The Essence-Energies Distinction

[PluniaZ]

He has a fair question, even if hos approach is off-putting.

 

[Ghosty]

Don’t take it too hard. Just try to understand your approach from the perspective of a Catholic who celebrates St. Gregory Palamas’ Feast Day every year at a Catholic Divine Liturgy. It’s very difficult to maintain a civil and rational conversation when it begins with implications of heresy against a Catholic Saint.

You may not have known this so I can’t fault you for it, but it is difficult to begin a defense of this theology when the other side demands proof that it isn’t heretical and is allowed by the Church, rather than beginning the discussion with why it sounds heretical to them and asking for clarification. These kinds of discussions are known to get heated in the best of times.

Peace and God bless!

 

[PluniaZ]

Don’t take it too hard. Just try to understand your approach from the perspective of a Catholic who celebrates St. Gregory Palamas’ Feast Day every year at a Catholic Divine Liturgy. It’s very difficult to maintain a civil and rational conversation when it begins with implications of heresy against a Catholic Saint.

You may not have known this so I can’t fault you for it, but it is difficult to begin a defense of this theology when the other side demands proof that it isn’t heretical and is allowed by the Church, rather than beginning the discussion with why it sounds heretical to them and asking for clarification. These kinds of discussions are known to get heated in the best of times.

Peace and God bless!

I mean, I didn’t even mention Gregory Palamas in my original post. I simply listed statements that were declared by Constantinople in the 14th century, and asked for pre-14th Century support for those statements.

Anyway, I got the Triads today. I’m sure I will be bombarding you with questions in the near future.

 

[Ghosty]

I mean, I didn’t even mention Gregory Palamas in my original post. I simply listed statements that were declared by Constantinople in the 14th century, and asked for pre-14th Century support for those statements.

Anyway, I got the Triads today. I’m sure I will be bombarding you with questions in the near future.

It’s all good. Hope you enjoy the book, and don’t let the commentor’s notes about Western theology put you off. If it’s the same version I have, and if my memory is correct, there were some statements about Western theology that were erroneous but illustrative of what is being argued by Palamas. It is a common misperception, for example, that Latin theology does not teach participation in Divinity through Grace. It is the other site of the miscommunication that arises from different theological languages.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Are you reading the Classics of Western Spirituality version of The Triads, with introduction by John Meyendorff? If so, if it is the same edition, page 20 begins a good and simple breakdown of the Essence/Energies distinction and how it played out in the debate between Barlaam and Palamas. It highlights the approach Barlaam was taking with the term “Essence”, and why Palamas took the approach he did in response. I think that section alone might make things a lot more clear.

You may also note that what they mean by “created Grace” is not at all what is meant in Latin theology, particularly Thomistic theology.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

If the Essence is not the Energy, and the Energy is not the Essence, and they are both uncreated and both God, and these are not just relational differences of the same nature (otherwise we’d have a fourth person of the Trinity), how do we not call it a composition and a denial of divine simplicity?

That is a caricature of the doctrine. The Essence and the Energies are both God. The Energies flow from and reveal the Essence. As I’ve tried to explain to PluniaZ, with no success, the distinction only comes into play when we talk about God in His relation to Creation. When talking about God in Himself, there is no distinction. We are then not in the picture. This idea of a God divided into two parts is nothing but a simplistic and misleading caricature, and it needs to go away.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Finally, if the meaning of these terms is so obscure, so hard to explain, and so easily misunderstood as claiming the existence of two uncreateds, then Constantinople was wrong to authoritatively state them as authoritative church doctrine. Constantinople should have simply said, “Gregory Palamas wrote some insightful things, and we encourage people to study his writings under proper theological supervision.”

I can see someone saying the exact same thing about the Council of Nicaea and its definitions. I don’t know why someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, with its complexities and obscurities and impenetrable mystery, expects perfect clarity on a matter as “above our pay grade” as this one.

The tension in scripture and Tradition between God’s transcendence and His immanence is a very real one, and cannot be brushed aside.

 

[Wesrock]

I can see someone saying the exact same thing about the Council of Nicaea and its definitions. I don’t know why someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, with its complexities and obscurities and impenetrable mystery, expects perfect clarity on a matter as “above our pay grade” as this one.

The issue seems to stem from the language being used at Constantinople sounding very much like western formulations for the persons of the Trinity, except even further removed from each other. It’s not just a matter of divine simplicity, it sounds on the surface as if it’s not compatible with Trinitarianism, either.

To be clear, I’m NOT saying that as a conclusion or my opinion on the Essence-Energies formulation. It’s just the immediate gut reaction at hearing the description, if we get past the immediate gut reaction to it not sounding like monotheism.

Again, these are immediate surface impressions to someone (myself) foreign to the tradition. I’m not making accusations or stating an opinion on the matter. I think I’ve a marginally better understanding than when I started, and even when I entered I knew the surface impressions were only that.

 

[Wesrock]

I can see someone saying the exact same thing about the Council of Nicaea and its definitions. I don’t know why someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, with its complexities and obscurities and impenetrable mystery, expects perfect clarity on a matter as “above our pay grade” as this one.

The Latins are often accused by the Greeks of innovating beyond the deposit of faith and the ECF. I suppose this is a case where, to the Latin, and on the surface, it seems like the Greeks have done so.

This is no accusation. But you know how you (or at least many Orthodox) feel about the Filioque, the Sacred Heart devotion, Immaculate Heart devotion, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and dogmatizing of the Assumption, even though Catholics don’t see it that way (and I’ve seen how some… less charitable Orthodox speak on these in private)? We’re having the same gut reaction to this.

 

[PluniaZ]

Are you reading the Classics of Western Spirituality version of The Triads, with introduction by John Meyendorff? If so, if it is the same edition, page 20 begins a good and simple breakdown of the Essence/Energies distinction and how it played out in the debate between Barlaam and Palamas. It highlights the approach Barlaam was taking with the term “Essence”, and why Palamas took the approach he did in response. I think that section alone might make things a lot more clear.

You may also note that what they mean by “created Grace” is not at all what is meant in Latin theology, particularly Thomistic theology.

Yeah that’s the version I got. I was a bit dismayed when I saw the back cover said the book contains “excerpts” of the Triads. Do you know where to get a complete translation?

 

[PluniaZ]

That is a caricature of the doctrine. The Essence and the Energies are both God. The Energies flow from and reveal the Essence. As I’ve tried to explain to PluniaZ, with no success, the distinction only comes into play when we talk about God in His relation to Creation. When talking about God in Himself, there is no distinction. We are then not in the picture. This idea of a God divided into two parts is nothing but a simplistic and misleading caricature, and it needs to go away.

Then the Councils of Constantinople were wrong, since they didn’t say the distinction only exists “when we talk about God in His relation to Creation.”

 

[Ghosty]

Yeah that’s the version I got. I was a bit dismayed when I saw the back cover said the book contains “excerpts” of the Triads. Do you know where to get a complete translation?

I don’t know that one exists. What would the audience be that wouldn’t already understand Greek?

Then the Councils of Constantinople were wrong, since they didn’t say the distinction only exists “when we talk about God in His relation to Creation.”

The Council wasn’t wrong. It was settling a question arising from a debate that its audience fully understood. If Councils could settle all aspects of a discussion with a few s(name removed by moderator)le sentences, for an audience that won’t be born for centuries and won’t know the context, we would have only had one Trinitarian Council.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

The Latins are often accused by the Greeks of innovating beyond the deposit of faith and the ECF. I suppose this is a case where, to the Latin, and on the surface, it seems like the Greeks have done so.

This is no accusation. But you know how you (or at least many Orthodox) feel about the Filioque, the Sacred Heart devotion, Immaculate Heart devotion, Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and dogmatizing of the Assumption, even though Catholics don’t see it that way (and I’ve seen how some… less charitable Orthodox speak on these in private)? We’re having the same gut reaction to this.

It is very similar to the Filioque issue, where the terms have slightly different connotations in both traditions, and the “definitive” teaching appears to say something heretical in one tradition that it certainly is not intending.

There has been much cyber-blood spilt over the expression “equally from the Father and the Son” because the context that informs the meaning of this expression is often over looked and not carefully examined with an open heart and mind.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Then the Councils of Constantinople were wrong, since they didn’t say the distinction only exists “when we talk about God in His relation to Creation.”

Maybe the council didn’t see the need to spell out what was understood.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

There has been much cyber-blood spilt over the expression “equally from the Father and the Son” because the context that informs the meaning of this expression is often over looked and not carefully examined with an open heart and mind.

I would love to hear your explanation sometime. I think I’m fairly familiar with the immediate historico-theological context, since I’ve read Anselm of Canterbury’s treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit (I always get the Latin title wrong, so I’m not even going to attempt it), which immediately predated the Fourth Lateran Council, and, it would be a fair implication, greatly influenced it. Nothing in Anselm’s treatise softens the meaning of “equally”, that I can see.

 

[Ghosty]

I would love to hear your explanation sometime. I think I’m fairly familiar with the immediate historico-theological context, since I’ve read Anselm of Canterbury’s treatise on the Procession of the Holy Spirit (I always get the Latin title wrong, so I’m not even going to attempt it), which immediately predated the Fourth Lateran Council, and, it would be a fair implication, greatly influenced it. Nothing in Anselm’s treatise softens the meaning of “equally”, that I can see.

I’ve never read that work, but I’m interested in it. If you know of a good online source I would love a PM. I’ll leave discussion about the Filioque to another thread, however.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I’ve never read that work, but I’m interested in it. If you know of a good online source I would love a PM. I’ll leave discussion about the Filioque to another thread, however.

Peace and God bless!

Here it is:

jasper-hopkins.info/DeProcessione.pdf

Not to be pushy about it, but I would consider it essential background reading to the western pronouncements on the procession of the HS. Anselm really laid the theological framework.

 

[Ghosty]

Here it is:

jasper-hopkins.info/DeProcessione.pdf

Not to be pushy about it, but I would consider it essential background reading to the western pronouncements on the procession of the HS. Anselm really laid the theological framework.

While his work is obviously important it is not necessarily more clear or correct than the Council and the explanation s that followed. I’m interested in reading it, however. In fact I may have read it, or portions of it, in the past but simply don’t recall it exactly.

Thanks for the link!

 

[PluniaZ]

I finished the Triads. A few initial reactions:

1. There is a discrepancy between the Triads and the statements in my original post from the 14th century Councils of Constantinople. The main discrepancy is that Palamas posits the existence of multiple energies, whereas the councils spoke of only a single energy. I am guessing the councils read in Saint John of Damascus that there is “one simple energy”, so they departed from the Triads. newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm
2. Palamas spends most of his time arguing against what appear to be straw-men that he attributes to Barlaam, mainly that every grace, power and energy of God is something created. Palamas does not, as far as I can tell, more than fleetingly acknowledge the argument that the grace, power and energy of God are the divine essence itself.
3. Palamas relies overwhelmingly on Pseudo-Dionysius. But the influence of Neoplatonism on Pseudo-Dionysius is beyond dispute:

“Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, “De malorum subsistentia” (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise “De div. nom.” (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his “Institutio theologica”, “theologia Platonica”, and his commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides”, “Alcibiades I”, and “Timaeus” (these five having been written after 462).” newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm

1. The only real patristic support that Palamas gives (other than Pseudo-Dionysius) is Saint Maximus the Confessor, who at one point expresses what appears to be a belief in the reality of Platonic forms. But Maximus never refers to these forms as “energies” of God. In fact, he even says they have their own essence. And Maximus multiple times expresses what can only be described as a belief in the Beatific Vision:

“He who has made his heart pure will not only know the inner essences of what is sequent to God and dependent on Him but, after passing through all of them, he will in some measure see God Himself, which is the supreme consummation of all blessings.”

Maximus, Saint. The Writings of Maximus the Confessor (Kindle Locations 2126-2128). Lulu.com. Kindle Edition. amazon.com/gp/product/B0124VDHD4/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It appears Saint Gregory Nazianzen also believed in the Beatific Vision:

“What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to “We shall know even as we are known”. But in our present life all that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small effulgence from a great Light.” newadvent.org/fathers/310228.htm

 

[Expatreprocedit]

While his work is obviously important it is not necessarily more clear or correct than the Council and the explanation s that followed. I’m interested in reading it, however. In fact I may have read it, or portions of it, in the past but simply don’t recall it exactly.

Thanks for the link!

You’re welcome. But I didn’t say it was more clear or correct, I believe it provides context.