The Essence-Energies Distinction

[PluniaZ]

Background: At a series of councils in the 14th Century, Constantinople adopted the following statements of belief:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“In God there is both essence and essential, natural energy.”

“Even as there is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable.”

“No compounding occurs in a nature from its natural properties.”

These statements are now included in the official Eastern Orthodox statement of faith, the “Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, available here: johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/02/synodicon-of-orthodoxy.html

For historical background on these 14th Century Constantinople councils, read here: bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/

My question is whether the above italicized statements are justifiable based on (1) Scripture, (2) Tradition and (3) the binding teaching of the Magisterium. From what I have read, these statements simply cannot be found in any writing prior to the 14th Century, nor can any similar statements be found. In particular, no Church Father speaks of:

(1) a type of procession in God other than the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit;

(2) an “unconfused union” of essence and energy in God;

(3) an “undivided distinction” between essence and energy in God;

(4) an eternal “cause and effect” (other than in the sense of the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit); and

(5) an eternal essence that “suffers no participation”, in contrast to an eternal energy that is “communicable.”

In contrast, Saint Cyril of Alexandria explicitly rejected any distinction between God’s essence and energy: “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. Thus, if anyone says that his energy, that is, his Spirit, is something created and made, even while it belongs to him in a proper sense, then the Deity, surely, will be a creature, given that his operation is no other thing than he himself.” bekkos.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/st-cyril-on-divine-simplicity/

In addition, the Synod of Rheims of 1148 declared that God is His attributes, which contradicts Constantinople’s claim that the essence-energy distinction does not result in compounding because the energy is simply a property of the divine nature.

Likewise, the Fourth Lateran Council defined that God is one absolutely simple essence. ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm

Finally, in his lengthy discussion of the divine nature, Saint John of Damascus does not give the slightest hint that there is a distinction between God’s essence and energy. newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm

Notes for discussion

1. I will leave discussions on what the current Eastern Catholic view of this matter is to the Eastern Catholicism section of the forum, and not discuss it in this thread.
2. It is important to distinguish epistemology (how do we know what exists) from ontology (what exists). Thus, statements from the Cappadocian Fathers to the effect of, “We know God from his energies, but cannot approach the essence” do not establish the ontological statements that were made by the 14th Century Constantinople councils. bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/j-p-houdret-on-palamas-and-the-cappadocians/

 

[Wesrock]

I am interested in this topic.

 

[phil19034]

I think this is a good start: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=389787&language=en

 

[PluniaZ]

I think this is a good start: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=389787&language=en

Like seemingly every discussion that happens on this topic, that article avoids directly discussing whether the following statements are true or false:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“Even as there is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable.”

Those statements need to be evaluated on their own merit. Whether the Hesychast prayer is acceptable and whether Gregory Palamas is a saint are separate issues and I won’t discuss them again. Please try to focus on the direct question.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Like seemingly every discussion that happens on this topic, that article avoids directly discussing whether the following statements are true or false:

“That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God.”

“Even as there is an unconfused union of God’s essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable.”

Those statements need to be evaluated on their own merit. Whether the Hesychast prayer is acceptable and whether Gregory Palamas is a saint are separate issues and I won’t discuss them again. Please try to focus on the direct question.

What are we supposed to discuss? I agree with the two statements above. I say True.

 

[Wesrock]

What are we supposed to discuss? I agree with the two statements above. I say True.

The statements have traditionally been interpreted as heresy by western theologians, as they seem to propose a real (non-Trinitarian) distinction within God, such that there are two things which differ from each other, not just by relationship, but in *what *they are, but that are both still God, which has lead to accusations of polytheism.

There have been more charitable readings given in the 20th and 21st century, but I find it to still be a head scratcher given my own background.

So, going back to the original post, I suspect that the Eastern use of the word “essence” is not equivalent to what’s meant by the West. In the West, it would seem you’d start by thinking that the East was proposing an “essence/nature of the essence” versus “essence/nature of the energies” by which the former is not the same as the latter, which is a way of thinking that is probably foreign to Eastern theology. I would have to think that this distinction must not exist in God, but can only be applied to human experience of God. So it’s a distinction on the human side, not on the side of God. If the distinction is said to be in God, it seems that simply saying that God is Triune is not sufficient, but that one must say something along the lines of “God is Di-Triune,” or “One in Three in Two”. And this would only be a “best case” scenario in which we avoid talking about two Gods. But proposing a “Di-Triune God” seems absurd and not what the East intends (as I understand it).

That still doesn’t keep me from scratching my head, and it’d be interesting if there was anyone actually trained in Eastern theology (dual trained in East and West would be great!) to comment.

 

[PluniaZ]

The statements have traditionally been interpreted as heresy by western theologians, as they seem to propose a real (non-Trinitarian) distinction within God, such that there are two things which differ from each other, not just by relationship, but in *what *they are, but that are both still God, which has lead to accusations of polytheism.

There have been more charitable readings given in the 20th and 21st century, but I find it to still be a head scratcher given my own background.

So, going back to the original post, I suspect that the Eastern use of the word “essence” is not equivalent to what’s meant by the West. In the West, it would seem you’d start by thinking that the East was proposing an “essence/nature of the essence” versus “essence/nature of the energies” by which the former is not the same as the latter, which is a way of thinking that is probably foreign to Eastern theology. I would have to think that this distinction must not exist in God, but can only be applied to human experience of God. So it’s a distinction on the human side, not on the side of God. If the distinction is said to be in God, it seems that simply saying that God is Triune is not sufficient, but that one must say something along the lines of “God is Di-Triune,” or “One in Three in Two”. And this would only be a “best case” scenario in which we avoid talking about two Gods. But proposing a “Di-Triune God” seems absurd and not what the East intends (as I understand it).

That still doesn’t keep me from scratching my head, and it’d be interesting if there was anyone actually trained in Eastern theology (dual trained in East and West would be great!) to comment.

I think you have addressed the real issue: whether God is one simple thing, or a composition of two different things. The italicized statements in my original post clearly posit that God is a “union” of two different things, and try to get out of the issue of composition by claiming that there is no composition between a nature and its properties.

I would very much like to explore that last claim further, particularly whether it makes sense when applied to God. Everything in creation is a composition of different things, except perhaps the smallest sub-atomic particle … but can the simplest sub-atomic particle exist on its own, without being united to other sub-atomic particles?

It seems to me that God’s absolute simplicity stands in radical contrast to the inherent composition found in all creation. The Synod of Rheims recognized this when it declared that God is His attributes. God’s Love is God. God’s Goodness is God. There is no distinction.

 

[babs57]

Not in any way a philosopher, but love to ponder these mysteries…If Grace is the Life of God, then does it make sense to say His Life emanates from Him? Does our life emanate from us? I don’t think that sounds right.

 

[phil19034]

I think you have addressed the real issue: whether God is one simple thing, or a composition of two different things. The italicized statements in my original post clearly posit that God is a “union” of two different things, and try to get out of the issue of composition by claiming that there is no composition between a nature and its properties.

I would very much like to explore that last claim further, particularly whether it makes sense when applied to God. Everything in creation is a composition of different things, except perhaps the smallest sub-atomic particle … but can the simplest sub-atomic particle exist on its own, without being united to other sub-atomic particles?

It seems to me that God’s absolute simplicity stands in radical contrast to the inherent composition found in all creation. The Synod of Rheims recognized this when it declared that God is His attributes. God’s Love is God. God’s Goodness is God. There is no distinction.

I would like to emphasis something here. You keep trying to compare Eastern Theology to Western Theology. They are both different, especially when it comes to Theological opinion, which this is.

It’s no different than Limbo. Limbo was/is also theological opinion.

You can’t apply Thomas Aquinus to this, because Essence-Energies argument fails to live up to Thomism philosophy.

The Western Church uses a Scholastic approach to Theology and Philosophy. The Eastern Church uses a Platonic approach to Philosophy and a mystic approach to Theology.

They don’t line up exactly, esp with Theological opinion.

The argument basically is Grace part of the Holy Spirit or not. The Eastern Philosophers always compare this to the Sun’s rays. Eastern Philosophers and Theologians would argue that “the Sun’s rays are part of the Sun.” The Western Philosophers & Theologians would not consider the Sun’s rays to be part of the Sun, but separate.

In reality this is a difference in Philosophy more than one of religion.

Another example is love. Eastern Philosophers would argue that if you experience a person’s (or God’s love) then you have experienced the person, even if you never met them face to face. Western Philosophers would not argue that you have experienced a person directly via love. Because of this

Both the East and West believe that God is simplex and whole.

Finally, the Bishops of the East are historically monastic, while Western Bishops are historically scholastic. Eastern theologians are more willing to discuss theological concepts from a mystic point a view and leave things to the mystery of God.

Western theologian like to be much more precise than their Eastern counterparts and come up scholastic reasons and definitions. This is a product of their development.

The West had to deal with the Protestant heresy, which can be battled pretty well with scholasticism. Mysticism fails when dealing with Protestants. The East never had to develop their scholastic thought to combat heresy. The East actually had to develop their mystic thought to combat heresy.

So you can’t compare.

I know you were reading Dr. Taylor Marshall’s comments on this. He’s awesome, and I’m a member of his New Saint Thomas Institute. He’s great. But he is also dedicated to Thomism and he is not a scholar of Eastern Theology. I’ve actually seen him get some very basic notions of the Eastern Rites wrong.

The point is, the Church has declared that the theological differences the East and West have are not an issue, and that they are simply different ways to to understand the mysteries of God and do not conflict with the Deposit of Faith. They might conflict on a philosophical and theological level, but they do not conflict in a dogmatic and doctrinal level.

God Bless.

 

[Kmon23]

I am by no means knowledgeable enough to talk about this area of theology, but I have seen this question arise on some Orthodox forums. From there, hopefully this quote can contribute to the discussion.
“Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a “thing” bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a “part” of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies. Thus the essence-energies distinction is a way of stating simultaneously that the whole God is inaccessible, and that the whole God in his outgoing love has rendered himself accessible to man.”* -Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

So it seems Divine simplicity is very much Eastern belief, and isn’t seen as a contradiction to Palamite theology and vice versa.

Otherwise, just here to

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I am by no means knowledgeable enough to talk about this area of theology, but I have seen this question arise on some Orthodox forums. From there, hopefully this quote can contribute to the discussion.
“Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a “thing” bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a “part” of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies. Thus the essence-energies distinction is a way of stating simultaneously that the whole God is inaccessible, and that the whole God in his outgoing love has rendered himself accessible to man.”* -Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

So it seems Divine simplicity is very much Eastern belief, and isn’t seen as a contradiction to Palamite theology and vice versa.

Otherwise, just here to

Good call pulling out a quote from Metropolitan Ware! He is highly respected not just by Eastern Orthodox faithful and theologians, but also by us Eastern Catholics.

 

[PluniaZ]

I would like to emphasis something here. You keep trying to compare Eastern Theology to Western Theology. They are both different, especially when it comes to Theological opinion, which this is.

It’s no different than Limbo. Limbo was/is also theological opinion.

You can’t apply Thomas Aquinus to this, because Essence-Energies argument fails to live up to Thomism philosophy.

The Western Church uses a Scholastic approach to Theology and Philosophy. The Eastern Church uses a Platonic approach to Philosophy and a mystic approach to Theology.

They don’t line up exactly, esp with Theological opinion.

The argument basically is Grace part of the Holy Spirit or not. The Eastern Philosophers always compare this to the Sun’s rays. Eastern Philosophers and Theologians would argue that “the Sun’s rays are part of the Sun.” The Western Philosophers & Theologians would not consider the Sun’s rays to be part of the Sun, but separate.

In reality this is a difference in Philosophy more than one of religion.

Another example is love. Eastern Philosophers would argue that if you experience a person’s (or God’s love) then you have experienced the person, even if you never met them face to face. Western Philosophers would not argue that you have experienced a person directly via love. Because of this

Both the East and West believe that God is simplex and whole.

Finally, the Bishops of the East are historically monastic, while Western Bishops are historically scholastic. Eastern theologians are more willing to discuss theological concepts from a mystic point a view and leave things to the mystery of God.

Western theologian like to be much more precise than their Eastern counterparts and come up scholastic reasons and definitions. This is a product of their development.

The West had to deal with the Protestant heresy, which can be battled pretty well with scholasticism. Mysticism fails when dealing with Protestants. The East never had to develop their scholastic thought to combat heresy. The East actually had to develop their mystic thought to combat heresy.

So you can’t compare.

I know you were reading Dr. Taylor Marshall’s comments on this. He’s awesome, and I’m a member of his New Saint Thomas Institute. He’s great. But he is also dedicated to Thomism and he is not a scholar of Eastern Theology. I’ve actually seen him get some very basic notions of the Eastern Rites wrong.

The point is, the Church has declared that the theological differences the East and West have are not an issue, and that they are simply different ways to to understand the mysteries of God and do not conflict with the Deposit of Faith. They might conflict on a philosophical and theological level, but they do not conflict in a dogmatic and doctrinal level.

God Bless.

This is not an “East vs West” issue. I didn’t bring up eastern tradition vs western tradition. In fact, in my original post, the only Church Fathers I cited are eastern: Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John of Damascus.

The whole notion of “East vs West” is yet another attempt to avoid the real issue: whether the italicized statements in my original post are true or false. Truth is not relative. God is not one thing in one part of the world, and a different thing in a different part of the world. The statements I cited do not claim to be expressions of cultural tradition, but statements of absolute truth.

The Church has never treated statements about God as something that is culturally relative. The Council of Ephesus didn’t say, “If you live in eastern Syria, then your tradition emphasizes the humanity of Christ. But if you live in Alexandria, your tradition emphasizes the divinity of Christ. So everyone is free to call Mary the Mother of God or not.” No. The Council of Ephesus said that Mary is the Mother of God, and if you disagree then you are a heretic and are excommunicated.

The italicized statements I posted are either true or false. It doesn’t matter whether you like Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, Plato, Aristotle, or Bob Dylan. They are fundamental statements about the nature of God and are either true or false.

And for the reasons I have stated, I maintain that they are absolutely false.

 

[PluniaZ]

Not in any way a philosopher, but love to ponder these mysteries…If Grace is the Life of God, then does it make sense to say His Life emanates from Him? Does our life emanate from us? I don’t think that sounds right.

You hit the nail on the head: does something emanate from God?

From Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The first clear and systematic expression of emanationism is found in the Alexandrian school of Neo-Platonism. According to Plotinus, the most important representative of this school, the first principle of all things is the One. Absolute unity and simplicity is the best expression by which God can be designated. The One is a totally indetermined essence, for any attribute or determination would introduce both limitation and multiplicity. Even intelligence and will cannot belong to this Primal Reality, for they imply the duality of subject and object, and duality presupposes a higher unity. The One, however, is also described as the First, the Good, the Light, the Universal Cause. From the One all things proceed; not by creation, which would be an act of the will, and therefore incompatible with unity; nor by a spreading of the Divine substance as pantheism teaches, since this would do away with the essential oneness. The One is not all things, but before all things. Emanation is the process by which all things are derived from the One. The infinite goodness and perfection “overflows”, and, while remaining within itself and losing nothing of its own perfection, it generates other beings, sending them forth from its own superabundance. Or again, as brightness is produced by the rays of the sun so everything is a radiation (perilampsis) from the Infinite Light. The various emanations form a series every successive step of which is an image of the preceding one, though inferior to it. The first reality that emanates from the One is the Nous, a pure intelligence, an immanent and changeless thought, putting forth no activity outside of itself. The Nous is an image of the One, and, coming to recognize itself as an image, introduces the first duality, that of subject and object. The Nous includes in itself the intellectual world, or world of ideas, the kosmos nontos of Plato. From the Nous emanates the Soul of the world, which forms the transition between the world of ideas and the world of the senses. It is intelligent and, in this respect, similar to the ideal world. But it also tends to realize the ideas in the material world. The World-Soul generates particular souls, or rather plastic forces, which are the “forms” of all things. Finally, the soul and its particular forces beget matter, which is of itself indetermined and becomes determined by its union with the form.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05397b.htm

The essence-energies distinction seems to be nothing other than Neoplatonic emanationism. Constantinople posited the existence of a transcendent, unknowable essence, and claimed that a “communicable energy” eternally proceeds from this essence.

This doctrine simply cannot be found in any Church Father prior to the 14th Century. The only place it can be found is in the writings of the Neoplatonists.

 

[PluniaZ]

I am by no means knowledgeable enough to talk about this area of theology, but I have seen this question arise on some Orthodox forums. From there, hopefully this quote can contribute to the discussion.
“Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a “thing” bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a “part” of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies. Thus the essence-energies distinction is a way of stating simultaneously that the whole God is inaccessible, and that the whole God in his outgoing love has rendered himself accessible to man.”* -Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

So it seems Divine simplicity is very much Eastern belief, and isn’t seen as a contradiction to Palamite theology and vice versa.

Otherwise, just here to

I don’t know how to reconcile Bishop Ware’s claim that the energy is not a part of God, with the clear statement of the 14th Century Councils of Constantinople that God is a “union” of essence and energy, and that the energy everlastingly proceeds from God. A union is by definition the joining together of two different elements. Claiming that one of the elements is not a part of the union simply doesn’t make sense.

The rest of his statements need to be carefully scrutinized. Constantinople declared that the essence and energy are undivided, which means that an adherent could justify to himself claiming that the essence is present where the energy is present - because they are undivided. And yet at the same time the adherent could say with a straight face that the essence is not the energy, as Constantinople said in the first italicized statement in my original post.

Finally, I would note that Bishop Ware is using imprecise language, since he refers to a plurality of “energies”, when the actual doctrine of Constantinople is that there is one energy.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Since in other threads you have asked for quotes from the Fathers regarding the essence/energies distinction, THIS LINK will give you quotes from St. Basil the Great (Doctor of the Church), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Church), St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Gregory Palamas.

I would also recommend reading the extensive writings of the Eastern Fathers contained in the “Philokalia.” These would give you a better context for understanding/interpreting the “clear words” of the quoted council.

 

[PluniaZ]

Since in other threads you have asked for quotes from the Fathers regarding the essence/energies distinction, THIS LINK will give you quotes from St. Basil the Great (Doctor of the Church), St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Alexandria (Doctor of the Church), St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Gregory Palamas.

I would also recommend reading the extensive writings of the Eastern Fathers contained in the “Philokalia.” These would give you a better context for understanding/interpreting the “clear words” of the quoted council.

Thanks. None of the quotes in your link contain the propositions set forth by Constantinople in the 14th century. None of them refer to an energy that everlastingly proceeds from the divine essence, nor to a “union” of essence and energy in God.

What does the Philokalia say about the foregoing notions of procession and union?

 

[phil19034]

This is not an “East vs West” issue. I didn’t bring up eastern tradition vs western tradition. In fact, in my original post, the only Church Fathers I cited are eastern: Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint John of Damascus.

The whole notion of “East vs West” is yet another attempt to avoid the real issue: whether the italicized statements in my original post are true or false. Truth is not relative. God is not one thing in one part of the world, and a different thing in a different part of the world. The statements I cited do not claim to be expressions of cultural tradition, but statements of absolute truth.

The Church has never treated statements about God as something that is culturally relative. The Council of Ephesus didn’t say, “If you live in eastern Syria, then your tradition emphasizes the humanity of Christ. But if you live in Alexandria, your tradition emphasizes the divinity of Christ. So everyone is free to call Mary the Mother of God or not.” No. The Council of Ephesus said that Mary is the Mother of God, and if you disagree then you are a heretic and are excommunicated.

The italicized statements I posted are either true or false. It doesn’t matter whether you like Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, Plato, Aristotle, or Bob Dylan. They are fundamental statements about the nature of God and are either true or false.

And for the reasons I have stated, I maintain that they are absolutely false.

The problem is that it IS an East vs West thing. Both are using two different Schools of Philosophy.

Let’s look at Math for example. Let’s say I was trying to make some mathematical calculations to build a skyscraper. So I use Calculus and Trigonometry as the basic of my proofs in order to verify my calculations are correct.

I show my plans to someone else, who uses algebra and geometry to QC my work.

We both come to the same place and agree that the building is sound.

Then, a third person comes and views my work and his work and tries to compare them. They can’t directly compare because we both used different math and proofs to come up with the same conclusion.

The only thing the third person can do is review all the proofs that we each made to make sure the mathematical theories I used are in line with Calculus and Trigonometry theories. And make sure the 2nd person used proper proofs and laws associated with Algebra and Geometry.

My point is: the Catholic Church teaches that the East believes that the everything in the Deposit of Faith and they believe that God in the same 8 attributes to God that we do in the West.

1. God’s simplicity
2. God’s Divine Perfection
3. God’s Goodness
4. God is infinite
5. God’s Omnipresence
6. God’s Immutability
7. God’s Eternality
8. God’s Unity

So they believe everything we do, but they come at using a different school of philosophy. So to properly understand what they are saying here, you need to be schooled in Greek Philosophy, not Roman Philosophy.

Furthermore, with Eastern theology you cannot take these writing too literally. Because Eastern theology is based on monastic life and monastic thinking.

For example, not everything a monk from a Latin Catholic order would write would always match up 100% with Thomas Aquinas. But most would, because the Latin Church is big on the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

But monastic literature can get pretty spiritual & symbolic, deviating from scholastic writings.

Western theology is based on scholastic thought and must be taken literally, because that’s how it developed.

Eastern Theology and Western Theology are two totally different subjects within Catholic Theology.

If those quotes were written by a Latin Catholic, then I would argue that those quotes are wrong, because it would mean that the Western School of Philosophy used to back the theology up was not understood properly.

But if an Eastern Catholic said them, using the Eastern School of Philosophy, then I would say that they are correct because of their understanding of the proof texts used.

At least that’s the way the Church sees it.

IN CONCLUSION - because these are NOT scholastic statements (they are monastic statements) you can’t look at these quotes at face value and make a judgement like you would with scholastic text. You have to understand what the author actually believed when he wrote them.

Basically, you are making the same error that many Protestants make when they read The Bible. They often fail to understand that The Bible is not written scholastically, rather more monastically, therefore they often take some texts out of context or fail to understand their original meaning.

I believe this is what you are doing too.

God Bless

 

[PluniaZ]

The problem is that it IS an East vs West thing. Both are using two different Schools of Philosophy.

Let’s look at Math for example. Let’s say I was trying to make some mathematical calculations to build a skyscraper. So I use Calculus and Trigonometry as the basic of my proofs in order to verify my calculations are correct.

I show my plans to someone else, who uses algebra and geometry to QC my work.

We both come to the same place and agree that the building is sound.

Then, a third person comes and views my work and his work and tries to compare them. They can’t directly compare because we both used different math and proofs to come up with the same conclusion.

The only thing the third person can do is review all the proofs that we each made to make sure the mathematical theories I used are in line with Calculus and Trigonometry theories. And make sure the 2nd person used proper proofs and laws associated with Algebra and Geometry.

My point is: the Catholic Church teaches that the East believes that the everything in the Deposit of Faith and they believe that God in the same 8 attributes to God that we do in the West.

1. God’s simplicity
2. God’s Divine Perfection
3. God’s Goodness
4. God is infinite
5. God’s Omnipresence
6. God’s Immutability
7. God’s Eternality
8. God’s Unity

So they believe everything we do, but they come at using a different school of philosophy. So to properly understand what they are saying here, you need to be schooled in Greek Philosophy, not Roman Philosophy.

Furthermore, with Eastern theology you cannot take these writing too literally. Because Eastern theology is based on monastic life and monastic thinking.

For example, not everything a monk from a Latin Catholic order would write would always match up 100% with Thomas Aquinas. But most would, because the Latin Church is big on the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

But monastic literature can get pretty spiritual & symbolic, deviating from scholastic writings.

Western theology is based on scholastic thought and must be taken literally, because that’s how it developed.

Eastern Theology and Western Theology are two totally different subjects within Catholic Theology.

If those quotes were written by a Latin Catholic, then I would argue that those quotes are wrong, because it would mean that the Western School of Philosophy used to back the theology up was not understood properly.

But if an Eastern Catholic said them, using the Eastern School of Philosophy, then I would say that they are correct because of their understanding of the proof texts used.

At least that’s the way the Church sees it.

IN CONCLUSION - because these are NOT scholastic statements (they are monastic statements) you can’t look at these quotes at face value and make a judgement like you would with scholastic text. You have to understand what the author actually believed when he wrote them.

Basically, you are making the same error that many Protestants make when they read The Bible. They often fail to understand that The Bible is not written scholastically, rather more monastically, therefore they often take some texts out of context or fail to understand their original meaning.

I believe this is what you are doing too.

God Bless

No. That is relativism and modernism. Denying that absolute truth exists.

Besides, these statements aren’t even justified by the eastern Church Fathers. Saint Cyril of Alexandria plainly contradicts them, and they are completely foreign to Saint John of Damascus.

These statements are Neoplatonic, which is not Christian and is false.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Thanks. None of the quotes in your link contain the propositions set forth by Constantinople in the 14th century. None of them refer to an energy that everlastingly proceeds from the divine essence, nor to a “union” of essence and energy in God.

What does the Philokalia say about the foregoing notions of procession and union?

The point of the quotes is that they give the context and orthodox interpretation of what the council stated, not that the council itself simply pulled the quotes verbatim from the Fathers.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

No. That is relativism and modernism. Denying that absolute truth exists.

Besides, these statements aren’t even justified by the eastern Church Fathers. Saint Cyril of Alexandria plainly contradicts them, and they are completely foreign to Saint John of Damascus.

These statements are Neoplatonic, which is not Christian and is false.

Sounds to me like you’ve already got your mind made up on the matter. What is the point of this discussion? To “prove” that Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are heretics? We are trying to give you the proper contexts in which to understand these teachings. What do you want from us exactly? Perhaps if we can get to the heart of your question, we will be able to respond in a satisfactory way.