in His Energies, but never in His Essence.

In the (Western) Catholic understanding that I have been taught, the Eucharistic species become the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ. This, I believe, we share with the East, whether Catholic or Orthodox (right?)

Have any Eastern theologians ever addressed whether the Divinity that is present in the Eucharist is the Essence or (only) the Energies of Christ? Are there any consequences to this distinction, or is it just my Latin mindset looking for scholastic hair-splitting?

 

[Ghosty]

I have heard that (some?) Eastern Christian theologians draw a distinction between the Essence of God and the Uncreated Energies of God. The blessed in heaven share in His Energies, but never in His Essence.

In the (Western) Catholic understanding that I have been taught, the Eucharistic species become the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ. This, I believe, we share with the East, whether Catholic or Orthodox (right?)

Have any Eastern theologians ever addressed whether the Divinity that is present in the Eucharist is the Essence or (only) the Energies of Christ? Are there any consequences to this distinction, or is it just my Latin mindset looking for scholastic hair-splitting?

There would be no consequences from this distinction. In Byzantine theology, anything of the Divine Nature that is communicable to creatures is Divine Energy, while that which is uncommunicable is Divine Essence. This terminological distinction is not used in Latin theology, and it isn’t strictly necessary to describe God’s immanence and transcendence (Latin theology has its own way of describing this distinction), so it’s not necessary to compare the two. Both Latins and Byzantines believe that God’s communicable Divinity is present in the Eucharist and shared with those who receive the Sacrament; only the traditional terminology used to describe this reality differs.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

I have heard that (some?) Eastern Christian theologians draw a distinction between the Essence of God and the Uncreated Energies of God. The blessed in heaven share in His Energies, but never in His Essence.

In the (Western) Catholic understanding that I have been taught, the Eucharistic species become the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ. This, I believe, we share with the East, whether Catholic or Orthodox (right?)

Have any Eastern theologians ever addressed whether the Divinity that is present in the Eucharist is the Essence or (only) the Energies of Christ? Are there any consequences to this distinction, or is it just my Latin mindset looking for scholastic hair-splitting?

West: distinguishes natural vs supernatural. Grace is created and supernatural. Being and act of God are one.
East: distinguishes created vs uncreated. Gifts of the Spirit are uncreated fruits of the divine energies. The essence is not communicable.

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

St. John of Damascus, Book III Chapter XIX

The divine nature, then, has communion with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and man is one and the same. …
This, then, the theandric energy makes plain that when God became man, that is when He became incarnate, both His human energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in His divine energy, and His divine energy was not without part in His human energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the other.

St. John of Damascus, Book IV, Chapter XIII:

Further, bread and wines are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine (6), He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xix_concerning_the_theandric_energy.htm

 

[DL82]

West: distinguishes natural vs supernatural. Grace is created and supernatural. Being and act of God are one.
East: distinguishes created vs uncreated. Gifts of the Spirit are uncreated fruits of the divine energies. The essence is not communicable.

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

St. John of Damascus, Book III Chapter XIX

The divine nature, then, has communion with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving, and this is an attribute not of human but of divine energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and man is one and the same. …
This, then, the theandric energy makes plain that when God became man, that is when He became incarnate, both His human energy was divine, that is deified, and not without part in His divine energy, and His divine energy was not without part in His human energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the other.

St. John of Damascus, Book IV, Chapter XIII:

Further, bread and wines are employed: for God knoweth man’s infirmity: for in general man turns away discontentedly from what is not well-worn by custom: and so with His usual indulgence He performs His supernatural works through familiar objects: and just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine (6), He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood in order that we may rise to what is supernatural through what is familiar and natural.

christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xix_concerning_the_theandric_energy.htm

So, is St John of Damascus saying that only the divine energies are incarnate in the body of Christ? (I apologize if that is an ignorant reading, but I am not used to these terms).

 

[Ghosty]

So, is St John of Damascus saying that only the divine energies are incarnate in the body of Christ? (I apologize if that is an ignorant reading, but I am not used to these terms).

The firm distinction of essence/energies wasn’t made in John’s time. That is a much later theological development. For St. John the Divine Energy refers simply to the operation of the Divine Nature, it is not a thing in itself. Divine Energy is activity of a substance, not a substance itself, so Divine Energy can’t “incarnate”, any more than “thinking” can incarnate.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

So, is St John of Damascus saying that only the divine energies are incarnate in the body of Christ? (I apologize if that is an ignorant reading, but I am not used to these terms).

Book III, Chapter XV.—Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ:

We hold, further, that there are two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For He possesses on the one hand, as God and being of like essence with the Father, the divine energy, and, likewise, since He became man and of like essence to us, the energy proper to human nature. But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (drastike) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say “all creation,” meaning creatures.

christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xv_concerning_the_energies_in.htm

St John of Damascus defines energy as “the natural force and activity of each essence”, “for no essence can be devoid of natural energy. Natural energy again is the force in each essence by which its nature is made manifest.” “But actions are also called energies: for instance, speaking, eating, drinking, and such like. The natural affections also are often called energies, for instance, hunger, thirst, and so forth. And yet again, the result of the force is also often called energy.”

Concerning Energy:
christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xxiii_concerning_energy.htm

 

[Ghosty]

Book III, Chapter XV.—Concerning the energies in our Lord Jesus Christ:

We hold, further, that there are two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For He possesses on the one hand, as God and being of like essence with the Father, the divine energy, and, likewise, since He became man and of like essence to us, the energy proper to human nature. But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (drastike) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say “all creation,” meaning creatures.

christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xv_concerning_the_energies_in.htm

St John of Damascus defines energy as “the natural force and activity of each essence”, “for no essence can be devoid of natural energy. Natural energy again is the force in each essence by which its nature is made manifest.” “But actions are also called energies: for instance, speaking, eating, drinking, and such like. The natural affections also are often called energies, for instance, hunger, thirst, and so forth. And yet again, the result of the force is also often called energy.”

Concerning Energy:
christianbookshelf.org/john/exposition_of_the_orthodox_faith/chapter_xxiii_concerning_energy.htm

So, in short, Christ has Divine Energy because He has the Divine Nature; the Divine Energy follows upon the Divine Nature as Its essential activity.

I should also point out that it’s not that the Divine Nature incarnates, it’s that the Divine Person of the Son incarnates. Natures do not exist independently, and therefore can’t be said to “do” anything. It is the person/subsistent being that does things with its proper energy, according to its nature. So “human” doesn’t talk, but rather Ghosty talks because he is a human. “Human” doesn’t exist, but rather Ghosty exists, and has a human nature.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

So, in short, Christ has Divine Energy because He has the Divine Nature; the Divine Energy follows upon the Divine Nature as Its essential activity.

I should also point out that it’s not that the Divine Nature incarnates, it’s that the Divine Person of the Son incarnates. Natures do not exist independently, and therefore can’t be said to “do” anything. It is the person/subsistent being that does things with its proper energy, according to its nature. So “human” doesn’t talk, but rather Ghosty talks because he is a human. “Human” doesn’t exist, but rather Ghosty exists, and has a human nature.

Peace and God bless!

Yes.

If I had to make an outline aligning east and west it would be like this:

A. Uncreated

1. essence / substance
2. energia / supernatural

B. Created

1. preternatural
2. natural

The Gift (indwelling) of the Holy Spirit is the supernatural grace of God, A2.
Latin theology: three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. (See Fr. John Hardon dictionary.)