catholic03
Well-known member
I look forward to the day, which will hopefully occur in my lifetime, when an image of the Holy Father can be found in the vestibule of the magnificent Greek Orthodox Cathedral in my city.
Last edited:
Is there a real chance of communion between the Catholic Church and the orthodox?
- Status
V
Vico
Guest
As long as there is a real distinction between essence and energies then it should not lead to the adoption of pantheism. Pantheism was condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869 -1870).
W
Wandile
Guest
As long as a real distinction is made between God’s essence and attributes rather than a nominal one, that is a violation of divine simplicity. A real distinction logically means there really is composition in God.
In the 150 Chapters, for example, St. Gregory Palamas refers to God’s Essence and God’s Activities as two of three distinct realities in God: Essence, Hypostasis, and Activity. At one point he struggles to explain why this doesn’t render God composite, and says in his defense something like: “St. Basil didn’t think it did, so there” but more dignified-sounding
Interestingly the West’s first real contacts with Palamism are documented. the pontifical legate, Paul of Smyrna, in the year 1355 attending, in company with John V Palaiologos, the public debate between Nikephoros Gregoras and Gregory Palamas. After the dispute between the two protagonists, he was still very much in the dark about it. After his conversations with Kantakouzenos, who had, at one point, conceded that between God’s essence and his attributes there is only a distinction of reason, κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν. But he was soon disappointed when he read the account of these discussions, written by Kantakouzenos himself. In speaking about a distinction, the emperor, like the Palamite theologians, merely intended to say that the essence and the attributes can be separated only mentally and not in reality. The real distinction, had been denied, and only the διαίρεσις κατ’ ἐπίνοιαν [notional division] was admitted; but in fact a real difference, διαφορὰ πραγματική, was maintained. Kantakouzenos went on to say: ἄλλο ἡ οὐσία, ἄλλο ἡ ἐνέργεια, ἄλλο τὸ ἔχον, ἄλλο τὸ ἐχόμενον [the essence is one thing, the energy is another; that which has is one thing, that which is had is another] :
“Then he wrote about the light which appeared upon Mt. Tabor, asserting that it was uncreated and [yet] was not God’s essence, but some sort of divine operation, which is a thing one cannot endure to hear: for nothing is uncreated apart from the divine essence.”
Yes but he does also state that when we say God is Love (or any other attribute) it is describing something real in God.
Last edited:
H
HesyCath
Guest
Obviously it doesn’t lead to pantheism. Do you think Orthodox and Eastern Catholics are pantheist?
H
HesyCath
Guest
Unfortunately, your understanding of the Essence-Energies distinction is limited by the Aristotelian understanding of “composition” which you show in your response.
According to your way of thinking about composition withing the Godhead, the Trinity should be in violation of Divine Simplicity, since it is a real distinction within the Godhead. This shows that it is possible to make real distinctions in the Godhead without compromising Divine Simplicity.
Again, you have not engaged my point about the essence and energies susbisting in one another.
According to your way of thinking about composition withing the Godhead, the Trinity should be in violation of Divine Simplicity, since it is a real distinction within the Godhead. This shows that it is possible to make real distinctions in the Godhead without compromising Divine Simplicity.
Again, you have not engaged my point about the essence and energies susbisting in one another.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
It’s possible with what Patriarch Bartholomew has said. Unfortunately, l feel that communion may be only political and not theological.
ZP
ZP
V
Vico
Guest
I show below what I am referring to. Maintaining no distinction leads to pantheism, therefore Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky explains this:
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 73–74:
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
Then please enlighten me on how there can be a real distinction between the essence and energy and there not being composition in God?
St Thomas answers this very easily and it’s quite a straight forward answer. The Persons of the Trinity are distinguished from each other by their relationships with each other, not in their substance. The idea of divine simplicity applies to God as God, prior to all considerations of the Trinity. Each of the Divine Persons is, in Himself, entirely this one, simple, indivisible God. Each Person of the Trinity is in full possession of the One Divine Nature. The persons do not share the one divine nature, it is not divided, it is always one and thus remains simple.
The subsistence of the essence and energies in God as analogous to the two natures of Christ only further proves composition. It is a dogma of the faith that Our Lord and saviour is composed of two natures that are distinct in that they are embodied in the one person of Christ but do not mix. I understand your point in that they are united but they are still very must distinct and not the other according to palamism and your analogy of the hypostatic Union.
Last edited:
H
HesyCath
Guest
Again, essence and energies of God are not substances in God. Just like the persons of the Trinity, they are not different substances within God. Instead of being distinct in their relationship to each other (in the case of the 3 Divine persons), the essence and energies of God are distinct in their relationship to the created world.
Stating that Palamists believe that the essence and energies of God are different substances is a classic misunderstanding of Palamism.
H
HesyCath
Guest
Then we are in total agreement. The Lossky book is amazing by the way. He is (in my humble opinion) the best Eastern theologian of the 20th century.
W
Wandile
Guest
But how are are they distinct from each other in God that does not violate simplicity. If there is a real distinction, that means there are two. That means logically, there is composition. I appreciate your answers but you haven’t really addressed this concern.Wandile:
Again, essence and energies of God are not substances in God. Just like the persons of the Trinity, they are not different substances within God. Instead of being distinct in their relationship to each other (in the case of the 3 Divine persons), the essence and energies of God are distinct in their relationship to the created world.
Stating that Palamists believe that the essence and energies of God are different substances is a classic misunderstanding of Palamism.
G
George720
Guest
I have a hard time even beginning to express how wonderful it is to have Hesy-Cath joining this discussion… Like Wandile, he has spent some quality time alone with the issues, and is sharing wonderful Palamite insights…
Thank-you Hesy-Cath!
geo
Thank-you Hesy-Cath!
geo
G
George720
Guest
You can ask the same question of the Holy Trinity - And there you will find that the Three Substances are all three Hypo-Stases - eg literal Sub-Stances - And THAT is the Mystery of Personhood… It stands BENEATH Ousia… Ousia is the Wealth that has the Standing of the Person UNDER it…
Essence/Energy simply differentiate God in relation to Himself vs God in relation to His Creation, as Hesy-Cath has already pointed out… I had to chuckle at your conclusion that this PROVES that there is composition - In my notzo venerable atheist years (36 of them), I could prove logically that God could not be omniscient and omnipotent, that free will and foreknowledge could co-inhere, and on and on… One encounter with God and all this disappeared, of course, so I went to God and proved to Him He does not exist… Turns out that He is the Giver of, and is not subject to, existence… Orthodoxy calls Him Pre-Existent, or Supra-Existent - The Giver of existence, and the Taker-away of existence… hO ON is the Greek descriptive but not definer of this understanding… Welcome, my Friend, to Eastern Orthodox Apophatic Theology!!
geo the notzo
Last edited:
H
HesyCath
Guest
They are distinct in relationship and not essence, and like the Trinity, it doesn’t violate simplicity
There is a real distinction in relationship in the Trinity, just as with the essence and energies of God. Having three real persons does not create three gods.This shows that having distinctions in God does not compromise God’s simplicity.
Here St. Basil the Great shows how we know God through his energies, and not his essence:
Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.
(St. Basil the Great, Letter 234)
When he uses the word “operations” that is the Greek word “energeia”, from which the name of the so-called “energies of God” arise.
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
There is one substance in God. Not three.Wandile:
You can ask the same question of the Holy Trinity - And there you will find that the Three Substances are all three Hypo-Stases - eg literal Sub-Stances - And THAT is the Mystery of Personhood… It stands BENEATH Ousia… Ousia is the Wealth that has the Standing of the Person UNDER it…
W
Wandile
Guest
Yes but the three persons all contain the one divine essence fully thus not destroying divine simplicity.Wandile:
They are distinct in relationship and not essence, and like the Trinity, it doesn’t violate simplicity
There is a real distinction in relationship in the Trinity, just as with the essence and energies of God. Having three real persons does not create three gods.This shows that having distinctions in God does not compromise God’s simplicity.
The divine energies are not the divine essence and a separated from the essence in that they do not contain the divine essence. This is the difference and why it means there must be composition. This separation of energy from essence was necessary for Palamas to avoid a creature becoming God. However in emphasising such a real distinction, it created composition in God as it means God exists in :
- His essence and
- His energies/attributes/operations (which is problematic also because God can’t exist outside of His essence otherwise that isn’t God that you’re encountering but something else)
FYI this concern is not only a Latin concern but a concern shared by the Oriental orthodox who, like the Latins, only recognise a nominal distinction and not a real one despite using the same fathers that the Eastern Orthodox quote. As I showed above even St Cyril took issue with making a real distinction in God between essence and energies (as I quoted him above) when he said in 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
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
God is Three Hypostases…
Hypo-stasis is literally Sub-stance…
Three Hypostases are One God…
You are going to have to deal with Hypostasis as Person as Substance…
So that Three Substances/Persons/Hypostases have One Essence
Because that is the Patristic witness…
geo
Last edited:
G
George720
Guest
You don’t happen to have the Greek text for this, do you?
I was enquiring for the penultimate English term “substantially”…
Speaking of Divine Being he is affirming indivisible simplicity…
Nature and energy are not attributes of this Being…
The operations of this divine Being are multiple…
And they are God as are human actions human…
geo
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
In the Christian context, Hypostatis was quickly removed from substance and grew to strictly mean person by the 4th the 5th century. Hence the creed emphasises the one substance of the Trinity when we say “consubstantial with the Father”Wandile:
God is Three Hypostases…
Hypo-stasis is literally Sub-stance…
Three Hypostases are One God…
You are going to have to deal with Hypostasis as Person as Substance…
So that Three Substances/Persons/Hypostases have One Essence
Because that is the Patristic witness…
geo
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
Yes I do have the Greek. Here is the full passage including the quotation :slight_smile :Wandile:
You don’t happen to have the Greek text for this, do you?
I was enquiring for the penultimate English term “substantially”…
Α. Πῶς οὖν ἄρα τὸ δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐν ῷ Θεὸς ἐνεργὸς περὶ τὴν κτίσιν καὶ τῶν ὅλων ὁρᾶται δημιουργὸς γενητὸν ἂν εἴη καὶ ἐκτισμένον; Ὥρα γὰρ ἤδη πως ἡμᾶς εἰπεῖν ὡς, εἴπερ ὧδε ἔχειν ἐροῦσι τὸ χρῆμα, κτιστὴν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ οὐχ ἑκόντες ὁμολογήσουσι. Καὶ τί τὸ ἐντεῦθεν; Θεομισὴς δυσφημία, παλίμφημοι δόξαι, καὶ τῆς εἰς ἄκρον ἡκούσης ἀμαθίας ἐγκλήματα. Ἐρεῖ γάρ, οἶμαι, τὶς τῆς ἀνδράσι πρεπούσης σοφοῖς εὐκοσμίας ἠφειδηκὼς ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσύνθετον κυρίως τε καὶ πρώτως τὸ Θεῖον, ὦ τᾶν, οὐκ ἐκ φύσεως καὶ ἐνεργείας ὡς παρ᾽ αὐτὸ φυσικῶς ἑτέρας συντεθεῖσθαι νοούμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕν τι τὸ σύμπαν ὑπάρχειν μεθ᾽ ὧν ἂν οὐσιωδῶς ἔχοι πεπιστευμένον. Οὐκοῦν εἰ λέγοιτο κτιστὴν καὶ πεποιημένην τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν, ἰδίαν οὖσαν αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ αὐτό που πάντως ἔσται κτιστόν, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἕτερόν τι παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐνεργὲς αὐτοῦ. Ἆρ᾽ οὐ στυγητὸς καὶ ἀπεχθὴς ὁ λόγος, καὶ πολὺ διανενευκὼς εἰς τὸ πεποιῆσθαι δυσσεβῶς;
Yes, that’s why I provided the quote.
Nor did anyone in this thread say they are.
Yes. The issue is are these operation a reality in God or merely conceptual? The non-Palamite says the latter.
That works for humans because we are composite. God isn’t composite. We are made of actual attributes. Properly speaking God has no attributes.
The main issue is this:
The east makes a hard distinction between Gods essence and his energies. Not a merely conceptual one. If it’s a hard/real distinction and these attributes are him (which is a whole different problem If the distinction is a real one) then God is composite. “Real distinction” literally means that this division actually exists in God.
Last edited:
- Status