Essence and Energies - True Distinctions?

[Taboric_Light]

Chris,

I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say “substantial” distinction. Depending on how you mean it the following may or may not be helpful.

The distinction between essence and energy is a real distinction, but this does not necessarily mean a substantial distinction. For example, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a real distinction, but it is not a substantial one. So it is possible to have real distinctions in God without violating the divine simplicity.

I hope that helps. If not, completely and totally ignore it, please.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ghosty]

Chris,

I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say “substantial” distinction. Depending on how you mean it the following may or may not be helpful.

The distinction between essence and energy is a real distinction, but this does not necessarily mean a substantial distinction. For example, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a real distinction, but it is not a substantial one. So it is possible to have real distinctions in God without violating the divine simplicity.

I hope that helps. If not, completely and totally ignore it, please.

In Christ through Mary

Good point. Thanks for bringing it up.

God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Chris,

I’m not exactly sure what you mean when you say “substantial” distinction. Depending on how you mean it the following may or may not be helpful.

The distinction between essence and energy is a real distinction, but this does not necessarily mean a substantial distinction. For example, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a real distinction, but it is not a substantial one. So it is possible to have real distinctions in God without violating the divine simplicity.

I hope that helps. If not, completely and totally ignore it, please.

In Christ through Mary

Apart from Ghosty, and perhaps Isa, you are one of the few posters I really look forward to reading. I always welcome your thoughts. Now, speaking of your thoughts, you suggest here that the distinction between God’s Essence and Energies is a ‘real’ distinction and not simply our own limits of comprehension of the Divine Nature. I guess I look at this through the eyes of a Latin, as that is my background but I tend to disagree with this because of my draw to the Divine Simplicity. Because we really are talking about the ‘real’ distinction in the Godhead not of ‘persons’. The persons of the Trinity don’t create ‘real’ distinctions in the Godhead, thus their mystery but I still see this ‘real’ distinction in the Godhead and how it seems to be used to express God’s presence in Creation as very very similiar to ‘emanationism’ (ala Platonism). This is what I meant earily in my comment to Ghosty about the ‘thread’ that separates us from paganism.

Could you share anything else with me about this and maybe tie up any loose ends you might see in my understanding of this?

Thanks for you time. God Bless.

 

[Ghosty]

One thing to keep in mind is that “real distinction”, as a philosophical/theological term, doesn’t necessarily mean a substantial distinction. The Three Persons are “really” distinct, in that the distinction rests within them and not merely in our mind. A non-real distinction between Persons would be Modalism, where there is nothing within the Persons themselves that makes the distinction.

With Essence and Energies, there is a “real” distinction because the Divine Energy really is participatable, while the Divine Essence really isn’t, but this doesn’t change the fact that it’s the same substance/Nature being spoken of. To use the idea analogy again, there is a real distinction between me writing my thought and me speaking my thought, but the thought is identical in either case. They are different modes of the same thought that really are distinct, and aren’t distinguished just by arbitrary categories.

An example of an arbitrary, non-real distinction would be to distinguish between you as a person sitting down, and you as a person standing up, or you acting in a play and you living your normal day-to-day life. In those cases the “you” in question hasn’t changed at all, but we are setting up mental distinctions.

So keep in mind that “real” is more akin to “different in their own way” as opposed to “different by our own mental categories”, and not akin to “substantially different”.

Another example of the theological use of “real”, which is a bit different but might serve to highlight the meaning, is that we have a “real” relation to God in being created, but God doesn’t have a “real” relation to us. This is because the change occurs on our end, not on God’s, so even though it’s a single relationship, and God works substantially in making us, it’s not a “real relation” on God’s side, only on ours, because we change and carry the relationship within us.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

One thing to keep in mind is that “real distinction”, as a philosophical/theological term, doesn’t necessarily mean a substantial distinction. The Three Persons are “really” distinct, in that the distinction rests within them and not merely in our mind. A non-real distinction between Persons would be Modalism, where there is nothing within the Persons themselves that makes the distinction.

Hi Ghosty,

I think what I’m trying to say here is that the Three Persons don’t ‘divide’ the Divine Nature among themselves (i.e. create a ‘real’ distinction ‘in’ the Godhead). I’m not trying to suggest Modalism, I’m trying to say that the Divine Simplicity is maintained, even within the Trinity, because there is no division within the Divine Essence (i.e. Nature). In the Eastern Theology of the Essence and Energies, there seems to be a demand to ‘divide’ the Godhead in an attempt to allow ‘change’ (i.e. participation) and yet maintain, in His Essence, ‘no change’ and no participation. It seems to take steps in panentheism as it blurs the presence of the Godhead.

As an aside, could talk about ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’ Grace. Because I think I am understanding the cruxed of the disagreement between the East and the West on this matter.

That said, I’d really like to have the help of both the Byzantine and Latin Catholic here to help me walk through this. It’s a very challenging topic for sure and one that I am very curious about.

Please, I beg, that this topic is not allowed to be used as a launch pad for polemical debate between partisans of either the East or the West. I’d really like to simply discuss this with kindness. Thank you all.

 

[Ghosty]

I think what I’m trying to say here is that the Three Persons don’t ‘divide’ the Divine Nature among themselves (i.e. create a ‘real’ distinction ‘in’ the Godhead). I’m not trying to suggest Modalism, I’m trying to say that the Divine Simplicity is maintained, even within the Trinity, because there is no division within the Divine Essence (i.e. Nature). In the Eastern Theology of the Essence and Energies, there seems to be a demand to ‘divide’ the Godhead in an attempt to allow ‘change’ (i.e. participation) and yet maintain, in His Essence, ‘no change’ and no participation. It seems to take steps in panentheism as it blurs the presence of the Godhead.

I can totally understand your difficulty on this point, and I feel it is one of the major weaknesses of the Palamite approach. It’s not a fatal flaw, and the over-all theology is not weaker than Thomism, but this is just an area where difficulties can easily crop up.

The Latin theological approach protects Divine simplicity by explicitely refering to the modes of Divine Nature, and how our receiving it is different from God possessing it infinitely in His own Being. The Palamite theology expresses the same truth, but the language used can get in the way a bit, as the language being used seems to refer to individual subjects or nouns (Essence is something unique, Energy is something unique), rather than modes.

This may be a difficulty only in the translation to English, but I don’t know since I’ve only read the English translations. What is clear in the theology, however, is that the same Divinity is existing in Essence and Energy. In fact, this is really the whole point of the distinction, which can be lost when we talk about the matter outside of the context of the Barlaamite controversy. Maybe some details on that will help to clear up exactly what the theological approach is trying to communicate.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

First off, let me preface the discussion of Barlaam’s views with the fact that we don’t clearly know exactly what Barlaam himself was saying in his own words; we rely primarily on St. Gregory’s responses and quotations of Barlaam. It’s quite possible that Barlaam was misrepresented, but for our purposes it’s only necessary to know what Palamas was arguing against, not what Barlaam necessarily believed.

Basically Barlaam was arguing that when someone receives Grace, they are not receiving Divinity itself, but rather a natural modification that makes us more like God than we were before. It would be like transforming us into angels, or closer to being like angels. He said that we receive this change by God, mediated through created things. This is what Barlaam meant by “created Grace”, namely that Grace is a creaturely nature that more closely approaches the perfection of God, and can only be achieved by God modifying us (this is the basis for the Palamite rejection of the term “created Grace”, incidently, though Latin theology doesn’t mean by it at all what Barlaam meant).

Palamas, on the other hand, argued that we really share in the Divine Life itself through Grace, and we’re not merely transformed in a manner creatures, but in a manner that goes beyond “creatureliness”, a supernatural (Divine-level) alteration. We retain our creature-nature, of course, but at the same time we participate in Divine-nature, and hence we are adopted Sons of God as opposed to natural Sons of God (which only the Son Himself is). Since the Divine Nature is uncreated, Palamas countered Barlaam’s terminology by saying that we share in “uncreated Grace”, and it should be noted that Latin theology uses the term “created Grace” to refer to what Palamas is describing, for the reason that the Divine Participation is made in us, and that we are not eternal extensions of the Trinity.

Barlaam countered that the Divine Nature is infinite, unchanging, almighty, ect. If we participate in it, then we must become totally infinite, and in all things Divine, and therefore become God not in the sense of adoption and participation, but on the fundamental level of nature, ceasing to be creatures and transcending to become a member of the Trinity. If God transcends all created nature, then to reach God we must become exactly what God is, we must aquire the Divine Essence as our own essence, and this is impossible.

To answer this Palamas utilized a new approach (and yes, I believe that St. Gregory’s theology was new, and wasn’t a direct continuation of the theological language of previous centuries, though it was absolutely developed from it and is truly Apostolic in that sense) and started emphasizing that the Divine Nature is certainly “in Essence” infinite and utterly transcendent in Itself, but that it also “reaches out” and touches created things, whether interacting with them or constantly providing them with existence from nothing. It seems like a paradox, but it is a logically necessary paradox (and not a contradiction), since if the transcendent Divine Nature didn’t reach out, nothing else would exist. So this theological approach hardened into the distinction between Divine Essence, what the Divine Nature is considered in Itself, of Itself, by Itself, and this is totally unknowable by creatures by definition, and the Divine Energy, which is this same Divine Nature reaching out and really connecting with (and, in the case of Grace, sharing Itself with) creaturely reality. While creatures can share in the Divine Nature and directly see God, we can never see God as the Father sees and knows Divinity; in Latin terms we have knowledge, but we lack comprehension. This infinite mode is “Essence” because everything else about God hinges on this mode; if God does not exist infinitely and transcendently in the first place, God can’t reach Himself out.

The Energy is mode in which the Divine Nature can be received by creatures, in proportion to their ability to receive, and this distinction safeguarded the utterly transcendent and eternal aspect of the Divine Nature that Barlaam accused Palamas of ignoring. Barlaam was trying to protect the transcendence by denying a real participation in Divine Nature, because he was insisting that the only mode of participation would be the mode of sharing the same Essence, as the Father and Son do; Palamas was hardening the language of Essence and Energies to express that the Divine Nature really is shared with creatures in a manner that is distinct from the “Essence to Essence” sharing of the Father and Son.

Incidently, it’s been noticed by many that the Barlaam/Palamas debate closely reflects, in some crucial aspects, the Protestant/Catholic debate. Most significantly in the Western debate over imputed righteousness (Protestant), and infused righteousness (Catholic). Certain Protestants argued that God “calls us Holy” in overlooking our still-existant sinfulness, whereas the Catholics argued that God makes us Holy by infusing us with His own Divine Nature and Holiness in Grace. For the Protestants, Grace was viewed as a kind of dispensation and creaturely turning towards God for mercy (accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior kind of thing, but with the understanding that even this is done with God’s help) while the Catholics viewed Grace as both a Divine help and “nudge”, and also the sharing of Divine Life with the soul by the Sacraments and prayer.

I know that’s long, but hopefully it helps clear up the reasons for the language being used.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

As an aside, could talk about ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’ Grace. Because I think I am understanding the cruxed of the disagreement between the East and the West on this matter.

I covered this a bit already, but I thought I’d give it its own treatment as well.

Basically, when the term “created Grace” was used in the East by Barlaam, he wasn’t refering to a relationship that was being created, but to the actual essence and substance of Grace itself. It was the “Divine likeness” that grows out of our own nature, even if by God’s prompting and assistance. This can include creaturely imitations of Christ, such as caring for the sick and poor and such as well.

The term as used in Latin theology has a significantly different meaning, however. The term “created” was used because Grace can mean a few different things. I can have grace towards you, such as when we say “you’re in my good graces”, and this refers to my internal attitude. In God, this attitude is eternal; He knows from eternity, even before we are created, that we are or are not finally in “His good graces” (basically this refers to Providence). This is expressed as “uncreated Grace”, because it has no beginning in time, and preceeds even our own creation.

“Created” Grace, then, refers to the actual gift given to the creature, and this is the share in the Divine Nature. Why is called “created”, when the gift itself is something eternal? It’s called “created” because by this Divine Life we are made anew (a Scriptural reference, at that), and the term “created” refers to the making of us into “adopted Sons of God”. Since our nature becomes augmented by the Divine Nature, we are “new creations in Christ”, and since the Divine Nature is now our own in the sense of direct participation, it is a new quality in our renewed soul, even if it isn’t “new” in and of itself.

St. Gregory Palamas also refers to us being made anew, and coming to share in Divinity, and being modified and such, but he avoids the term “created Grace” because in his context it would refer to the substance of Grace itself, as opposed to the mode of the Grace. In the Latin context it refers to the mode of the Divine Life (having a beginning in us at Baptism, for example), not to the sustance Itself (which is obviously and unarguably eternal, if it’s a share in Divinity at all).

This is where there can be a weakness in the Latin theological language, IMO. I don’t think it’s possible to have a “perfect” theological approach that has no weaknesses, and that’s why I think it’s so important to have multiple Apostolic approaches around in a single Communion to help emphasize and clarify what other approaches might have to neglect a bit in dealing with other significant issues.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Ghosty,

I really appreciate the time you took to lay this all out. Very well done and very much appreciated.

So the crux of the problem is ‘how’ do we participate in the Divine Nature? It seems we have three different views, to some extent, one says that we are infused with the actual nature of God (i.e. through energy)… the Eastern Theological view. The second says that we are ‘made’ through Grace to share more closely the Divine Attributes of the Divine Nature… the Catholic Theological view. The last says that we don’t participate in nor have any share in the ‘actual’ Divine Nature except on some kind of moral or ethical level and have ‘imputed’ righteousness (i.e. had our sinfulness ignored by God).

Is this fair? Any thought s to clear this up?

 

[Ghosty]

I would just add that the Latin view and the Eastern view actually carry the same meaning; the view you described as the “Catholic” view is actually more like that of Barlaam, who’s view is rejected. In both Latin and Palamite theology we really share in the Nature of God. It’s just the way this is expressed and explained that is different. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

and the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (showing that this is a pre-Ecumenism belief, and not a post-Vatican II concession) says:

This regeneration implies the foundation of a higher state of being and life, resulting from a special Divine influence, and admitting us to the dignity of sons of God. “For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren” (Romans 8:29). cf. also 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 3:26-27 and 4:19; Romans 13:14. As a consequence of this Divine adoption and new birth we are made “partakers of the divine nature” (theias koinonoi physeos, 2 Peter 1:4). The whole context of this passage and the passages already quoted show that this expression is to be taken as literally as possible not, indeed, as a generation from the substance of God, but as a communication of Divine life by the power of God, and a most intimate indwelling of His substance in the creature

link: newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

So it’s not just that we become more like God, it’s that in a certain way God shares His very Life with us, and indeed the Encyclopedia article is explicit in even saying that the very substance of God indwells in us. The “making” is just a reference to the fact that our natures aren’t inherently Divine, but are made to participate in Divinity by Grace. In other words, if we weren’t “made gods” then we’d be the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit, having Divine Nature naturally, and not creatures at all.

Both East and West express that we are “made” to participate in Divinity and don’t have it from within our nature; Latin theology just makes this an explicit part of the term for Sanctifying Grace (hence “created grace”), while Palamite theology explains it as an aside.

BTW, it’s my pleasure to talk about this, so no worries there!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Taboric_Light]

Now, speaking of your thoughts, you suggest here that the distinction between God’s Essence and Energies is a ‘real’ distinction and not simply our own limits of comprehension of the Divine Nature. I guess I look at this through the eyes of a Latin, as that is my background but I tend to disagree with this because of my draw to the Divine Simplicity. Because we really are talking about the ‘real’ distinction in the Godhead not of ‘persons’. The persons of the Trinity don’t create ‘real’ distinctions in the Godhead, thus their mystery but I still see this ‘real’ distinction in the Godhead and how it seems to be used to express God’s presence in Creation as very very similiar to ‘emanationism’ (ala Platonism). This is what I meant earily in my comment to Ghosty about the ‘thread’ that separates us from paganism.

Could you share anything else with me about this and maybe tie up any loose ends you might see in my understanding of this?

I think what I’m trying to say here is that the Three Persons don’t ‘divide’ the Divine Nature among themselves (i.e. create a ‘real’ distinction ‘in’ the Godhead). I’m not trying to suggest Modalism, I’m trying to say that the Divine Simplicity is maintained, even within the Trinity, because there is no division within the Divine Essence (i.e. Nature). In the Eastern Theology of the Essence and Energies, there seems to be a demand to ‘divide’ the Godhead in an attempt to allow ‘change’ (i.e. participation) and yet maintain, in His Essence, ‘no change’ and no participation. It seems to take steps in panentheism as it blurs the presence of the Godhead.

Chris,

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. Ghosty (thank you) has gone into more detail than I believe I am capable of, but I will still put in my two cents for what it is worth.

For me it came down to the problem of the reality of our partaking of the divine nature. The following reason is not a denial of the West’s approach to this magnificent mystery, but simply shows how my brain works (scary ).

1. We partake of the Divine Nature. This is one of the most important teachings of the Church.
2. Because of the Divine Simplicity we partake of the Divine Nature wholly, not piecemeal.
3. But in partaking of the Divine Nature wholly, which means we become divine, we do not become another person of the Holy Trinity.
4. How?
5. By saying that there is a real distinction between God’s Essence and His Energy we are not making a division because Divinity is within both fully and equally; they are not two parts of a whole, just as the Persons are not three parts of a whole.
6. Therefore, by partaking of the Divine Energy I am partaking of the Divine Nature wholly and entirely. Yet God still remains Wholly Other because only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essentially God.
7. If the distinciton is not real then we are not really partaking of the Divine Nature wholly and completely, which violates the doctrine of Divine Simplicity or the doctrine of divinization.

I know there are holes. For instance, I still have a difficult time getting my head around how Divinity is wholly and completely present in both the Essence and the Energy and, yet, there is a distinction. But I keep reminding myself of two things. We are using finite minds to come to know and finite language to articulate Mystery, that which is infinite and uncreated. It is absolutely impossible for us to truly do this. As Ghosty mentioned earlier no approach is without is difficulties and weaknesses. It’s just that out of all the good and valid approaches in the Church’s tradition this is the one the makes the most sense to me.

As an aside, I think that our communion with God is really what Palamas’s articulation of the Essense/Energy distinction is all about.

I don’t know if that tied any loose ends, but there it is. Just remember, the distinction is not a division because Divinity is wholly present in both Essence and Energy. In answer to how this could be I think a good starting place is what Ghosty said earlier about the Essence and Energy being two modes of the Divine Nature.

In Christ through Mary

 

[chrisb]

I would just add that the Latin view and the Eastern view actually carry the same meaning; the view you described as the “Catholic” view is actually more like that of Barlaam, who’s view is rejected. In both Latin and Palamite theology we really share in the Nature of God. It’s just the way this is expressed and explained that is different. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

and the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (showing that this is a pre-Ecumenism belief, and not a post-Vatican II concession) says:

link: newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

So it’s not just that we become more like God, it’s that in a certain way God shares His very Life with us, and indeed the Encyclopedia article is explicit in even saying that the very substance of God indwells in us. The “making” is just a reference to the fact that our natures aren’t inherently Divine, but are made to participate in Divinity by Grace. In other words, if we weren’t “made gods” then we’d be the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit, having Divine Nature naturally, and not creatures at all.

Both East and West express that we are “made” to participate in Divinity and don’t have it from within our nature; Latin theology just makes this an explicit part of the term for Sanctifying Grace (hence “created grace”), while Palamite theology explains it as an aside.

Ghosty,

If the Latin and the Eastern Theological expression of our ‘participation in the Divine Nature’ is the same but there is not distinction within the Divine Nature between Essence and Energies in the Latin Theological understanding of the Godhead, as we find within Eastern Theology, how do Latins maintain a ‘real’ distinction between the Godhead and those creatures whom find themselves in participation within this Godhead?

What does Latin Theology say:

The Uncreated Grace is God Himself in so far as He, in His love, from all eternity has pre-determined the gifts of grace, in so far as He has communicated Himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s Humanity (gratia unionis), in so far as He indwells in the souls of the justified, and in so far as He gives Himself to the blessed for possession and enjoyment in the Beatific Vision. The Hypostatic Union, the Indwelling and The Beatific Vision, considered as acts, are indeed crated graces, for they had a beginning in time. But the gift which is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

Created Grace is a supernatural gift or operation really distinct from God.

So are Latin Theology saying the same thing as Eastern Theology?

 

[Ghosty]

If the Latin and the Eastern Theological expression of our ‘participation in the Divine Nature’ is the same but there is not distinction within the Divine Nature between Essence and Energies in the Latin Theological understanding of the Godhead, as we find within Eastern Theology, how do Latins maintain a ‘real’ distinction between the Godhead and those creatures whom find themselves in participation within this Godhead?

There is no distinction between Essence and Energy in Latin theology because “Divine Essence” means “Divine Nature” in Latin terminology. In Byzantine terminology “Divine Essence” means “The unparticipatable mode of Divine Nature” while Energy means “the participatable mode of Divine Nature”. The two uses of the term “Divine Essence” are equivocal, as in they have different meanings, so there is no contradiction between the two views; they are using the terms differently and therefore drawing different distinctions with them.

It would make absolutely no sense, in Latin theology, to say that there is a distinction between Divine Essence and Divine Energy, because that would mean that the Divine Energy is not the Divine Nature, since “Divine Essence” is the same meaning as “Divine Nature”. That doesn’t mean that Latin theology doesn’t distinguish between the infinite, transcendent mode of Divine Nature, which only the Trinity has, and the participated, Grace-shared mode of Divine Nature which creatures receive; there is a real distinction, an infinite distinction in fact, but it is not called by the terms “Essence” and “Energy”.

As for the definitions you cited, I’ve never heard them, and they certainly don’t match anything I’ve studied in theology with the Dominicans. It’s possible that what is meant is a hard distinction between God and us, not in the sense of removing us from Divine Participation, but in highlighting the distinction between the Gift (God) and the effect (what occurs to us as a result of possessing God). Since God is eternal, it would be said as “uncreated”, and since the effect is temporal, it would be said to be “created”.

Beyond that I don’t know, since as I said it doesn’t fit anything I’ve been taught beyond the distinction between the recipient and the gift received. It’s possible that it comes from Jesuit thinking, which I understand is actually rather different from mainline Latin theology in this topic, but I don’t know enough about Jesuit schools of thought to answer on that.

Peace and God bless!