The Essence-Energies Distinction

  • Thread starter Thread starter PluniaZ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I might just need to accept that perhaps the Eastern Theology presented here aren’t ontological or metaphysical statements at all (as Western theology understands it), but as more experience driven, and perhaps devotionally worded.

Still not sure I’m fully comfortable with it, because I feel like I’m trying to force it into such a box, when the statements don’t entirely fit into it.
 
Try thinking of it this way: Proverbs 20:5 says, “The intention of the human heart is deep water, but the intelligent draw it forth.” In other words, we cannot know the heart of another (i.e. their essence) until they speak or act (i.e. engage their energies). We come to know another by what they say and do. But even in knowing another through their words and actions, we cannot fully know the other.

This can be viewed as analogous to how God reveals himself to us. We can know him as he is through how he has acted in history, and above all through his Word-made-flesh. But ultimately, just as we cannot fully know a the mystery of even a single individual human person (i.e. their essence), so too we cannot fully know the eternal mystery of God.
 
PluniaZ said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not.

We are talking about a theological opinion regarding Grace. They are trying to describe what God’s grace and love are.

They are NOT attempting to describe the Holy Spirit. They agree that God is simplex.

Plus, as Wesrock says, perhaps it is really “devotionally worded.”

When Protestants read lots of Catholic devotional prayers, they believe us to be heretics because they think we are worshiping Mary and/or the Saints. This is because they are reading some of our prayers at face value, not understanding the believe that we have behind it.

Per the Church, the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both accept that God is how we Latin Catholics view God.

Haven’t you ever used an analogy to get a theological point accords that’s not 100% theologically correct because it’s hard to describe using precise language? Well, that’s what happening here. This document was written at a Synod, and is not considered to be infallible.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Try thinking of it this way: Proverbs 20:5 says, “The intention of the human heart is deep water, but the intelligent draw it forth.” In other words, we cannot know the heart of another (i.e. their essence) until they speak or act (i.e. engage their energies). We come to know another by what they say and do. But even in knowing another through their words and actions, we cannot fully know the other.

This can be viewed as analogous to how God reveals himself to us. We can know him as he is through how he has acted in history, and above all through his Word-made-flesh. But ultimately, just as we cannot fully know a the mystery of even a single individual human person (i.e. their essence), so too we cannot fully know the eternal mystery of God.
Click to expand...
The hurdle I have is the idea that the act isn’t just from Him, but is Him, but distinct from the essence. It sounds very much like it should be another person within God, except even more separate.
 
phil19034 said:
No, it’s not.

We are talking about a theological opinion regarding Grace. They are trying to describe what God’s grace and love are.

They are NOT attempting to describe the Holy Spirit. They agree that God is simplex.

Plus, as Wesrock says, perhaps it is really “devotionally worded.”

When Protestants read lots of Catholic devotional prayers, they believe us to be heretics because they think we are worshiping Mary and/or the Saints. This is because they are reading some of our prayers at face value, not understanding the believe that we have behind it.

Per the Church, the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both accept that God is how we Latin Catholics view God.

Haven’t you ever used an analogy to get a theological point accords that’s not 100% theologically correct because it’s hard to describe using precise language? Well, that’s what happening here. This document was written at a Synod, and is not considered to be infallible.
Click to expand...
You haven’t actually made an argument. You’ve simply presented stereotypes of what you consider to be eastern vs western, and then washed your hands of the very question the thread is asking under the guise of cultural relativism.

If you want to start your own thread about the different historical developments of Christianity in the east and west, then fine. But this thread is for debating whether the statements I posted in my original post are true or false. Please, as a fellow Catholic, show respect for the question I am asking in this thread, and don’t derail it further.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
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.
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is to discuss/debate whether the italicized statements in my original post are true or false. As with any doctrinal claim in Christianity, their veracity is tested by examining:

(1) Scripture

(2) Tradition

(3) The teachings of the Magisterium.

The statements in my original post cannot be found in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium, and are plainly contradicted by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint John of Damascus, the Synod of Rheims and the Fourth Lateran Council.

If you can show that the italicized statements in my original post are supported by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, then please present your argument.
 
Wesrock said:
I might just need to accept that perhaps the Eastern Theology presented here aren’t ontological or metaphysical statements at all (as Western theology understands it), but as more experience driven, and perhaps devotionally worded.

Still not sure I’m fully comfortable with it, because I feel like I’m trying to force it into such a box, when the statements don’t entirely fit into it.
Click to expand...
The statements are plainly ontological:

*“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.”*

People are trying to obfuscate the issue by invoking mysticism and cultural relativism because these statements taken at face value are plainly Neoplatonic emanationism.
 
PluniaZ said:
The point of this thread is to discuss/debate whether the italicized statements in my original post are true or false. As with any doctrinal claim in Christianity, their veracity is tested by examining:

(1) Scripture

(2) Tradition

(3) The teachings of the Magisterium.

The statements in my original post cannot be found in Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium, and are plainly contradicted by Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint John of Damascus, the Synod of Rheims and the Fourth Lateran Council.

If you can show that the italicized statements in my original post are supported by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, then please present your argument.
Click to expand...
I have provided an example from the Scriptures to help us understand what the language of the texts you’ve quoted is getting at. In other threads I have also encouraged that the quotes be read in light of the creation story of Genesis. I have provided some quotes from the Fathers to give context and interpretive cues for the quoted text. I have also encouraged folks to actually read St. Gregory Palamas, since he is honored by Easterners of the Byzantine tradition as a Church Father, and since his theology gives the most complete context for understanding the statements. As far as the Magisterium is concerned, if that means that you’re looking for affirmative statements from one of the Roman Curial offices, you’re not going to find those because the issue being discussed is a uniquely Eastern (Byzantine) issue.

You won’t find it explicitly stated in the Scriptures; but you will also not find homousios and transubstantiation explicitly stated in Scripture. You will also not find things like transubstantiation mentioned in the Fathers. These were doctrinal developments that emerged over time in answer to questions that were being asked.

BTW, I did look up the issue in a series of catechetical resources published by the Eastern Byzantine Catholic churches in the U.S. The affirmed the essence/energies distinction, but said that this is basically an Eastern (Byzantine) way to talk about the nature of grace.

Taking a densely packed theological text from the 15th Century and then condemning it without understanding the complex theology and history behind the text is simply not good theology.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I have provided an example from the Scriptures to help us understand what the language of the texts you’ve quoted is getting at. In other threads I have also encouraged that the quotes be read in light of the creation story of Genesis. I have provided some quotes from the Fathers to give context and interpretive cues for the quoted text. I have also encouraged folks to actually read St. Gregory Palamas, since he is honored by Easterners of the Byzantine tradition as a Church Father, and since his theology gives the most complete context for understanding the statements. As far as the Magisterium is concerned, if that means that you’re looking for affirmative statements from one of the Roman Curial offices, you’re not going to find those because the issue being discussed is a uniquely Eastern (Byzantine) issue.

You won’t find it explicitly stated in the Scriptures; but you will also not find homousios and transubstantiation explicitly stated in Scripture. You will also not find things like transubstantiation mentioned in the Fathers. These were doctrinal developments that emerged over time in answer to questions that were being asked.

BTW, I did look up the issue in a series of catechetical resources published by the Eastern Byzantine Catholic churches in the U.S. The affirmed the essence/energies distinction, but said that this is basically an Eastern (Byzantine) way to talk about the nature of grace.

Taking a densely packed theological text from the 15th Century and then condemning it without understanding the complex theology and history behind the text is simply not good theology.
Click to expand...
Ok so make your argument. Cite the Scripture and Church Fathers you think support these statements, and explain how these statements necessarily follow.
 
PluniaZ said:
Ok so make your argument. Cite the Scripture and Church Fathers you think support these statements, and explain how these statements necessarily follow.
Click to expand...
I explained it when I quoted the passage from Proverbs in a previous post. But it has become apparent that any sort of conversation on this topic isn’t going to go anywhere. I get the impression that the Eastern teachings of essence/energies are being forced into a Western scholastic way of viewing things. As others have pointed out, we simply cannot do this. The essence/energies distinction can only be understood on its own terms according to the Eastern/Palamite way of viewing them. I have yet to see anyone opposed to these teaching cite Palamas himself (the key formulator of those teachings) in order to denounce the teachings. The only thing that has happened to facilitate “discussion” is the same quotes being drummed up in a manner that closely reflects Protestant biblical fundamentalism. Those of us who have tried to explain what the texts are getting at are simply being ignored and then told to “prove it” by prooftexting Scripture, the Fathers, and the “Magisterium.”
 
OK. So I did a little self-reflecting and realized that I was allowing myself to get too worked up over this issue. I’d like to apologize for my lack of patience and for anything that I’ve said that has been uncharitable. I realize that the OP simply has some legitimate questions that deserve answers.

The issue at hand is a very complex issue that has a long history and highly developed theology as background. That being said, I don’t believe that we will be able to provide the OP with a satisfactory answer in an online forum. There have been volumes upon volumes written on this very issue.

I pulled out a volume of St. Gregory Palamas’ Triads and turned to the section where he explicitly speaks of the essence/energies distinction. I cannot possibly convey this as well as he did, but I will do my best. The whole debate is an attempt to reconcile God’s transcendence with his immanence, or, as Met. Kallistos Ware puts it, his “nearness yet otherness.” God is completely other; in his essence unknowable. But the fact remains that God has revealed himself. Since we cannot know God in his essence, the only way we can know him is through how he has chosen to reveal himself: i.e. his energies, or what Western theologians call God’s “attributes.”

We say that God is love, God is immortal, God is eternal, God is all-holy, God is a Creator, God is a life-giver, etc., etc., etc. God is, in fact, all of these things, but he transcends each of these things. This things are present in God from all eternity, but in themselves they do not fully contain God, nor do they fully describe God. But God reveals himself to us in time according to these and other attributes.

This is probably a really bad summary, but it’s the best that I can do at this time. If you want to know what the Fathers teach, I’d again encourage all to read St. Gregory Palamas. He quotes extensively from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Maximos, and St. Cyril.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
Try thinking of it this way: Proverbs 20:5 says, “The intention of the human heart is deep water, but the intelligent draw it forth.” In other words, we cannot know the heart of another (i.e. their essence) until they speak or act (i.e. engage their energies). We come to know another by what they say and do. But even in knowing another through their words and actions, we cannot fully know the other.

This can be viewed as analogous to how God reveals himself to us. We can know him as he is through how he has acted in history, and above all through his Word-made-flesh. But ultimately, just as we cannot fully know a the mystery of even a single individual human person (i.e. their essence), so too we cannot fully know the eternal mystery of God.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that you’re attempting to draw an ontological conclusion from an epistemological conclusion. The Cappadocian Fathers said we know God from His energies in the sense of God’s created effects in the world (e.g., the beauty of the night sky or a mother’s love for her children). You acknowledge as much in your post.

But Constantinople went an additional step and posited the existence of a single uncreated energy that everlastingly proceeds from God’s essence. As soon as you speak of something that is uncreated and eternal, you can’t relegate it to merely an interaction between God and creation, because as something eternal, it has its own existence apart from creation. Thus you are left with the existence of three things:
  1. God’s essence
  2. God’s energy
  3. Creation
The problem is that no Church Father or council speaks of the existence of these three things prior to the 14th Century. The closest you can find are the Neoplatonists and the Arians. For example, Eunomius spoke of God’s energy as an intermediary cause of the Logos, and he was resoundingly mocked for it by Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Saint Gregory of Nyssa could have said, “No, the energy is an intermediary between God and creation, not between God and the Logos”, but instead he mocked the notion of energy as something that has its own existence altogether.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
OK. So I did a little self-reflecting and realized that I was allowing myself to get too worked up over this issue. I’d like to apologize for my lack of patience and for anything that I’ve said that has been uncharitable. I realize that the OP simply has some legitimate questions that deserve answers.

The issue at hand is a very complex issue that has a long history and highly developed theology as background. That being said, I don’t believe that we will be able to provide the OP with a satisfactory answer in an online forum. There have been volumes upon volumes written on this very issue.

I pulled out a volume of St. Gregory Palamas’ Triads and turned to the section where he explicitly speaks of the essence/energies distinction. I cannot possibly convey this as well as he did, but I will do my best. The whole debate is an attempt to reconcile God’s transcendence with his immanence, or, as Met. Kallistos Ware puts it, his “nearness yet otherness.” God is completely other; in his essence unknowable. But the fact remains that God has revealed himself. Since we cannot know God in his essence, the only way we can know him is through how he has chosen to reveal himself: i.e. his energies, or what Western theologians call God’s “attributes.”

We say that God is love, God is immortal, God is eternal, God is all-holy, God is a Creator, God is a life-giver, etc., etc., etc. God is, in fact, all of these things, but he transcends each of these things. This things are present in God from all eternity, but in themselves they do not fully contain God, nor do they fully describe God. But God reveals himself to us in time according to these and other attributes.

This is probably a really bad summary, but it’s the best that I can do at this time. If you want to know what the Fathers teach, I’d again encourage all to read St. Gregory Palamas. He quotes extensively from St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Maximos, and St. Cyril.
Click to expand...
Thank you and no worries. I know how easy it is to get worked up over religious issues and frequently say things I later regret. So it’s all good and I appreciate the good conversation.

I do intend to read Gregory Palamas and I guess I am getting ahead of myself because the conclusions reached by the councils in Constantinople seem so obviously wrong to me. I guess I was hoping that someone who has studied this issue more than me can explain the argument from Constantinople’s perspective, and hopefully someone will come along who can do that.

In the meantime we all need to study the issue more and pray for God’s wisdom and guidance to lead us into all truth.
 
I visited the website of Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, and looked at some of their courses offered. It seems the essence-energies distinction is part of there curriculum (but part of a larger course). I can’t say definitively they teach it as an authentic expression of their theology, but it wouldn’t make much sense to touch that subject at all if it was considered NOT a part of there theology (same way seminarians don’t study reformed theology).

So at least in Eastern Catholic seminaries, I think they do teach it.

And I’ve spent a good time on Eastern Catholic forums, and essence-energies seems has been discussed. From what I gather, they are unanimous on the validity of this teaching and it being taught in these Eastern Catholic churches. Perhaps some other knowledgeable Eastern Catholics can be brought into this discussion.

And I remember it being brought up in the previous thread of where is the magisterial document showing essence-energies, with the response that the East does not function this way. Yes it is true, that the east follow the canons and teachings of the ecumenical councils, but this doesn’t exclude the emphasis on non-document expressions of theology. In the East, the beliefs of the church is expressed by the Holy Spirit not just in councils, but also in the lived experience of the church, especially in the holy services. So while the West might find mistakes/issues with councils significantly more problematic than the liturgical problems that might exist, this isn’t really the mindset of the East. So as Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, the Eastern practice is that the lived faith (such as in the services) is significantly closer in importance to the councils than the West is. Which is why in addition to councils, the liturgical texts are also considered dogmatic in a sense for the East.

For the East, the beliefs of the church are considered authoritative as expressed through the councils, liturgical texts, iconographic tradition, canons, and then the writings of the Fathers/Saints.

An example was how someone rejected the belief of a literal Adam, and the response was that what is depicted in Icons are not myths or legends but real saints. So for the East, non-council/document sources of theology are considered significantly more authoritative in the East than the West (which is why when the Eastern Catholics present to you their liturgical texts and you reject them, it is significantly more offensive than you might realize).

And an Eastern Catholic posted this online, and it refers to the hymns read in services for St. Gregory Palamas.

*Troparion: O Light of Orthodoxy, teacher and support of the Church, adornment of monks and invincible rampart of theologians, O holy Gregory Palamas the Wonderworker, the glory of Thessalonica and the herald of grace, intercede with Christ God for the salvation of our souls.

Hymns from Matins: Faithfully keeping to the path of your divine teachings, we flee from false teachers; and by your holy writings, O Holy Gregory, we drive back their armies.
You refuted the foolish teachings of heretics, O blessed Gregory, for your heart was filled with wisdom personified, by which you broke their perverted pride.
Opening your mouth, O holy Father, you proclaimed the wisdom of God, upon which you constantly meditated in your heart; and thus you showed the foolishness and futility of Barlaam.
By your words and writings, you have cut down the thorns of heresy; you separated the wheat from the tares, and you have sown the seeds of Orthodoxy, O holy Father.

O Holy Father Gregory Palamas, Pillar of Orthodoxy, pray for us!*

This isn’t really a “philosophy” answer but I wanted to make this clear from the last thread, and this is all I have to say now. And forgive me for the wall of text.
 
An email I received last year:
Dear Salam,

The Eastern rite churches which venerate Palamas uncritically kept the local liturgical calendars with commemoration of Palamas and some other questionable persons when they were reconciled with the Holy See. They also failed to examine Palamas’ writings which contained deviations from Catholic doctrine. Not all Eastern Catholics accept Palamas as a Saint since one like Palamas clearly defended formal schism and heresy and should have no place in any Calendar of Saints. When I was in Rome some years ago, I inquired at various Congregations why the Feast of St. Gregory Palamas was included in the Anthologion published by the Vatican. I was informed that it did not represent official approval of Palamas as a Saint but rather it was included for the Orthodox who did celebrate his Feast and were otherwise encouraged to use the Anthologion. The veneration of Palamas is a matter of a hopefully temporary toleration of an abuse. When an address by Pope St. John Paul II was published as referring to “St. Gregory Palamas”, it was corrected in the official Acta Apostolica Sedis as “"Gregory Palamas, Orthodox Bishop of Thessalonica”.
You can consult my book “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church” for a critical evaluation of Palamite teachings incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
Moreover ,it is to be recalled that the Orthodox are themselves divided on (1) whether Palamas’ strange teaching on the distinction between the essence of God and his “uncreated divine energies” is compatible with the doctrine of the Fathers and (2) whether it can be considered dogma (as claimed by some) since NO OECUMENICAL COUNCIL EVER DOGMATIZED IT.
Hope this helps.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
James Likoudis
Click to expand...
 
With no disrespect to anyone, can we please not discuss the Eastern Catholic view of the essence-energies distinction. I posted this thread in the Philosophy forum so we could debate the merits of these statements in and of themselves, not debate the extent to which certain Catholics accept them or not.

I realize there are far ranging implications of this question, but I’d like to keep the thread focused on the narrow question of whether the statements are justified based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Feel free to start another thread if you would like to discuss other aspects of this topic.
 
PluniaZ said:
With no disrespect to anyone, can we please not discuss the Eastern Catholic view of the essence-energies distinction. I posted this thread in the Philosophy forum so we could debate the merits of these statements in and of themselves, not debate the extent to which certain Catholics accept them or not.

I realize there are far ranging implications of this question, but I’d like to keep the thread focused on the narrow question of whether the statements are justified based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Feel free to start another thread if you would like to discuss other aspects of this topic.
Click to expand...
I apologise, I misread the ‘notes for discussion’ in your opening post.
 
PluniaZ said:
With no disrespect to anyone, can we please not discuss the Eastern Catholic view of the essence-energies distinction. I posted this thread in the Philosophy forum so we could debate the merits of these statements in and of themselves, not debate the extent to which certain Catholics accept them or not.

I realize there are far ranging implications of this question, but I’d like to keep the thread focused on the narrow question of whether the statements are justified based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Feel free to start another thread if you would like to discuss other aspects of this topic.
Click to expand...
I too would like to apologize if my previous emails seemed short. That was not my intent.

I believe this issue that most of us are having is we do not understand what you are looking for.

If we are talking about Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, then that’s not philosophy, it’s theology.

As far as western philosophy is concerned, the statements do not make sense.

However, both the Tradition of the Church and the Magisterium say it’s valid. The Popes and the Eastern Catholic Bishops say it’s valid
 
phil19034 said:
I too would like to apologize if my previous emails seemed short. That was not my intent.

I believe this issue that most of us are having is we do not understand what you are looking for.

If we are talking about Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, then that’s not philosophy, it’s theology.

As far as western philosophy is concerned, the statements do not make sense.
Click to expand...
Well there is no theology section of the forum so this is the closest thing.

Another way to rephrase my original post is: what pre-14th century support is there for the statements I listed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top