Essence and Energies distinction?

[Contarini]

Obviously the Divine Nature is at work everywhere (Divine Energy), but it is absolutely wrong to say that the Divine Nature is present in all things in a manner that creatures are themselves the presence of the Divine Nature.

Based on the Byzantine theology I’ve been reading recently, it seems to me that this statement of yours indicates that you make the distinction between Essence and Energies much more weakly than the Byzantines did (or than many modern Orthodox theologians do). As I understand it, the point is that the essence/energies distinction prevents this very confusion, because the Essence is *not *present in all things, but all things are irradiated by the divine Energies. Thus there is no danger whatsoever of a blurring of the distinction between creature and creator.

To get back to your earlier post, I think the Orthodox would say that your generous attempt at reconciling Eastern and Western perspectives fails because of the Western doctrine of absolute divine simplicity.

I’d be interested in hearing what you think of these articles by an Orthodox philosopher (especially the first, third, and fifth). Is he unfair to the Western perspective? If so, how? I have heard Orthodox critiques in the past that I found unconvincing, but I find Bradshaw quite reasonable.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who are everywhere present and filling all things, Treasury of blessings and Giver of life: Come and dwell in us, and cleanse us of all impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.

(+) Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
(+) Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.
(+) Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

Our Faith has paradox built in, starting with the scandal of the cross. Often the only way we can address it is by analogy, and that also should express the paradox, not resolve it (as we are tempted to do).

God is not distinctly layered like a sandwich, with dough outside a tasty bits inside. What then?

Five minutes away is the sea, for me quite a treat, being a Midwestern American I have never been so close on a daily basis. I can see it from my 20th floor apartment.

But do I really ‘see’ it? I can see the waves splashing among the rocks, the boats and the fish they haul in. I watch the kelp and the little jellyfish wash in. But five or more feet down is utter blackness to me and that goes on indefinitely. I don’t feel the cold, or the pressure. I have never encountered Leviathan. Have I seen the sea in it’s essence?

Is the splashing of the waves across the pier part of the sea or not? Where do the energy of the sea and the essence of the sea part company?

There is no real possible comparison between our God who is transcendent and the sea which is finite and in place here. We do this sort of exercise because we are incapable of imagining the realities of God, and not adequate to the task of describing God.

“No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.”
John 1-18 NAB

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another. No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.

This is how we know that we remain in him and he in us, that he has given us of his Spirit …
1 John 4:11-13 NAB

 

[Contarini]

Five minutes away is the sea, for me quite a treat, being a Midwestern American I have never been so close on a daily basis. I can see it from my 20th floor apartment.

But do I really ‘see’ it? I can see the waves splashing among the rocks, the boats and the fish they haul in. I watch the kelp and the little jellyfish wash in. But five or more feet down is utter blackness to me and that goes on indefinitely. I don’t feel the cold, or the pressure. I have never encountered Leviathan. Have I seen the sea in it’s essence?

Is the splashing of the waves across the pier part of the sea or not? Where do the energy of the sea and the essence of the sea part company?

There is no real possible comparison between our God who is transcendent and the sea which is finite and in place here. We do this sort of exercise because we are incapable of imagining the realities of God, and not adequate to the task of describing God.

But does the Latin distinction between knowing and comprehending get at the same point, as Ghosty argues?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, since I’ve been teaching Palamas (to a mostly evangelical Protestant class, though I have one Catholic and a couple of Missouri Synod Lutherans). I’d love to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

But does the Latin distinction between knowing and comprehending get at the same point, as Ghosty argues?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, since I’ve been teaching Palamas (to a mostly evangelical Protestant class, though I have one Catholic and a couple of Missouri Synod Lutherans). I’d love to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Edwin

It would be difficult for me to respond in the limited time I now have. He may actually have a good point but I did not read that argument of his yet and haven’t yet absorbed what he is stating.

Ghosty says the Essence/Energies debate did not occur in the west, this is only partially true. Barlaam was made a Catholic diocesan bishop in Gerace Italy (a Latin diocese now), and the veneration of Palamas was suppressed for some Orthodox who came into communion with Rome, in other words he disappeared from many Eastern Catholic calendars (since reversed). The Latin church came down squarely behind Barlaam and would not even open debate on the subject, as if it was a foregone conclusion. Barlaam became something of a mascot for Catholics, representing Western rationalism and the scholastic tradition as opposed to the ‘obviously flawed’ Eastern mysticism.

From my own observation Latin Catholics do tend to think of grace as a ‘thing’ given out by God, so I would say the default position on grace is that it is created, if they think about it at all.

Eastern Christians, and most especially the Orthodox (some Eastern Catholics may have a Latin understanding) have always known grace to be God. Trying to explain how this could be is difficult to say the least, one must become comfortable with the paradox.

 

[Ghosty]

Based on the Byzantine theology I’ve been reading recently, it seems to me that this statement of yours indicates that you make the distinction between Essence and Energies much more weakly than the Byzantines did (or than many modern Orthodox theologians do). As I understand it, the point is that the essence/energies distinction prevents this very confusion, because the Essence is *not *present in all things, but all things are irradiated by the divine Energies. Thus there is no danger whatsoever of a blurring of the distinction between creature and creator.

The point I was making was regarding Icons specifically, and doesn’t actually touch on the Divine Essence/Energy distinction. I was referring to Jimmy’s statement that:

During the iconoclastic controversy those who supported the icons argued that the iconoclasts were essentially Arians or Nestorians because they denied the presence of God in them.

The problem is that the wording of the Council is that the Divine Nature is NOT present in Icons, but the Divine Energy is also the Divine Nature according to Palamite theology (St. Gregory makes this point again and again in his dispute with Barlaam, who denied the Divinity of the Energy). The defenders of Icons actually said that the Divine Energy operates through Icons, but reading the wording of the Council they clearly meant something other than what was defined as Divine Energy later.

So in Palamite theology the Divine Essence and the Divine Energy share the Divine Nature, but are distinct from eachother. The Seventh Ecumenical Council says that the Divine Nature is NOT present in Icons. Specifically:

The more frequently they are seen in representational art, the more are those who see them drawn to remember and long for those who serve as models, and to pay these images the tribute of salutation and respectful veneration. Certainly this is not the full adoration in accordance with our faith, which is properly paid only to the divine nature, but it resembles that given to the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, and also to the holy books of the gospels and to other sacred cult objects. Further, people are drawn to honour these images with the offering of incense and lights, as was piously established by ancient custom. Indeed, the honour paid to an image traverses it, reaching the model, and he who venerates the image, venerates the person represented in that image.

So if we take the doctrine of Divine Essence and Energies as put forward by later theologians without nuance, we must deny that the Divine Energy is present in Icons. The distinction between Essence and Energy can be as hard as you please, but the issue of the Divine Nature in Icons remains. This comes up because some will say that Icons are venerated specially BECAUSE of the Divine Energy in them, but that would violate what the Council actually taught, namely that the Icons are not at all venerated for themselves, but as a means to reach the figures portrayed in them. This confusion arises from insisting on the firm identification of the Divine Energy with the Divine Nature, rather than the more nuanced understanding of Divine Energy as God’s work or activity, both eternal and temporal (which, of course, includes sharing with the blessed the Divine Nature).

St. John of Damascus, the most ardent defender of Icons and the Father most frequently cited in defense of the notion that the Divine Nature (via Divine Energy) dwells in Icons, actually said this about Icons:

But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord’s passion in mind and see the image of Christ’s crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valor and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype.

So my point was not actually about the Divine Essence and all, but more of a side issue addressing the dangers of taking Palamite theology too far and declaring that, because God works through Icons that they somehow share in the Divine Nature. I stress that this isn’t a necessary problem for Palamite theology, just a problem that can arise from taking things too far, much as Reformed theology reflects St. Augustine’s sentiments in many ways, but takes them much further than he ever did.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty says the Essence/Energies debate did not occur in the west, this is only partially true. Barlaam was made a Catholic diocesan bishop in Gerace Italy (a Latin diocese now), and the veneration of Palamas was suppressed for some Orthodox who came into communion with Rome, in other words he disappeared from many Eastern Catholic calendars (since reversed). The Latin church came down squarely behind Barlaam and would not even open debate on the subject, as if it was a foregone conclusion. Barlaam became something of a mascot for Catholics, representing Western rationalism and the scholastic tradition as opposed to the ‘obviously flawed’ Eastern mysticism.

I’d like to see some evidence that the Latin Church ever came down squarely behind Barlaam. I’ve never seen any theological works that cite him or support him from any time period. His views were certainly contrary to the dogma of the Beatific Vision that is upheld in the Latin tradition, and in fact denial that such a thing was even possible is what started the debate between Palamas and Barlaam in the first place. The entire basis for Barlaam’s theological position was that there is no way for the human soul to see God, after all. His theological work was basically unknown in the West, so far as I’ve been able to tell; he certainly never made any kind of waves among the scholastics, despite the accusation by Eastern Orthodox that he was one of them.

Barlaam did eventually become a Bishop in Communion with Rome, but he certainly never became a “Latin”; Gerace didn’t practice the Latin rite until over a century after Barlaam’s death. He was a “Byzantine” through and through, from beginning to end. Most likely is that his theological disputes in Constantinople were simply not of much interest compared to his willingness to unite with Rome, especially since the dispute in question didn’t even deal with traditional Latin theological categories and definitions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hesychios]

I’d like to see some evidence that the Latin Church ever came down squarely behind Barlaam. I’ve never seen any theological works that cite him or support him from any time period. His views were certainly contrary to the dogma of the Beatific Vision that is upheld in the Latin tradition, and in fact denial that such a thing was even possible is what started the debate between Palamas and Barlaam in the first place. The entire basis for Barlaam’s theological position was that there is no way for the human soul to see God, after all. His theological work was basically unknown in the West, so far as I’ve been able to tell; he certainly never made any kind of waves among the scholastics, despite the accusation by Eastern Orthodox that he was one of them.

Barlaam did eventually become a Bishop in Communion with Rome, but he certainly never became a “Latin”; Gerace didn’t practice the Latin rite until over a century after Barlaam’s death. He was a “Byzantine” through and through, from beginning to end. Most likely is that his theological disputes in Constantinople were simply not of much interest compared to his willingness to unite with Rome, especially since the dispute in question didn’t even deal with traditional Latin theological categories and definitions.

Peace and God bless!

Perhaps you are right. In my opinion Barlaam has been popular with Latin Catholics precisely because of his opposition to hesychasm, that does not mean the church identified his position as the only correct one. It is telling that he was able to get the mitre and pallium despite his position vis a vis the Beatific Vision if your argument holds.

A little off subject but another interesting thing I found was that in the article you referenced (which I had not read before) it clearly states that the Greeks of Italy went into schism in the mid 13th century due to the imposed Latinizations, which supports your contention that Barlaam was not under the Pope at the time of the controversy (and explains why the Greeks would dialog with him in Constantinople). This contradicts the common assertion that the Italo-Albanian Catholic church never broke with Rome.