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

[HesyCath]

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)

Here you are equivocating between substance and essence. In the west there has been a tendency to equivocate essence and substance. As I showed before, the distinction between essence and energy in God is a distinction in terms of relationship between God and his creation. Composition always requires separate substances, and Palamists do not believe God to be composed of multiple substances.

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

Nature and essence are not the same term philosophically. Also, his point here is that God exists as one being. His quote is based on the assumption that the essence-energies distinction implies composition, which as I have showed above, it does not.

 

[Elvis_George]

While I think it definitely is possible,communion with the Oriental Orthodox churches have a much bigger chance as,imo, churches like the russian orthodox church or even the Malankara Orthodox church are too connected to politics

 

[ziapueblo]

Unfortunately, it’s all connected to politics to some extent, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.

ZP

 

[George720]

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.

Well, we hold that His Essence is unknowable and incommunicable, and that the Energies/Operations OF that Divine Essence, which created Creation, IS knowable and communicable… “Hard Distinction” is not an Eastern term of differentiation - HesyCath has repeatedly indicated that the matter is relational, in that Essence is God’s relationship with Himself, and that Energies is God’s relationship with creation… eg God in in relation to God and God in relation to Creation are both God…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Here you are equivocating between substance and essence. In the west there has been a tendency to equivocate essence and substance

In God, nature/substance/energy are one and the same because of divine simplicity.

As I showed before, the distinction between essence and energy in God is a distinction in terms of relationship between God and his creation. Composition always requires separate substances, and Palamists do not believe God to be composed of multiple substances.

You keep claiming this but aren’t proving it in any way. The fact is this, if the essence is not the energy, and energy not essence yet both are God (which doesn’t seem possible as God can exist outside of himself/essence)… logically these are two different things and thus two different substances. This is not me or the west being stubborn…This is just the unavoidable logic of what you are saying. This is the logical conclusion of making a real distinction between essence and energy/operation. It’s the very reason why Palamism was so controversial.

Wandile:

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

Nature and essence are not the same term philosophically. Also, his point here is that God exists as one being. His quote is based on the assumption that the essence-energies distinction implies composition, which as I have showed above, it does not.

Philosophically, I’m aware of that but in God (that is, theologically) these are one and the same because of divine simplicity.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

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.

Well, we hold that His Essence is unknowable and incommunicable, and that the Energies/Operations OF that Divine Essence, which created Creation, IS knowable and communicable… “Hard Distinction” is not an Eastern term of differentiation - HesyCath has repeatedly indicated that the matter is relational, in that Essence is God’s relationship with Himself, and that Energies is God’s relationship with creation… eg God in in relation to God and God in relation to Creation are both God…

geo

This appears to me that in the east, essence does not mean what it traditionally and philosophically means. That is; Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Essence may be described as the “what” of a thing.

 

[George720]

This appears to me that in the east, essence does not mean what it traditionally and philosophically means. That is; Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Essence may be described as the “what” of a thing.

The “traditional philosophical meaning” that you describe is western, not eastern, and it is a source of endless confusion and misunderstanding… OUSIA, for instance, is commonly used to describe a persons wealth, their “net worth” as it were… Job, for instance, lost his OUSIA when God permitted Satan to tempt him - He lost everything that he had that was worthwhile in a worldly sense, beginning with his livestock, his crops, his servants, his children, his wife, and his own bodily well-being, and shorn of his entire ousia, he still had his life, his psych, for it is death that is our enemy, because Satan attacked Adam to take his life, and he succeeded, as God had foretold to Adam…

And OUSIA, you see, is then the wealth of a life…

Yet it has two meanings, and the other one means something closer to Aristotle, and means the being, substance, or essence of a thing… Yet substance, you see, means person, and not its (material) composition… And the hypostasis correlates, as person, to the nous, which is an understanding that has been largely lost in the west, except perhaps for some of her mystics, who have direct encounters with God, and know by experience how it is that, in a purified heart, thinking ceases during that encounter, and the person enters into absolute stillness of body and soul, and God fills that person with Himself, but not with His Essence, which Essence is not concerned directly in Creation, but only with respect to God’s knowledge of Himself…

Dig out your Lidell and Scott and look up OUSIA…

Aristotle understood essence as the formulaic: - to ti estan einai - The what it was being to be… A principle of movement and change in terms of dynamic stasis…

Ever run across Joseph Owens from the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies?

geo

 

[Elvis_George]

These 2 churches in paticular tho…like much more than Catholic,Protestant,or the other Orthodox churches

 

[HesyCath]

Philosophically, I’m aware of that but in God (that is, theologically) these are one and the same because of divine simplicity.

Unfortunately, your argument that all terminological distinctions within God are “one and the same” is simply erroneous. Is there a difference between hypostasis and ousia? You tell me.

You keep claiming this but aren’t proving it in any way.

I am showing that your claim that Palamism entails composition within God is incorrect. I am using the relationship of the Persons within the Godhead analagously to prove my point.

The fact is this, if the essence is not the energy, and energy not essence yet both are God (which doesn’t seem possible as God can exist outside of himself/essence)… logically these are two different things and thus two different substances.

Is the Father the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit? If you follow this logical process which denies relational distinctions within God, you will fall into Sabellianism. I guess that Sabellianism is "just unavoidable logic.

My question to you is: how can the philosophy which you espouse above account for the existence of three persons in the Trinity. In the East we are philosophically consistent and allow other relational distinctions within the Godhead as well. Why do you allow the relational distinction of persons but not that of Essence and Energies.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

This appears to me that in the east, essence does not mean what it traditionally and philosophically means. That is; Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Essence may be described as the “what” of a thing.

The “traditional philosophical meaning” that you describe is western, not eastern, and it is a source of endless confusion and misunderstanding… OUSIA, for instance, is commonly used to describe a persons wealth, their “net worth” as it were… Job, for instance, lost his OUSIA when God permitted Satan to tempt him - He lost everything that he had that was worthwhile in a worldly sense, beginning with his livestock, his crops, his servants, his children, his wife, and his own bodily well-being, and shorn of his entire ousia, he still had his life, his psych, for it is death that is our enemy, because Satan attacked Adam to take his life, and he succeeded, as God had foretold to Adam…

And OUSIA, you see, is then the wealth of a life…

Yet it has two meanings, and the other one means something closer to Aristotle, and means the being, substance, or essence of a thing… Yet substance, you see, means person, and not its (material) composition… And the hypostasis correlates, as person, to the nous, which is an understanding that has been largely lost in the west, except perhaps for some of her mystics, who have direct encounters with God, and know by experience how it is that, in a purified heart, thinking ceases during that encounter, and the person enters into absolute stillness of body and soul, and God fills that person with Himself, but not with His Essence, which Essence is not concerned directly in Creation, but only with respect to God’s knowledge of Himself…

Dig out your Lidell and Scott and look up OUSIA…

Aristotle understood essence as the formulaic: - to ti estan einai - The what it was being to be… A principle of movement and change in terms of dynamic stasis…

Ever run across Joseph Owens from the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies?

geo

The thing that also brings confusion is the way words have changed meaning in the east. Hypostasis used to be synonymous with Ousia until about the 4th-5th century but later hypostasis came to be “individual reality” or person distinguishing itself from Ousia/essence or substantial being.

In fact the decrees of Nicaea were a bit controversial for a time as in the West hypostasis still was held traditionally as a synonym of Ousia and thus it sounded weird to the west when the council decreed three Hypostases.

Another example of this is Greek verb in the creed ἐκπορευόμενον (Ekupromenon) vs proenai (general procession in Greek) and procedit (Latin) which in the past used to be synonymous but later, mainly due to the cappadocians, Ekupromenon came to mean ultimate origin which differed from proenai and procedit.

 

[Wandile]

Unfortunately, your argument that all terminological distinctions within God are “one and the same” is simply erroneous. Is there a difference between hypostasis and ousia? You tell me.

You mischaracterise what I’m saying. Not all, just those of essence, nature an substance…
It’s not erroneous at all, God is completely simple and thus there are no distinctions in him thus his nature is the same as his essence

That’s why the nicene creed has had various legitimate translations of “consubstantial with the father, one in nature with the father, one in being with the father”

Ousia and Hypostasis refer to different things. One to essence or that which makes a thing that it is and the other refers to personage or individual reality. In early Christian writings, hypostasis is used to denote “being” or “substantive reality” and was not always distinguished in meaning from Ousia (‘essence’ or ‘substance’). It was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325.

It was mainly under the influence of the cappadocian fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula “three hypostases in one ousia” came to be accepted as an epitome of orthodox faith. Specifically, St Basil of Caesarea argues that the two terms are not synonymous and that they, therefore, are not to be used indiscriminately in referring to the godhead. He writes:

“ The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.”

I am showing that your claim that Palamism entails composition within God is incorrect. I am using the relationship of the Persons within the Godhead analagously to prove my point.

I’m sorry but that analogy doesn’t prove much at all as the three persons, unlike the energies which are really distinct from the the essence, contain fully the one simple divine nature. This difference is so important as to render the whole analogy incorrect.

CONTINUED

 

[Wandile]

CONTINUED

Is the Father the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit?

No because of their relations (filiation and spiration). They have the same substance which is the one simple essence of God.

If you follow this logical process which denies relational distinctions within God, you will fall into Sabellianism. I guess that Sabellianism is "just unavoidable logic.

It doesn’t deny relational distinction. There is a big difference between the essence energies distinction and the relations of the person of the Godhead.

In the former; essence is not posessed by both which is why their distinction is not only relational but substantial. in the latter all three have the one same essence which is why their distinction is only relational and not substantial. They really could not be more different.

My question to you is: how can the philosophy which you espouse above account for the existence of three persons in the Trinity.

I’ve explained above. It’s basic Thomism and classical theism.

In the East we are philosophically consistent and allow other relational distinctions within the Godhead as well. Why do you allow the relational distinction of persons but not that of Essence and Energies.

The essence energies distinction (as a real distinction) appears to be anything but philosophically consistent which is why wherever it has been taught, it’s been extremely controversial and confronted with charges of polytheism and pantheism (both in the east and the west). Its very controversial nature was the reason the emperor forbade the eastern delegates, at the council of Florence, from speaking about it.

In fact it nearly flared up at this council during the discussion of Mark of Ephesus with John of Montennero, when John noticed something logically inconsistent and troublesome that Mark said about the Holy Spirit and grace because Mark was speaking from the framework of Palamism.

One of the main reasons for Metropolitan Basilios Bessarion’s (the bishop of Nicaea) conversion to Catholicism after Florence was his reading of St Thomas Aquinas and his teachings on grace vs Palmamism and concluded that St Thomas was right. He said (I paraphrase) “if we (the Greeks) have erred on this point, what else might we have been wrong about”.
FYI Bessarion was an anti-unionist prior to the council.

 

[Isearch]

To be fair, the Thomists have long explained that the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Divine Simplicity do not contradict because of the oppositions of relations.

In this notion, one relation cannot exist alone. An analogy from St. Athanasius explaining the Son’s eternal existence might also explain this seemingly weird notion: a light without beginning nor end has both the ray and the origin point existing simultaneously throughout eternity (explaining the Son’s lack of beginning), but the ray still comes from the origin point (explaining Him being begotten from the Father). This analogy can also be utilized to explain Divine Simplicity and the Trinity in this manner: both the origin point and the ray are still that one light. The origin point does not differ at all from its own essence: being light. Nor does the ray differ from its own essence: being that same light. Yet, they differ as origin point and as ray while they are identical to the one essence: that one light existing without beginning nor end.

This then explains the distinction between the Father and the Son in the context of Divine Simplicity.

 

[George720]

The thing that also brings confusion is the way words have changed meaning in the east. Hypostasis used to be synonymous with Ousia until about the 4th-5th century but later hypostasis came to be “individual reality” or person distinguishing itself from Ousia/essence or substantial being.

In fact the decrees of Nicaea were a bit controversial for a time as in the West hypostasis still was held traditionally as a synonym of Ousia and thus it sounded weird to the west when the council decreed three Hypostases.

Until you begin to understand Theology as empirical, you will find no resolution for your issues here… The Mystery of the Person as Hypostasis in the Orthodox Church, you see, is empirical - eg It is descriptive, not definitive… I mean, how on earth are we ever going to define the Holy Trinity, Essence, or Energies…? Such aspirations are but vanity… Yet the foundational nature of the person in the enterprise of the ekonomia of God’s Salvation is an observed fact in the spiritual lives of the Church Fathers… Therefore person is hypostasis, because hypostatic… It is the person who HAS ousia/essence, and not ousia/essence that HAS persons… The latter is Platonic idealism, the former empirical, even when it is spiritually perceived (eidomai) and discerned, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, as Paul put it…

It is the same with ἐκπορευόμενον - In the world, it means proceed - eg “going forth out of”, and we cannot limit the Christian understanding of the usage of this term to its material roots… The term is used by condescension… It is an approximation… It is the best term we have to describe something it cannot define… It is not analogy… It is description - Spiritually empirical description…

geo

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The thing that also brings confusion is the way words have changed meaning in the east. Hypostasis used to be synonymous with Ousia until about the 4th-5th century but later hypostasis came to be “individual reality” or person distinguishing itself from Ousia/essence or substantial being.

In fact the decrees of Nicaea were a bit controversial for a time as in the West hypostasis still was held traditionally as a synonym of Ousia and thus it sounded weird to the west when the council decreed three Hypostases.

Until you begin to understand Theology as empirical, you will find no resolution for your issues here… The Mystery of the Person as Hypostasis in the Orthodox Church, you see, is empirical - eg It is descriptive, not definitive… I mean, how on earth are we ever going to define the Holy Trinity, Essence, or Energies…? Such aspirations are but vanity… Yet the foundational nature of the person in the enterprise of the ekonomia of God’s Salvation is an observed fact in the spiritual lives of the Church Fathers… Therefore person is hypostasis, because hypostatic… It is the person who HAS ousia/essence, and not ousia/essence that HAS persons… The latter is Platonic idealism, the former empirical, even when it is spiritually perceived (eidomai) and discerned, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, as Paul put it…

It is the same with ἐκπορευόμενον - In the world, it means proceed - eg “going forth out of”, and we cannot limit the Christian understanding of the usage of this term to its material roots… The term is used by condescension… It is an approximation… It is the best term we have to describe something it cannot define… It is not analogy… It is description - Spiritually empirical description…

geo

Actually we can because in reference to the disputed matters, it’s within a Christian context with a specific Christian meaning. Ignoring the Christian meaning of those words belies the intentions and meaning of the fathers who defined the doctrines and dogmas which we are discussing.

 

[George720]

The origin point does not differ at all from its own essence: being light. Nor does the ray differ from its own essence: being that same light. Yet, they differ as origin point and as ray while they are identical to the one essence: that one light existing without beginning nor end.

This then explains the distinction between the Father and the Son in the context of Divine Simplicity.

I will definitely give you the optimism award!!

Have you experienced by Divine Encounter the Divine Simplicity to which we all so casually seem to be referring?

You see, that is the quintessential Orthodox question - Empirical Theology depends on its answer, because without that experience, we have no foundation for any assertion we may make, and all our words become but the philosophic speculation of the schools, rather than exercises in empirical descriptives and etiologies revealed by God…

Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for they shall see God…

The epistemological pre-requisite for this kind of knowledge, you see, is not competence and mastery in the definitions of, and manipulation of, conceptual terms - about what others have written about God - Not at all… It is repentance, you see… And God’s Revelation to a heart that is broken and humbled…

So that saying the word “Divine Simplicity” and giving it great applicability in all manner of permutations regarding relations within the Holy Trinity is simply not an Orthodox approach to this matter… But repentance is…

The two phronemas differ greatly, you see…

geo

 

[George720]

Actually we can because in reference to the disputed matters, it’s within a Christian context with a specific Christian meaning. Ignoring the Christian meaning of those words belies the intentions and meaning of the fathers who defined the doctrines and dogmas which we are discussing.

That is the difference between a scholastic and an empirical approach to the issues…

We seek to re-attain what the Church Fathers had attained when they spoke of the doctrines and dogmas of this great Christian Faith… Without it, we will lose what we think we have…

We cannot limit Christian understanding to material definitions of descriptive terms…

I had a friend online who would taunt me with calling God and man both an hypostasis… Hypostasis has a perfectly good English gloss - eg Basis - with others that will do equally well… And his taunt was that you cannot use the two terms interchangeably in sentences… And he was right… Person, in Christian usage, is one kind of hypostasis, and yet it is used in the Greek for the English word “Person”… When the Greek term for person means mask - from the enacting of Ancient Greek dramas and their characters who wore masks…

So the question becomes: Why? And the answer is the transformation of the mask of the person into the authenticity and sincerity of the person… Which is only attained in repentance and poverty of spirit… And with that comes the Kingdom of Heaven…

Limiting Christian understanding of words to their materiality of origin is an arrow sent by an enemy of Christ… Christian words are spiritually discerned, not materially defined and then analogized…

geo

 

[Michael16]

I’ve greatly enjoyed reading this thread. I’ve always had an interest in Eastern theology.

Personally, I’m wondering if the restoration of communion between both lungs of the Church would require a sensus fidei on both sides.

In other words, I’m thinking both sides’ laity and clergy would have to form the mind of the Church toward restoring communion. Otherwise, I’m thinking restoration would only be imposed top down upon a reluctant laity and diocesan clergy.

From what I gather, the basic problem from the EO perspective is on three major points:

1: Papal supremacy vs primacy.

In my reading, I’ve discovered that the Eastern churches regard the Pope as first in honor but not final in authority. That basically, the Holy Father is the Patriarch of the Latins and first among the patriarchs and bishops without the final juridical authority to impose rulings on the other patriarchs and bishops.

What I’m confused on is why the East interpreted Scripture to mean this. In my mind, Jesus gave Saint Peter, and through Saint Peter to his successors; the authority as Head of the Church. To me, Scripture clearly spells out what the Latin Church understands about the papal office.

2: The Filioque Clause.

From my reading in Catholic Answers’ 20 Answers: Eastern Catholicism; the Filioque Clause came about as a local council’s reaction to Christological heresy. That the Clause was accepted by later councils, the Cappodocian Fathers and defended by Saint Maximian the Confessor. The first major problem came about in the Photius Schism.

In my own mind, I can see that the Father is the source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. When we say the Filioque, I can see no conflict between Orthodox and Catholic theology. Father begets Son, and through the Son; the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

Thus preserving the divine monarchy.

It reminds me of the simplicity of the Plotinian emanation of To Hen to Nous to Psuche. A natural and linear progression and flow.

3: Essence-Energy distinction. Personally, and I mean no offense to our Eastern brothers and sisters; the distinction reminds me of Luther’s justification-sanctification distinction. It seems to separate God into What He is and What He does.

On the other hand, I see parallels between Eastern synergeia and Catholic theology on cooperating with grace in sanctification. Both systems agree that God and man form a symbiosis that affect man’s theosis.

The other thing in my personal experience is that we can only know God through what He says and does. God simply is.

 

[Michael16]

Another point I wish to make regarding the Essence-Energy issue is how can God’s Essence be divorced from His Energies?

To my mind, it’s like saying a man’s heart is separate from his hand. A man conceives an action in his heart and then his hand does the action.

It’s a natural progression and flow.

One thing I can agree with the Hesychasts is that when we quiet our nous and train it into proper focus with the Jesus Prayer, we open ourselves to directly experience God.

That’s the beauty and value I understand in the hesychastic tradition.

A fourth point of contention from the EO perspective I see:

4: Bad history with the Latins. I had a friend once tell me the soil of Greece would never suffer a Catholic priest to be buried in it. If I remember the account correctly.

From what I understand, there’s bad blood between Catholics and EOs at the grass roots level. No matter what the hierarchies on both sides say to each other.

Yeah, I understand we did a terrible thing with the Sack of Constantinople and the imposition of 50? years of the Latin Empire.

I’m not sure what the rest of the issue is and it certainly didn’t help that the Turks wouldn’t let the EOs restore communion even if they wanted to. Too much potential for revolt.

Here’s my take on the Trinitarian debate of hypostasis:

I studied Platonism and Plotinus. I learned the concept of the three hypostases of To Hen, Nous and Psuche.

Hypostasis, if I remember my Greek correctly; means sub stand.

When I was received into the Church, when I looked at the Three Persons, One Nature of the Holy Trinity, I immediately understood. Three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; has the same hypostasis. The same underlying sub stand. In RCIA classes, I’d even get up to the dry erase board and use Plotinian hypostasis to explain Three Persons, One Nature to the catechumens.

To conclude my contribution to the thread:

I’m thinking the only way restoring communion between Catholic and EO is like how we handle the ECs:

They came into communion with the Holy Father and they’re still self governing churches with their own traditions and they elect their own bishops without needing the Holy Father’s approval.

Maybe that’s all we need to do, if and once the sensus fidei is there, and the bad blood and theology debate is settled.

 

[steve-b]

I mean, is it possible that, having their cultural and liturgical practices respected as Eastern Catholics have, the orthodox accepts Papal authority and everything else and return to communion with the Catholic Church? Is something that we can reasonably hope?

Historically speaking,

After 1000 yrs of schism from the Catholic Church, The Orthodox aren’t even one with each other. Since no ONE speaks for THEM, it’s as Cardinal Kasper said back in 2002,

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.” from The Crisis of Ecumenism, According to Cardinal Kasper - ZENIT - English
That was said in 2002

Fast forward

to 2016. The Orthodox tried to organize a Pan Orthodox meeting , and it failed. The Russians who make up the majority of Orthodox, boycotted the meeting.

So

Discussions continue.