The Essence-Energies Distinction

  • Thread starter Thread starter PluniaZ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ghosty said:
The Byzantine East wasn’t a party to the Council of Rheims, which itself is merely a local council. Are you here to discuss theology, or merely argue about the appropriateness of the Council of Constantinople?

If the latter then I will just say this: the Council of Rheims settled a local dispute with a local Council using local theology, and the Council of Constantinople did the same. These Councils aren’t opposed; they don’t even intersect. Beyond that I think we should leave the matter aside.
Click to expand...
The Synod of Rheims was called and approved by Pope Eugene III. Its teachings are dogma binding on all the faithful. God is His attributes.

And this is really the same teaching as the 14th century Councils of Constantinople, which said in effect that God’s energy is God’s attributes. The Councils of Constantinople just introduced a modern innovation, teaching that the energy/attributes have a cause.
 
Ghosty said:
That paper does the exact opposite of what you claim. It is laying out the precedent for Palamite language and thought found in the Cappadocian Fathers. It perfectly supports the claim that Palamas was utilizing existing tradition.
Click to expand...
I said the paper debunks the usual proof-texts in the Cappadocian Fathers which are commonly cited in support of the essence-energies distinction, which it does. The article then goes on to explore if the other writings of the Cappadocian Fathers can be read in a manner consistent with the essence-energies distinction. The author makes an argument that they can, but I find it pretty weak, and it comes across as looking for ways to read a later doctrine back into the writings of early Church Fathers.
 
PluniaZ said:
I said the paper debunks the usual proof-texts in the Cappadocian Fathers which are commonly cited in support of the essence-energies distinction, which it does. The article then goes on to explore if the other writings of the Cappadocian Fathers can be read in a manner consistent with the essence-energies distinction. The author makes an argument that they can, but I find it pretty weak, and it comes across as looking for ways to read a later doctrine back into the writings of early Church Fathers.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what “the usual proof-texts” are, and the portion of the paper that is publically available doesn’t disprove anything.

Regardless you will have to demonstrate that these propositions are erroneous, which you haven’t even begun to do yet. As it stands this teaching remains orthodox, and is taught in Catholic seminaries.
 
Page 52:

“How the essence-energies distinction fits into the broader Eastern Orthodox tradition has already been given some attention. However, detailed analyses are lacking, and arguments for precedents (particularly in the Cappadocians) tend to involve cursory citation of one or two texts, especially Basil’s Ep 234.1, without further investigation. In what follows I intend to do justice to the Cappadocian approaches to the ἐνέργειαι of God, and suggest an approach to discovering precedents for Palamite thought which goes beyond simply citing statements containing the word ἐνέργεια.”

Page 55:

“The term ἐνέργειαι is used by Basil in Ep 234 for awe-inspiring activities, and though not explicitly limited to them, the implication seems to be that the first stage of knowledge of God (belief in him/faith) is obtained solely through the observation of God’s activities in the created world. But terminology is by no means everything. It seems little short of axiomatic to maintain that a terminological discrepancy need not imply a conceptual
one.21 The exact definition of ἐνέργεια is not conclusively ‘created acts’ for Basil.22 Nevertheless, its predominant use as such invites a deeper investigation, beyond this terminological impasse.”

Page 56:

“While in Ep 234 he came to deal with the knowledge of God that precedes faith, here Basil develops his gnosiology to include ‘observance of [God’s] commandments and οἰκείωσις with him’. Man comes to a knowledge of God through perception of him in the created order and through his mighty acts (ἐνέργειαι). Th rough these faith is obtained, which leads to true worship (presupposing a submissive νοῦς), which in turn gives rise to
an οἰκείωσις with God himself. Th is, in sum, is Basil’s gnosiology. Whilst ἐνέργειαι are left behind, it seems, after the acquisition of faith, the further aspects of Basil’s gnosiological structure are reasonably consonant with that of Palamas. To suggest a way of approaching precedents to the Palamite distinction in the Cappadocians without making the faux pas of invoking statements of questionable relevance, I will concentrate on Basil’s notion of οἰκείωσις.”
 
PluniaZ said:
Page 52:

“How the essence-energies distinction fits into the broader Eastern Orthodox tradition has already been given some attention. However, detailed analyses are lacking, and arguments for precedents (particularly in the Cappadocians) tend to involve cursory citation of one or two texts, especially Basil’s Ep 234.1, without further investigation. In what follows I intend to do justice to the Cappadocian approaches to the ἐνέργειαι of God, and suggest an approach to discovering precedents for Palamite thought which goes beyond simply citing statements containing the word ἐνέργεια.”

Page 55:

“The term ἐνέργειαι is used by Basil in Ep 234 for awe-inspiring activities, and though not explicitly limited to them, the implication seems to be that the first stage of knowledge of God (belief in him/faith) is obtained solely through the observation of God’s activities in the created world. But terminology is by no means everything. It seems little short of axiomatic to maintain that a terminological discrepancy need not imply a conceptual
one.21 The exact definition of ἐνέργεια is not conclusively ‘created acts’ for Basil.22 Nevertheless, its predominant use as such invites a deeper investigation, beyond this terminological impasse.”

Page 56:

“While in Ep 234 he came to deal with the knowledge of God that precedes faith, here Basil develops his gnosiology to include ‘observance of [God’s] commandments and οἰκείωσις with him’. Man comes to a knowledge of God through perception of him in the created order and through his mighty acts (ἐνέργειαι). Th rough these faith is obtained, which leads to true worship (presupposing a submissive νοῦς), which in turn gives rise to
an οἰκείωσις with God himself. Th is, in sum, is Basil’s gnosiology. Whilst ἐνέργειαι are left behind, it seems, after the acquisition of faith, the further aspects of Basil’s gnosiological structure are reasonably consonant with that of Palamas. To suggest a way of approaching precedents to the Palamite distinction in the Cappadocians without making the faux pas of invoking statements of questionable relevance, I will concentrate on Basil’s notion of οἰκείωσις.”
Click to expand...
This doesn’t contradict Palamite theology at all, nor does it indicate innovation on the part of St. Gregory.

I will ask you a final time: do you have a cohesive argument against Palamism that takes into account the actual language and definitions used by St. Gregory and the Council of Constantinople? If not then we’re done here.
 
Ghosty said:
This doesn’t contradict Palamite theology at all, nor does it indicate innovation on the part of St. Gregory.

I will ask you a final time: do you have a cohesive argument against Palamism that takes into account the actual language and definitions used by St. Gregory and the Council of Constantinople? If not then we’re done here.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the article contradicted Palamite theology. I posted it as a good reference on this topic and because the author has a healthy skepticism for certain frequently cited lines from the Cappadocian Fathers.

As far as an argument to refute the Councils of Constantinople, I would simply say that no argument in their favor has been presented, and that is where the burden lies - on the party claiming the truth of a proposition.

And note that the statements of the Councils of Constantinople go well beyond what Gregory Palamas wrote in the Triads. Perhaps Palamas did not write the statements from the councils, but some other parties were in control of the councils and wrote those statements?

As for the Triads itself, I am still stuck on Palamas’s citation of Maximus the Confessor’s statements from the Two Centuries on Theology to the effect that there are timeless works of God. While this is true, I do not see support for Palamas’s statement that “God is entirely present in each of the divine energies”. That is, Maximus does not say this. And the editorial footnote in my edition of the Triads says that God’s energies are not “discrete metaphysical entities (like Platonic “ideas”).” But Maximus describes the “timeless works” exactly as though they are discrete metaphysical entities - Maximus says they are “participable beings” and God is their “creator”.

Elsewhere Maximus says that incorporeal beings have “essences” (78 of 4th Century on Love). And that the righteous will pass through the “inner essences of what is sequent to God and dependent on Him” and will “in some measure see God Himself.” Thus, Maximus does not give any hint that an energy is the limit of the blessedness of the righteous in Heaven - Maximus does not distinguish between essence and energy in God at all in this regard.
 
You are the one proposing that a theology taught in Catholic seminaries is erroneous. It is your proposition, so the burden of proof is on you.

Present a declaration of heresy that addresses Palamism in its own terms, or demonstrate it through argument using the terminology as Palamas uses it. If you can’t or won’t then I will not discuss this further.
 
In “Topics of Natural and Theological Science”, Gregory Palamas reconciles the issue I had concerning one vs multiple energies as follows:

"68. The divine supraessentiality is never named in the plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God is indivisibly divided, like the sun’s rays that warm, illumine, quicken and bring increase as they cast their radiance upon what they enlighten, and shine on the eyes of whoever beholds them. In the manner, then, of this faint likeness, the divine energy of God is called not only one but also multiple by the theologians. Thus St. Basil the Great declares: ‘What are the energies of the Spirit? Their greatness cannot be told and they are numberless. How can we comprehend what precedes the ages? What were God’s energies before the creation of noetic reality?’ For prior to the creation of noetic reality and beyond the ages - for the ages are also noetic creations - no one has ever spoken or conceived of anything created. Therefore the powers and energies of the divine Spirit - even though they are said in theology to be multiple- are uncreated and are to be indivisibly distinguished from the single and wholly undivided essence of the Spirit.
  1. The theologians affirm that the uncreated energy of God is indivisibly divided and multiple, as St. Basil the Great has explained above. And since the divine and deifying illumination and grace is not the essence but the energy of God, for this reason it comes forth from God not only in the singular but in multiplicity as well. It is bestowed proportionately on those who participate in it, and corresponding to the capacity of those who receive it the deifying resplendence enters them to a greater or lesser degree."
*Nikodimos, Saint. The Philokalia: The Complete Text (Kindle Locations 23386-23389). Lulu.com. Kindle Edition. *

His first analogy, to the effects of the suns rays, suggests that there is one energy but multiple effects of that energy, which is consistent with the Fifth Council of Constantinople and the teaching of Saint John of Damascus, who identifies four different meanings of “energy”:

“But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed.”

newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

Palamas and the Fifth Council of Constantinople seem to be saying that there is one energy in the first sense that Damascene gives (essential activity) but multiple energies in the third sense that Damascene gives (the products or effects of essential activity).

Based on this, it seems that the one simple energy of Damascene/Palamas/Constantinople is the same as the essence of the Fourth Lateran Council. The key, and perhaps only, difference is that Constantinople added a cause to the energy, and this cause they called “essence”, whereas the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed that the energy has no cause - it simply Is - the energy is the essence.
 
Thinking further on this quote from Saint John of Damascus:

“Life itself, it should be observed, is energy, yea, the primal energy of the living creature and so is the whole economy of the living creature, its functions of nutrition and growth, that is, the vegetative side of its nature, and the movement stirred by impulse, that is, the sentient side, and its activity of intellect and free-will.”

newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm

An animal has energy in sense (3) of Damascene (products/effects outside the animal) due exclusively to its sense (1) activity of motion.

But Damascene says earlier in Book 1 that God is motionless:

“The Deity, then, alone is motionless, moving the universe by immobility.”

Damascene also calls God “simple” and “uncompound”.

Thus, whereas in animals a distinct energy - motion - is necessary to bring about effects outside the animal, in God there is no such requirement. God certainly doesn’t need motion to bring about effects in creation, so why should He need some other type of energy distinct from His essence?
 
Palamas and the Fifth Council of Constantinople seem to be saying that there is one energy in the first sense that Damascene gives (essential activity) but multiple energies in the third sense that Damascene gives (the products or effects of essential activity).
Click to expand...
Based on this, it seems that the one simple energy of Damascene/Palamas/Constantinople is the same as the essence of the Fourth Lateran Council. The key, and perhaps only, difference is that Constantinople added a cause to the energy, and this cause they called “essence”, whereas the Fourth Lateran Council affirmed that the energy has no cause - it simply Is - the energy is the essence.
Click to expand...
I think you’re on the right track here. When multiple, distinct Divine Energies are discussed it is in the same sense that Faith and Charity are both the Divine Essence yet are understood as distinct in creatures. Divine Energy, the activity of God, is simple and singular but “multiplied” by its distinct effects or applications. The Divine Energy is not really divided, but it is understood in multiple ways depending on how it acts.

As for Divine Energy being caused, I believe that is to be understood in the same sense that the Father is the cause of the Son, not in the sense that the Divine Essence is ever without Divine Energy, or that the Divine Energy is somehow a “supernatural creature”. The Divine Energy follows from the Divine Essence logically, but not as a separate entity; this is why Palamas is always emphasizing that we partake of the Divine Nature through the Energy. If the Divine Energy were something other than God Himself Palamas would not make this declaration. This is what I’m talking about when I say that in the West the definition of Divine Essence includes the Divine Energy, whereas Byzantine theology tends to speak of them distinctly but not in a manner that is intended to convey a different teaching than the West’s.

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top