Does This (Secret?) Argument Disprove Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kei

Guest
It seems Catholics argue against Eastern Orthodoxy on such differences as the extent of papal power or the validity of the Filioque properly translated/understood.

But there appears to be another difference that simply doesn’t seem to get considered all that often when trying to weigh truth claims: hesychasm.

The concept of hesychasm got mixed up in Latinizers vs those against it, and it became a big deal. A number of synods were had, there were excommunications and back-and-forths, but in the end it was ratified as dogma and Palamas was declared a doctor of the Church.

“Ok, so?” you may be wondering. Well, the big deal is that hesychasm isn’t just some technique whereby practitioners attempt to see the “uncreated light” of God, but it involves a metaphysic.

The big part is that the action of God is divided from His essence. This seems like a clear denial of Divine Simplicity, and such a basic error was had in rejection to Latin sympathizers (as if some work of Providence had them binded in blindness).

To me this seems as though it could be a clear knock-down argument against Orthodoxy, but you don’t really see it being made. This makes me think maybe I’m missing something that makes this not so great an argument.

So, am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think this is actually a point that is necessarily incompatible with the Catholic faith. I’ve found this old post on the energies/essence issue by another poster here helpful.
48.png
Essence and Energies distinction? Eastern Catholicism
The “debate” is, in my opinion (and I’ve devoted a LOT of time to studying this topic), a mountain out of a molehile. Long story short, both East and West have always spoken of the Essence and Energies of God (Energy is translated into Western theological use as “activity” or “operations”). Prior to the Schism there was really no division on this issue; that came with theological developments in the Byzantine East with St. Gregory Palamas and his debate with a theologian called Barlaam (in the 1…
Click to expand...
 
The comment you posted said,
“Gregory Palamas argued that they are distinct but they are both Divine”

But this is exactly the issue. They are making a distinction in God between Essence and Energy, thus appearing to deny Divine Simplicity (and who denies Divine Simplicity?!?).

Is there something I am missing here? I wouldn’t be surprised if I were missing something.
 
Last edited:
You ran head first into the teachings of the Roman church when you decided to “disprove” Orthodoxy.

As such, nothing else you wrote is relevant.
 
Kei said:
The big part is that the action of God is divided from His essence. This seems like a clear denial of Divine Simplicity
Click to expand...
Thank you. :hugs:

St. Peter says in one of his Epistles that we are made “partakers of the divine nature”. It seems to me that Palamas goes against St. Peter but then again I’m not an expert on this stuff.
 
dochawk said:
You ran head first into the teachings of the Roman church when you decided to “disprove” Orthodoxy.

As such, nothing else you wrote is relevant.
Click to expand...
No, please, if you read the whole of what I write I think it is clear I am very open to seeing where I mess up, because I doubt that such a knockdown argument exists and yet sees such disuse. I am very open to learning that I went wrong somewhere and gaining a deeper appreciation for it.

The thought came after reading up on hesychasm, as I wanted to see what it was all about. It is not as though I was like, “Hmm, how do I disprove eastern orthodoxy today?” I am very open to understanding how this is not the case.
 
Last edited:
The idea that we can experience God, that we can know Him, in some direct and immediate manner is thoroughly Christian. It’s the purpose of our existence, in fact. The ultimate instance of this experience is known in the west as the “Beatific Vision”, where we see God “face to face“ in the next life, and may behold Him continuously in this way.

But for any such experience, even with the gift of faith which is said to be a dim foretaste of this knowledge, grace is required. We do not naturally possess the ability to perceive God. And while it’s said that we cannot comprehend God in any case, we’re nonetheless given the ability to perceive or “see” His essence intuitively. If hesychasm Is related to that vision then it would be similar to profound and rare “glimpses” given to believers, otherwise known as mystical experiences.
 
Last edited:
No doubt it is supposed to be some mystical experience (whereby the practitioner is supposedly able to see “uncreated light”), though of course those against it would call it autosuggestion.

But my concern is more about the metaphysic behind it, as the metaphysic used to support this dogma of the Eastern Orthodox appears to deny Divine Simplicity by explicitly declaring a division between Essence and Action.

I am kind of hoping to be really wrong about this somehow, but this is the issue and it doesn’t seem like the other posters who appear to disagree are responding to the problem.

I can think of some ways this can be wrong:

Perhaps the metaphysics used in defense of hesychasm are not actually cited in the dogmatic definition
Perhaps the definition, though dogmatic, somehow isn’t recognized as rising to such a level of infallibility or something
Perhaps the metaphysic is just misunderstood somehow or can somehow be brought in a way to be in conformity with Divine Simplicity.
Etc.

But these would have to be argued/demonstrated.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
But my concern is more about the metaphysic behind it, as the metaphysic used to support this dogma of the Eastern Orthodox appears to deny Divine Simplicity by explicitly declaring a division between Essence and Action.
Click to expand...
It is not a division between Essence and Action on Gods end, rather it is only perceived as a division on our end, because from the EO pov, we as created beings cannot perceive God as He is (His Essence) we can only perceive His Action (Uncreated Light)…

…that doesn’t mean that His Essence and Action are divided, on the contrary they are one, the difference is in how we perceive God…

…at least that is my (limited) understanding,
@dochawk, @Vico, @PilgrimMichelangelo and @George720 could perhaps give a clearer answer…

… I hope this helps clear things up a little.
 
Kei said:
the metaphysic used to support this dogma of the Eastern Orthodox appears to deny Divine Simplicity by explicitly declaring a division between Essence and Action.
Click to expand...
God’s essence and energies are united. Let me try a bad analogy: the light of a flame and the flame itself are “different” yet still united and you can’t separate them - “Show me a lit match that doesn’t glow” is what we’d have to ask, which is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Thank you and @CathBoy1 for trying to address the problem.

If I understand, you’re saying that the division is not meant to be in the Being of God Himself, but in our experience of God?

That would make me feel a lot better. Even though I am not Orthodox such an obvious blunder would still bother me due to how very basic it is and how they still have apostolic succession in a large group.
 
Last edited:
Everytime I see this thread, I keep thinking of those clickbait articles like “Casinos Hate This Weird Trick!! (But They Can’t Stop You!”)
 
While reading this text I realized I don’t even know half of what you are saying, either because my English might be so bad or because I am not that aware of the church’s affairs.

After reading it fully, without missing a single thing and understanding but a small part of this, I will try to humbly give my opinion on the subject:

I guess after Vatican II we think that all people can be saved, if they live a life under God’s authority and having done lots of merciful acts no matter the religion. Of course, the Catholic Church is Unam Sactam Aecclesiam, and the most of the truth is found here, so you should do everything Saint Mother Church tells you to. I believe one of those things is sacrifice and mercy, if we only did sacrifice we would end up being like Farisians (I don’t know if that’s how it’s written), and if we did only mercy we could be very highly tempted by the evil, that’s why we need both. We also need to love God above all and the others as one self.

That being said, I think we most respect the Eastern Orthodox (we, in the wild west, are as Orthodox as we can be) since we share a lot in common. It should be remembered that we have Eastern Orthodox rites in our church, yes, in case some of you ignored it (I did until very recently, and it was very shocking) we have twenty four churches under the authority of the Pope, and all of them form the Roman Catholic Church the Unam Sactam Aecclesiam we all know and think of. I do not approve of the schism between East and West, and the authocephalic direction the east took, while considering the Constantinople Patriarch and now Russia’s as the most “prepared” as an authority (at least that is the story it know, correct me if I’m wrong). Same are my feelings towards the “reformed”, but I guess I disapprove them more, doesn’t mean I love them any less, they are my brothers and sisters. That’s why God gave us powerful tools: prayer and evangelisation. Both can help us teach the good news to the world.

Finally, I’d like to give all of you my blessings, excuse myself for writing such a long post, but I thought it necessary; saying that God is with all of you, and calling you to have more of a common ground, try to be brothers and sisters not enemies, remember God wants us to be brothers and sisters, and he wants us to follow him in everything he has done, is doing and will do Seacula Saecolorum. Please excuse me for the long post and anything that you may find unorthodox about this post, I’m just loyal to God and if I could have chosen not to write all of this I would really not have done it, because no one deserves to hear me, a completely nobody in the church. May all reading this have a good day, week, month, year and life, may God accompany you in everything you enterprise; remember he loves you tons and he wants you to glorify him as humans created by him.
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
But there appears to be another difference that simply doesn’t seem to get considered all that often when trying to weigh truth claims: hesychasm.
Click to expand...
Not to nitpick, and not trying to be mean or anything, but it would have been helpful to provide a 25-words-or-less thumbnail definition of “hesychasm” in the OP.

Hesychasm - Wikipedia

Just skimming over the article very quickly — I’ve got a lot of things to do today — I can’t find anything here that either disproves Orthodoxy, or registers any meaningful Catholic objection to the matter of hesychasm. As a matter of fact, I thought the highest forms of mystical contemplation worked pretty much exactly like that. Any objection would be, if you ask me, a nothingburger.
 
I’ll just note that I’m not even vaguely interested in the issue.

“True God and true man” from the creed is plenty to satisfy me; the rest is, well, detail.

[note–not sure I’ll be back after today. The contortions to load pages have become too much, and i’m not going to shut down security this far on my computer. So for those i don’t see again, goodbye, all!"]
 
dochawk said:
I’ll just note that I’m not even vaguely interested in the issue.

“True God and true man” from the creed is plenty to satisfy me; the rest is, well, detail.

[note–not sure I’ll be back after today. The contortions to load pages have become too much, and i’m not going to shut down security this far on my computer. So for those i don’t see again, goodbye, all!"]
Click to expand...
I’m kind of winding things down myself, but I have one question — and it will probably be my last question on CAF — that may come across as a little tacky or tasteless, but trust me, it has very sound theological significance (pertains to dietary laws). Be on the lookout for it, and I’ll hope to continue to see you over at St Izzy’s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top