Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?

[Roguish]

“To be desired” and “should work towards” are pleasant phrases anyone can assent to. In actual practice though, no meaningful efforts are being made. Example: ever seen RC’ics come to an Orthodox Church to “see what it’s like”? You probably have. Ever seen the reverse? I haven’t. Then again, we haven’t met. Perhaps you visit RC parishes when you’re in the mood for it, but I think that would make you a rare loner among the Orthodox. And you know, I understand, because what concrete benefits (as opposed to the lofty idea of reunion) do the Orthodox stand to gain from reunion? I’d say nothing.

 

[dochawk]

I’ve never met a single Eastern Orthodox Christian who took the slightest interest in the idea of Communion with the RCC.

uhm, wow.

Just, wow.

I’ve encountered “proof by insufficient imagination” before, but I think this is closer to “proof by insufficient experience” . . .

 

[Isaac14]

Geez.

My own priest has visited a Catholic Church for a stations of the cross service. Other fellow parishioners have also visited Catholic parishes.

I suppose it is a lofty platitude to try and live in the spirit “that they all may be one”.

 

[dochawk]

I’m not replying to any particular post here . . . but if we are separate over the intricacies of theology in this thread, we’re going to have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do about it.

No, I’m not disputing the importance of understanding, but these are a wee bit more intricate than Arianism, and well beyond the comprehension of most believers. Division over these issues is downright shameful . . .

 

[Roguish]

I like to call it “proof by preposterity” myself.

Anyway, the willingness to discuss it forever (especially when RC’ics bring it up for discussion) does not constitute or reflect a desire in an actual (as opposed to merely considered) reunion.

Question: what concessions would the EO be willing to make in practice to bring about reunion? I venture an answer: none. The EO might tolerate a reunion if it was 100% free of “cost” to them, and even then most would rather not have it at all. For what’s the point of a reunion if it doesn’t change a single thing? Better to remain formally separate so that the EO’s distinct identity is accurately reflected by the Church’s (divided) organization. (And that’s not sarcasm.)

 

[Roguish]

Okay, fair enough, so there are Orthodox who visit RC Churches, and I didn’t know about that. Granted your point. But see, occasionally muslims and hindus will also do that. It’s a gesture of friendliness, kindness, tolerance, a willingness to get along—perhaps even of appreciation of some of the other religion’s practices and theology. That’s all fine, but it doesn’t constitute a actual desire to reunite.

 

[dochawk]

I like to call it “proof by preposterity” myself.

Yes, your claim of disinterest is preposterous.

Question: what concessions would the EO be willing to make in practice to bring about reunion?

Asking about this in a single direction is another preposterous . . . without asking about western concessions in the same sentence has no point other than a request for surrender.

Discussing this from a “Rome is right and Orthodoxy is wrong” perspective is a waste of bits . . .

 

[Roguish]

Discussing this from a “Rome is right and Orthodoxy is wrong” perspective is a waste of bits

But I never said Rome was right, dochawk. In fact, I wrote that I understand that the Orthodox won’t actually reunite, because they stand nothing to gain from it. You assume incorrectly that I’m castigating the Orthodox for not being willing to reunite, while actually my point is the opposite: I see no reason why the Orthodox should be willing to reunite. (And neither do they [i.e. you] seem to see such a reason.)

 

[dochawk]

You assume incorrectly that I’m castigating the Orthodox for not being willing to reunite,

No, I don’t.

I think that asking the question about a single direction shows bias and/or misunderstanding.

(And neither do they [i.e. you] seem to see such a reason.)

Me?

I’m part of one of the Orthodox churches that is in union with Rome, and has been for hundreds of years . . . our only counterpart out of communion is a 20th century schism from our american diaspora . . .

 

[Roguish]

I think that asking the question about a single direction shows bias and/or misunderstanding.

Of course concessions are a give-and-take thing, but I was simply making the point that for the Orthodox, there’s nothing to be gained from such give-and-take. There’s nothing for the Orthodox to “take” in the case of a reunion, and therefore it makes no sense to “give” either, regardless of any concessions Rome might make. Why would the Orthodox concede anything if (understandably) they don’t feel that they need anything from the RCC?

I’m part of one of the Orthodox churches that is in union with Rome

Noted. But then you’re not a representative of Orthodoxy at large, which, I have argued, is not (and logically speaking should not be) interested in a reunion.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

God’s Energies are not separated from His Essence…

Just as human actions proceed from the heart of man, so also do God’s actions regarding His creation come forth from His Essence…

And just as a man’s actions are not his essence…
Neither are God’s actions His Essence qua God…

However we can come into contact with a man’s essence when we come in to contact with him. So too with God when we commune with him in the beatific vision.

And is utterly unknowable to man…

We believe His essence is knowable, just not fully comprehensible to man because of man’s finititude.

So if you think that by man partaking of the Divine Nature is the same as his partaking of the Divine Essence

Though there is a philosophical distinction between essence and nature (although very closely related terms), in God essence and nature are one and the same because he is absolutely simple and has no composition in Him.

Thus we truly encounter Gods essence when we partake of the divine nature. Truly this we see God as he is.

The Palamite understanding is that God is absolutely in His Essence OTHER than His creation (Kosmos)

The Catholic Church teaches likewise

… So that the Image of God in which God created man is not the Essence of God in Which He created him, nor the Likeness, from which Adam fell by turning away from God…

This is a very controversial because we believe that though God is different and beyond anything in creation, but us being made in his image means we reflect his attributes (God is simple and properly has no attributes as He is His attributes thus reflecting his attributes like love, goodness etc actually means reflecting him as he is), but in a manifestly pale way (as we are finite and additionally sinful) but thus truly reflect him as he is essentially and thus are truly in his image and likeness.

So that perhaps we have uncovered a basic teaching that is contradicted by the teachings of the two Churches

Actually at the council of Florence the Dominicans actually wanted to bring up Palamism and condemn Gregory Palamas for his teachings but the pope forbade the discussion and so did the Byzantine emperor on the eastern part. So there was already tension.

 

[Wandile]

Interestingly, the famous conversation between Eric Mascall and Vladimir Lossky was fictionalized in Mascall’s book Via Media. Eric Mascall briefly compares the Thomist understanding of grace with the Palamite understanding. “For the Thomist,” Mascall writes, “grace means a communication of the Creator to the creature in the created mode under which alone a creature can receive anything; for the Palamite, it means a communication of the uncreated energy of God, though not of his incommunicable essence.” Mascall then offers a conversation between a Thomist and a Palamite based on a conversation between Lossky and Mascall hiimself:

Palamite: “You make no distinction between the essence of God and his energy and you say that God gives himself to the creature in a finite mode. On your showing, this must mean that the divine essence is given in a finite mode, and this is plainly impossible. Either what is given is finite, in which case it cannot be God, or what is given is God, in which case it cannot be given finitely. In the former case there is no real deification of man; in the latter case man ceases to be a creature. Neither alternative is admissible, so your theory must be false.”

Thomist: “The whole matter is, of course, a profound mystery, but you have not been fair to my thought. I did not mean that God-in-a-finite-mode was given to the creature, but that God was received by the creature in a finite mode. The finitude is in the mode of participation, not in the object participated. And here is a dilemma for you, in return for that on which you tried to impale me. You say that the creature participates in the divine energy, though not in the divine essence. Now listen. Either the energy and the essence are identical, or else in participating in the energy the creature does not really participate in God. In the former case your own theory is false, in the latter it fails to provide for a real deification of man.”

Palamite: “No, now it is you who are being unfair to me. The energy is divine, and therefore in participating in the divine energy the creature participates in God. God is present, really present, in his energy as much as in his essence. The only difference is that the energy is communicable and the essence is not. Thus God is really communicated in his energy, though he remains incommunicable in his essence.”

Thomist: “Really, this is intolerable. God and his essence cannot be separated. If the energy communicates God it communicates his essence. And then you need my theory to explain how the creature can participate in God without losing its creatureliness.”

 

[George720]

Well, at least the issues are getting crisped up somewhat! I was unaware of this imaginary conversation between Lossky and Mascall in a debate format… No abandoning any pretense of “fair” I should immediately point out, as the rotten dog that I am, that it is meet and right that this was penned by a Thomist, and not by anyone even remotely in agreement with Vladimir Lossky, and this for the very good, if totally unfair, reason that for us, debating theology is itself a hoot and a holler down the road to anathema… Lossky, you see, is center of the road mainline Orthodox Dogmatic Theology 101… It is not up for debate, and the idea of opening a debate on this matter is wrong on its face, because the persuasion needed is not the persuasion derived from debating ideas about God, but instead is that of the intervention of the Holy Spirit in Power… And if that does not happen, then there will be no worthwhile persuasion because it leaves Dogma open to fallen human proofs, and the problem with them is that such proof is always open to counter-proof with better argumentation of facts…

Dogmatic Theology is not open to fallen human intellectual proof, but instead is, by God’s Revelation, is Informed, Transformed, and Illumined…

Besides, we were not created in the Essence of God, but in His Image and Likeness…

And the Aristotelian-Thomistic formulaic of the term Essence is “to ti estan Sinai”… Literally, “The what it was being to be” which seeks to bridge the gap between being and becoming… The Early Church understanding of “ousia” is “wealth”, which does not translate to Aristotle, but hypostasis does…

So where do I find this tome of Palamite-Thomist theological debate?

geo

 

[George720]

However we can come into contact with a man’s essence when we come in to contact with him.

In this life, the human hypostasis (sub-stance) is ineffable…

So too with God
when we commune with Him
in the Beatific Vision.

Well, John said “God IS Love…”
So I assume you think he was writing of the Divine Essence of God…
And that this Divine Love is God’s Essence…
And that it is communicated to us from Him in Beautific Vision…

Have you had such a Beatific Vision?
Paul reported his in Scripture…
And he rejoiced in his infirmities…

Look - The Love that God IS, that Love is an Energy that created and is creating the Cosmos - All things visible and invisible… Palamas does not regard it as God’s Essence, but as His Energy… But either way you choose to talk about it, it is really hard to say credibly that it is COMMUNICATED to man, for if it were, man could do the same - At least in some degree, after receiving it - eg Creating existence out of non-existence by an act of will…

And I think you will agree that such an idea is a non-starter…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

However we can come into contact with a man’s essence when we come in to contact with him.

In this life, the human hypostasis (sub-stance) is ineffable…

Hypostasis in the Christian context must be distinguished from essence/substance as they are not synonymous.

Ineffable just means incapable of being expressed or described in words not that something is unapproachable.

So too with God
when we commune with Him
in the Beatific Vision.

The “beatific vision” means the eternal and direct visual perception of God. It means seeing God face to face. That will be experienced only in heaven.

Look - The Love that God IS, that Love is an Energy that created and is creating the Cosmos - All things visible and invisible

This is where we disagree because Palamism seems to be disregarding divine simplicity which is a dogma of the Christian Faith. It’s taught in scripture and in the fathers.

If the energies are really distinct from the essence and not just a conceptual formulation for theologians to speak of God then we have slipped into erroneous theology.

God’s Love is what he is. That’s an essential statement as essence is the “is-ness of a thing”. His essence. God is his attributes. Thus properly speaking God has no attributes because if he is all his attributes (love, mercy, justice, power, virtue etc) and they all are him, the different attributes are really just one and the same reality… God. The attributes only appear numerous as we the creature are seeing the one reality (God) from different perspectives. Not because they actually exist. Thus God is not composed of different attributes or energies as that would mean they are distinct from each other and God would have composition, and not be simple.

St Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity (Ad Hermiam) , book V; SC 237 (de Durand, ed.), p. 290; PG 75, 945 C. :

Hermias : “And how, they say, is the divine simple if, in existence on the one hand and in will on the other, it is conceived of separately? For then it would be composite and as though it existed, in a way, out of parts that had come together into a closer unity.“

Cyril : “Therefore, since, in your view, the divine is simple and exists above all composition (and this view of yours is correct), his will is nothing other than he himself. And if someone says “will,” he indicates the nature of God the Father.”

CONTINUED

 

[Wandile]

CONTINUED

**St. Cyril, Dialogues on the Trinity , book VII; SC 246 (de Durand, ed.), pp. 200-202; PG 75, 1109 B-C

Cyril : “ For if one is not too poorly endowed with the decency which befits wise men, **one will say that the divine being is properly and primarily simple and incomposite; one will not, dear friend, venture to think that it is composed out of nature and energy, as though, in the case of the divine, these are naturally other; one will believe that it exists as entirely one thing with all that it substantially possesses

… Palamas does not regard it as God’s Essence, but as His Energy… But either way you choose to talk about it, it is really hard to say credibly that it is COMMUNICATED to man, for if it were, man could do the same - At least in some degree, after receiving it - eg Creating existence out of non-existence by an act of will…

I don’t believe it not credible at all. In fact it’s very credible as men do in some degree do as God does. God loves so we love, has intellect so do we, has mercy so do we etc. we do as God does in pale ways. Thus even the creative aspect is true but we cannot do it ex nihilo but only create from already existing matter as to do it identically as God does would require us to participate in His essence infinitely which no creature does.

 

[Vico]

…
So where do I find this tome of Palamite-Thomist theological debate?

geo

Interesting discussion. http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2012_3_3_Russell.pdf

Particularly note about Bruce Marshall’s thought

“Stronger on Aquinas than on Palamas (Marshall was writing as a Lutheran who was later to become a Roman Catholic), he presents a very helpful explanation of ‘created grace’, rejecting the simile of mortar that unites two bricks while keeping them apart, and bringing forward the simile of the impression made in wax by a signet ring. The wax is changed by the ring in order to enable it to make contact with it.”

The two modern poles of thought on distinction of energies and essence are represented by Catholic Fr. Martin Jugie (1878-1954) and Eastern Orthodox Fr. John Meyendorff (1926-1992).

 

[George720]

“Stronger on Aquinas than on Palamas (Marshall was writing as a Lutheran who was later to become a Roman Catholic), he presents a very helpful explanation of ‘created grace’, rejecting the simile of mortar that unites two bricks while keeping them apart, and bringing forward the simile of the impression made in wax by a signet ring. The wax is changed by the ring in order to enable it to make contact with it.”

I like the ring in the wax idea myself, for it captures the image, but not the essence, of the Ring… And we ARE, after all, created by God in His Image, and not in His Essence, yes?

Written by a Lutheran, no less?

Lets y’all off the hook!

Dern!

Thought I had you!

Now it’s just another in a very long line of my theories wrecked on the rocks of reality!

Glory to God…

I thought it was written by a Roman Catholic…

Oh well… Back under my rock!

geo

 

[HesyCath]

When you understand both correctly, the Essence-Energies Distinction and Uncreated Grace are perfectly compatible with post-schism Latin dogmatic declarations.

 

[HesyCath]

Unfortunately you seem to have a baseline level understanding of Palamism. Palamism (and the Neo-Palamite synods) do not state that essence and energy are two different “parts” or “components” of God, but rather that the essence and energies of God subsist in a way similar to the two natures of Christ. This is why the Essence-Energies distinction is compatible with Divine Simplicity. St. Gregory Palamas expounds this idea in his Dispute with Barlaam, which is a foundational text for Palamists.

You are correct to state that hypostasis is distinct from essence.

Even Aquinas admits that when we say that “God is love”, we are not predicating about the Divine Essence directly, but that we are giving him this categorization by way of analogy. Eastern dogmatic theology expresses the attributes of God differently. It is important for us to understand that it is impossible to predicate directly about the essence of God in both Thomist and Palamist systems.