Trinity help!

  • Thread starter Thread starter notsmart
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

notsmart

Guest
Terms I am trying to understand:

Substances
1 divine substance/nature-
3 distinct relations?

Essences
Energies

Is there a different understanding of these terms with the Eastern Catholics than with the Latin Rite Catholics?

I am rather confused about all of these terms.

Is the understanding of the Trinity completely the same with Eastern rites, and the Latin rite?

Proceeds from the Father and the Son, or not?

🤷

This is hard to understand because I am reading material that uses terms I am not sure I fully understand yet.

Can someone use layman’s terms for me to get me started? And any other tips for research.

I just want to know what if any, real theological differences there may be in the different rites.

Monica
 
notsmart said:
Terms I am trying to understand:

Substances
1 divine substance/nature-
3 distinct relations?

Essences
Energies

Is there a different understanding of these terms with the Eastern Catholics than with the Latin Rite Catholics?

I am rather confused about all of these terms.

Is the understanding of the Trinity completely the same with Eastern rites, and the Latin rite?

Proceeds from the Father and the Son, or not?

🤷

This is hard to understand because I am reading material that uses terms I am not sure I fully understand yet.

Can someone use layman’s terms for me to get me started? And any other tips for research.

I just want to know what if any, real theological differences there may be in the different rites.

Monica
Click to expand...
Basically, the Trinity (God) has one nature, but has three distinct persons. The three persons do not share this one nature, but each person fully posseses this nature. Thus, it is called a mystery.
I’m pretty sure Eastern Catholics believe the exact same thing.
I do recomend a book by Frank Sheed called Theology and Sanity. It explains everything in simple terms. I believe you can read it online.
 
bpcatholic said:
Basically, the Trinity (God) has one nature, but has three distinct persons. The three persons do not share this one nature, but each person fully posseses this nature. Thus, it is called a mystery.
I’m pretty sure Eastern Catholics believe the exact same thing.
I do recomend a book by Frank Sheed called Theology and Sanity. It explains everything in simple terms. I believe you can read it online.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much! You have saved me tons of time on research!🙂

CIRCUMINSESSION

New word for me today!🙂
 
**Substances
1 divine substance/nature-
3 distinct relations?

Essences
Energies**

**Keep in mind that these and other terms have technical meanings in theology, and especially Trinitarian theology.

It’s not something that can be adequately discussed on computer boards.

For a summary, you can try this site:

intratext.com/X/ENG0824.HTM**
 
No need to worry about the essence energies distinction. Its not part of Catholic theology.
 
Hi, I’m new to the Catholic Answers forum. This is my first post, which means you old timers have fresh meat, and I am looking forward to a lot of good discussion.

As for the essence/energy distinction, it is a part of Catholic theology, just not Roman theology. This, however, is better discussed at “Palamian theology go beyond his predecessors?”

I have thoroughly enjoyed the threads that I read before joining tonight and look forward to talking about this more, East and West.

I have to call it a night, but I hope to see you tomorrow. God bless you.

In Christ through Mary
 
No need to worry about the essence energies distinction. Its not part of Catholic theology.

Maybe not part of LATIN Catholic theology, but it IS part of the Byzantine tradition.
 
bpbasilphx said:
No need to worry about the essence energies distinction. Its not part of Catholic theology.

Maybe not part of LATIN Catholic theology, but it IS part of the Byzantine tradition.
Click to expand...
It seems that EED as expounded by Archbishop St. Gregory Palamas the Wonderworker of Thessaloniki{1} is a legitimate development with Biblical and Patristic roots. Catholic Dr. Michael Liccione{2} and neo-Palamite Catholic Brandon Watson{3} have shown that EED (Essence-Energies Distinction) is compatible with the dogma of ADS (Absolute Divine Simplicity) that was defined at the Ecumenical Councils of Lateran IV and Vatican I, because there is a distinction between God as He necessarily is apart from what He does and God as He eternally does (i.e. what God freely does is not necessitated by what He necessarily is). Plus, EED can be traced to Ex 3; 30:20-23; Ps 66:7; Mt 5:8; 17; 28; Rm 1:19-20; 1 Tim 6:16; Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus Haereses 4:20:1,5), Justin Martyr of Caesarea (Christian Inquiries 3:2), Cyprian of Carthage (On the Vanity of Idols 9), Gregory of Nyssa (Homily 6 on the Beatitudes), Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (De Decretis 2), Gregory the Great Theologian of Nazianzus (Orations 31:5), Basil the Great of Caesarea (Contra Eunomius 1:8 in PG 29:528B), John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople, Cyril of Alexandria (Thesaurus 18 in PG 75:312C), Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (On Love 1:96; Ad Thalassium 22 in PG 90:320A), and John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:9,14; 2:23; 3:15). That is 11 saintly Church Fathers from the West and East, including six Doctors of the Church.

{1} a. thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/07/catholic-veneration-of-gregory-palamas.html
b. thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/07/sainthood-of-gregory-palamas-concluding.html
{2} mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/essenceenergies-at-last.html
{3} branemrys.blogspot.com/search?q=palamas
 
notsmart said:
I know this is going to sound really bad, but I don’t mind having two less things to study now.😃
Click to expand...
If you haven’t discovered it already, the essence/energies distinction is a polarizing concept on these forums.

It is a part of the theology of some the Eastern Catholic Churches. I would not be dissuaded from developing a cursory knowledge of the concepts so that you can at least follow discussions. So, to assist with that…

A “simple” way to think of it is that it is the distinction between who God is and what God does (a distinction without separation).

"Who God is" - this would be his essence, from the Greek word ousia. So when you go to a Novus Ordo mass, and say in the creed “one in being with the Father” you are speaking a phrase taken from the greek (homoousia) (not the best translation, but this is where ousia comes into the creed). In other words, the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) share in the one Essence of God - the Divine Nature. It is what is common to all three. Simplified here to “who God is,” or perhaps more specifically “what.” This is the incomprehensible in God, for the East.

"What God does" - The english word energy is rather insufficient for translating the Greek word used - energeia. This refers to God’s activity; what He does to reveal himself. Each of the three Persons who share that one ousia, are distinguished but their personal acts energeia, and they also participate in other acts. This is the comprehensible in God, how we know that He is and something about who He is, although not the ousia.

A bit complex, even when simplified, eh? There are a lot of paradoxes like distinction with out separation, but that just makes it more fun. I tried to leave a lot of excess explanation out, so it would be more to the point. I hope it helps.

The Latin school of thought is different, because it is believed that you do comprehend the essence of God, at least in part. However, the Latin word for essence that I believe is at play here is “essentia.” (anyone? anyone?) This is not the same idea as ousia. A closer Latin word might be “esse” trans. being, but there is a lot lost in translation from Greek to Latin. Hence, the great debates.

I hope this gives some food for thought.

God Bless,
R.

P.S. This matrix I set up is based on the expression of a friend of mine, from when she first comprehended the distinction between essence and energy. Any comments are welcome.
 
StRaphael said:
It seems that EED as expounded by Archbishop St. Gregory Palamas the Wonderworker of Thessaloniki{1} is a legitimate development with Biblical and Patristic roots. Catholic Dr. Michael Liccione{2} and neo-Palamite Catholic Brandon Watson{3} have shown that EED (Essence-Energies Distinction) is compatible with the dogma of ADS (Absolute Divine Simplicity) that was defined at the Ecumenical Councils of Lateran IV and Vatican I, because there is a distinction between God as He necessarily is apart from what He does and God as He eternally does (i.e. what God freely does is not necessitated by what He necessarily is). Plus, EED can be traced to Ex 3; 30:20-23; Ps 66:7; Mt 5:8; 17; 28; Rm 1:19-20; 1 Tim 6:16; Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons (Adversus Haereses 4:20:1,5), Justin Martyr of Caesarea (Christian Inquiries 3:2), Cyprian of Carthage (On the Vanity of Idols 9), Gregory of Nyssa (Homily 6 on the Beatitudes), Athanasius the Great of Alexandria (De Decretis 2), Gregory the Great Theologian of Nazianzus (Orations 31:5), Basil the Great of Caesarea (Contra Eunomius 1:8 in PG 29:528B), John Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople, Cyril of Alexandria (Thesaurus 18 in PG 75:312C), Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (On Love 1:96; Ad Thalassium 22 in PG 90:320A), and John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 1:9,14; 2:23; 3:15). That is 11 saintly Church Fathers from the West and East, including six Doctors of the Church.

{1} a. thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/07/catholic-veneration-of-gregory-palamas.html
b. thebananarepublican.blogspot.com/2008/07/sainthood-of-gregory-palamas-concluding.html
{2} mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/essenceenergies-at-last.html
{3} branemrys.blogspot.com/search?q=palamas
Click to expand...
Palamas is NOT Catholic. We should not go outside the body of Christ to look for theology otherwise we are in grave danger of heresy. Furthermore, the theology attached to the EED contradicts the scriptures that state that we “shall see him face to face” and “we shall see him as he is”.
 
bpbasilphx said:
No need to worry about the essence energies distinction. Its not part of Catholic theology.

Maybe not part of LATIN Catholic theology, but it IS part of the Byzantine tradition.
Click to expand...
Palamas was not a Catholic; therefore, his theology which was developed outside of the Body of Christ is not part of our faith. We don’t adopt the theology of Luther. Why would we adopt the theology of Palamas?
 
East_and_West said:
No need to worry about the essence energies distinction. Its not part of Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
The Distinction may not be part of Roman Catholic theology but Essence is. It is what allows us to talk about the Trinity being One in Three.
 
East_and_West said:
Palamas was not a Catholic; therefore, his theology which was developed outside of the Body of Christ is not part of our faith. We don’t adopt the theology of Luther. Why would we adopt the theology of Palamas?
Click to expand...
We do not “adopt” the theology of Papamas but he expresses a part of the Byzantine tradition of theology. His expression of Hesychasm is, perhaps, the highest but certainly was not new in the Church.

As was noted on other threads, St. Gregory Palamas is, indeed, a “Catholic” saint in that he is on the calendar of Eastern Catholic Churches (my own Melkite Church being one that celebrates his feast day).

Deacon Ed
 
Wonderboo said:
The Distinction may not be part of Roman Catholic theology but Essence is. It is what allows us to talk about the Trinity being One in Three.
Click to expand...
Yes, God being an essence is part of Catholic theology. God is a being and thus an essence. In fact, God’s essence is his being God is purely simple.
 
Deacon_Ed said:
We do not “adopt” the theology of Papamas but he expresses a part of the Byzantine tradition of theology. His expression of Hesychasm is, perhaps, the highest but certainly was not new in the Church.

As was noted on other threads, St. Gregory Palamas is, indeed, a “Catholic” saint in that he is on the calendar of Eastern Catholic Churches (my own Melkite Church being one that celebrates his feast day).

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
He may be wrongly venerated in the Eastern Churches but he was most certainly not a Catholic. In fact, he was in opposition to the idea of anyone even becoming a Catholic. We should never follow the lead of a man who opposed being a memeber of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
 
East_and_West said:
He may be wrongly venerated in the Eastern Churches but he was most certainly not a Catholic. In fact, he was in opposition to the idea of anyone even becoming a Catholic. We should never follow the lead of a man who opposed being a memeber of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Since it is One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church it follows that if he is venerated in even one Eastern Catholic Church he is venerated in the Catholic Church. You might want to reconsider your claim.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon_Ed said:
Since it is One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church it follows that if he is venerated in even one Eastern Catholic Church he is venerated in the Catholic Church. You might want to reconsider your claim.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Hello Deacon Ed,

All this is good to know, but I do apologize if I opened up a pandora’s box here. I want to apologize to everyone because that was not my intention at all.

Now I feel bad I asked.😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top