Unity of God

[Isa_Almisry]

The Catholic Answers Forums (CAF) exists to provide a community for Catholics and **non-Catholics **of all levels of interest in and/or commitment to the Catholic Church where they may gather on the Internet for discussion in a safe and charitable environment. We do not require that members agree with the Catholic Church in order to participate; only that they remain charitable in their postings.

We provide forums for discussion of various viewpoints within and outside of Christianity; some of the forums that reflect such wide points of view are Traditional Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism, and Non-Catholic Religions. While many who gather in these forums are faithful Catholics, CAF members (Catholic or otherwise) are free to discuss issues of interest to them, even though some of those issues are not entirely in line with the Church’s understanding of Christianity.

We feel that by allowing discussion of issues of concern for Catholics and non-Catholics, CAF is not endorsing those issues that are contrary to Church teachings but allowing members to discuss those issues amongst themselves. Any member confused on a point of Church doctrine is welcome to submit a question to the Ask an Apologist forum (AAA forum protocol information) or to contact Catholic Answers directly.

If an individual member or guest finds that the reading of and/or participation in a particular forum is disturbing to his spiritual peace, we encourage you to visit one of the many other forums we offer, each of which has its own character and ambience. Topics as diverse as the people who post here appear on our boards, and we hope that you will find one suited to your interests and needs.

Emphasis mine.

This originates from another thread (Eastern Catholicism). The intent of this thread, however, is different.

Eastern Catholicism
Statement of Purpose

This forum will now be titled Eastern Catholicism. The new focus of this forum is to provide a community for Eastern Catholics and to help Latin Catholics better appreciate the Church’s Eastern heritage. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate in compliance with the stated purpose of the forum.

1. The thread is not about “the two lungs” of Rome understanding each other. There is an on going thread for that. As I am not under Rome, I am not part of that discussion.

Further, I have not reason, nor do I, to accept the filioque in any form (“and through the Son” is not the same). Why I mention this, will be clear I hope below, with references that have been made to this issue.

Basically to say that the distinction between the essence and energies of God is ditheism undermines the claim of Latin theology that the filioque does not make two sources, and hence two Gods.

The discussion has brought out a point frequently made by Latins and Scholastics in particular about the Orthodox teaching on theology, namely the essence and eneriges of God as God, that, as will quoted, has been denounced as ditheism.

I see that many share the same beliefs as I do on the matter, and others, though they may not share it (e.g. our generous Marnoite posters) they don’t accuse us of ditheism either, and they do demonstrative an understanding of what we believe. As I am not Eastern Catholic according to the definition of that forum, I cannot really give a response/defense to it for those considered Eastern Catholic there (for one thing, they have to accommodate the theology of the filioque into their own, I do not) on the matter. Hence NCR.

Specifically, I am asking about the Essence and Energies of God as believed and taught by the Orthodox Church. Specifically Latin objections to it, unencumbered by considerations for their coreligionists’ (i.e. the stated object of Eastern Catholicism Forum) theology.

cont…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

1. I have been made aware on an erstwhile forum that groups that have come to Orthodox lands to converts the Orthodox, e.g. Baptists, have gone into some detail on this (one Orthodox poster called a baptist missionary manual an excellent Orthodox catechism. It was on line, anyone have the link?). Some (well, they said many) becoming Orthodox as a result.

Do Protestants have a particular take on this issue?

Basically, the Orthodox confess God is known through His energies, and not through His essence, which remains forever knowable and unapproachable. Grace is the energy of God, not a creation, but the Creator Himself, whom (not which) we receive.

1. Many of the objections that the Latins have brought up, with acusations of ditheism, sound like the arguments Muslims, JW, etc. make against the Trinity. The Latins claim the two are not the same. We Orthdox confess that they are similar, in fact on the charge of ditheism, identical.

Any Muslim, JW, etc. see the distinction between the energies and essence on the one hand, and the dintinction between the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity on the other? Separate and completely different? Or the same for you?

Of course I have no objection to uniate (name removed by moderator)ut to this discussion. But in particular the thread is dedicated to the ORTHODOX understanding of the issue.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Its interesting that some Christians accept this idea, when the scriptures themselves state that we PARTAKE of the divine nature. I think the essence energies distinction, advanced by the **non-catholic **theologian Gregory Palamas is an extremely dangerous idea.

How so?

Again the distinction preserves the otherness of God, while allowing Him immanence.

As Losky says, the Orthodox acknowledge that the nature of God’s essense is that He cannot be contained, even by His essence. Hence His Energies.

But then again, according to you, Losky would be another “dangerous non-catholic” theologian.

The fact is that is devovles into ditheism and maybe its something everyone should avoid altogether. Besides, aren’t you the one’s who think God is mysterious? This sounds way too much like some one is trying to describe and classify the mystery in complete contradiction to the apophatic approach.

Avoid God? THAT’s a dangerous idea.

Yes, God in His essense is very mysterious indeed, and cannot be known.

No, it’s not trying to classify the mystery, just explain how God is unknowable, yet He reveals Himself to us (it was this very point that led me from Protestantism to Orthodoxy).

I have never viewed it as being boiled down into ditheism anymore than the Trinity is boiled down into tritheism. With the correct understanding, it is not comparable…There are some things which God reveals and there are some things which He does not. How is this ditheism? As for the “aren’t you the one’s who think God is mysterious,” I’m not sure what you mean…Don’t you believe God is mysterious??? If not, then please tell me everything about Him!

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Yes, please tell us all.

As the Orthodox Fathers tell us, a God who is knowable cannot be God. Man’s finite mind cannot contain the infinite God.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The essence energies issue is quite different from the essence energies distinction. Within the Trinity, the members are all ONE IN ESSENCE as the liturgy states. Something’s essence is what that thing is. When we distinguish God’s energies from his essence, then we say that his energies are a thing completely different from God himself (his essence), we make them another being.

How do you conclude that? The distinction essences/energies arises from the experience of God’s revelation, which includes the realization that we cannot know Him as He knows Himself (otherwise we would be God).

Yet hesychasts believe the essence is also God.

Yes, of course. God doesn’t have parts.

So now we have two beings are that called God. That is ditheism. Quite different from the members of the Trinity that are all of the same essence.

The East is very proud of a tradition that views God as mysterious taking the apophatic approach to theology. And often Eastern Christians are very suspect of Western Scholasticism, believing that Western Christians over describe God and his mysteries. Yet, in the essence/energies debate we have Eastern Christians attempting to classify God and separate him into parts.

No, just describing the effects of the revelation of an Unknown (and Unknowable) God.

They do this with regard to a matter that revelation has nothing to say.

Actually, revelation has much to say on it, and is the cause and basis of it.

Even since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made.” [Romans 1:20]

The Orthodox teaching on essence/energies explains how God is invisible yet understood and seen.

Moses could not, for instance, see the face of God (His essence) but could see Him (His Energies) after He passed. He saw Him in the Burning of the bush (His energies) but did not, could not, know His name (His Essence).

It is as if they simply imposed a neoplatonic world view onto God, completely abandoning apophaticism.

Actually, and shown above, this world view is from the OT and NT, revelations that show that God canot be seen/known: the essence of apophaticism.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t think the Hesychast movement, nor the essence/energies distinction are intrinsic to authentic eastern CHRISTIAN spirituality. Rather, i view them as an aberration propagated by a non-Catholic theologian, Gregory Palamas. This may be an extreme example, but its like the Church allowing the adoption of the theology of Martin Luther. Of course, Gregory Palamas was not Martin Luther, but we should only be accepting theology from Catholic theologians.

Lutherans (I was one), any comments?

And of course, as you have stated, Palamas is “not Catholic.” The uniates are debating you on that on their forum.

Here I’ll state that his theology has been adopted by the EO in Pan Orthodox synod, which some Orthodox even consider Ecumenical. His status as Catholic/Universal is in no doubt, for he taught what the pre 1054 Fathers taught:

“One divinity without beginning, simple, super-essential, without parts an indivisible. For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the divinity. And there is one God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For one and the same are the essence and the energy and the power of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [St. Maximos the Confessor, Capita theologica 2,1]

Many OO’s have spoken approvingly of St. Gregory Palamas. Mardukm I know states this is from EO influence, but I see the same thought in OO writings. Which is not to be surprising:

He taught what the Cappadocians taught:

The essentially invisible God becomes visible by His energies. He is not visible in His essence, but in some of His characteristics.” [St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Beatitudinibus 4]

and Dionysios’ thought is based on the same idea of the unity of the Divinity (essence) with His names (energies). They are as much a heritage of the OO as us (which is how we are one uniting Church).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The filioque devolves into ditheism so if you want to discount the energies/essence distinction with this argumentation then you must also discount the filioque.

Which is exactly the point of St. Photios onward, the filioque introduces a second source of divinity, no matter how much you deny that. The begetting and procession are at the source of the distinct persons of the Trinity. So either the Father begets the procession (how else could the Spirit proceede from the Son as from one source?), or a He procedes from the Son and Father separately, in which you have two Gods who produce a third.

Is is God’s essence that as infinite, He is not contained by anything, including His Essence, and radiates in his Energies.

The Byzantines deny this. If you read Lossky, you will see that they believe that the energies are nothing other than God Himself. They do not follow the philosophers understanding that God is only essence.

I don’t like the essence/energies distinction myself but your arguements are false. They are addressed by the theology itself. The energies are not distinct from God. They are His action in the world. The classic image is that of the sun and the rays of light that come from it.

Our Maronite brother is correct. Although as an Antiochean Arab, I might not have formulated it as they did at New Rome (us orientals, EO, OO and Maronite in many ways have no use for EITHER ROMES)

By distinguishing some thing from God’s essence, you are creating a separate being. Thus the energies are an entirely different being, no matter how loud hesychasts protest. The sun and its rays image does not work either. The rays of the sun are not the sun itself but a product of the sun. Are you suggesting that God’s “energies” are a product of God?

Not any more than the Son and Spirit is a product of God, as the Fathers use the same image for the relationship of begetting and procession.

Actually, rays are the sun itself. Spectography can tell the compsition of the star itself. E=mc2?

Even if the esssence energies disctinction did not creat two separate divine beings, it does create other problems. First, God is infinite. And infintity cannot be divided.

So God is not divided from His Energies nor His Essence.

I cannot say that I have two pieces that added up to infinity.

Essence x Energies=God. Not “plus”

Second, God is ulimited. Yet by creating the essence energies distinction you are limiting God. God’s essence is limited by not being his energies and his energies is limited by not being his essence. Thus the unlimted God becomes limited.

God is not limited by His Essence, hence His Energies.

Third, the idea of God’s “energies” is an arbitrary metaphysical concept found nowhere in revelation.

Found all over revelation, only a few examples of which I have provided.

Rather, it is more akin to the neo platonic idea that the “One” can never really interact with world directly and, thus, creates demiurges to create and manage the world.

The demiurge is a dyad, more akin to your filioque Trinitarianism. The Energies of God are the Essence creating and managing the world.

In the same way, hesychasts create the demiurge of God’s “energies”. Finally, the idea that we only experience God in his energies and not his essence seems to run counter to what the scriptures state. As we know the bible says that we are “partakers of the divine nature” and that “we shall see him as he is.”

And we do partake of the divine nature of the Energies, and see the uncreated Light of Tabor as He is. It was the Scholasticism of Barlaam that denied this.

The Scripture state no one knows the Father but the Son, and no one can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

And the same logic could be used to say that the Latin west teaches that there are two gods. The Father is the source of the Trinity. The west introduces the Son as a cause of the Spirit. Therefore there are two causes and since there are two causes then there are two gods. You are consequently ditheists.

The energies are Gods action within time. Saying that Gods energies are seperate from His essence is the same as saying the Father and the Son are seperate. You will not say that Christianity in general teaches there are three gods due to the fact that there are three persons of the Trinity but you object to the distinction between the essence and energies based on a preconception that it makes two gods. Just as the Trinity is not three gods, the essence and energies is not two gods. The energies proceed from the essence as the rays of the sun proceed from the sun.

Please do not get into technicalities about the metaphores, the early Christians did not know particle physics and they did not know the properties of light. To get into the technicalities would be the same as a non-Catholic condemning the Catholic Church because the trial of Gallilleo.

Again, our Maronite brother is right.

I have heard this arguement before but I don’t think it holds any water whatsoever. The members of the Trinity are one in essence filioque or not, and thus only one being. The only way the Filioque could devolve into ditheism is if only the Father is considered God in normal Christian theology. But that is not the case.

You haven’t demonstrated how it doesn’t hold water.

Actually if you read about the Greek theology of the Trinity, you will see that they start with the persons of the Trinity. The Father is God. He begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from Him. He is the source of the Trinity. Making the Son into a source for the Spirit introduces a second source. Therefore ditheism. This was one of the arguements of Photius against the west.

You say the members of the Trinity are one in essence filioque or not. That is irrelevant because the three persons are just as important as the one essence. God is not essence before He is person. God is Father at the same time as He is essence. As was mentioned already, the Father is the source. Two sources means two gods.

Right again.

Sounds like falicious reasoning to me. One essense means one being. Period. It doesn’t matter where you start from: plurality of persons, or oneness of being. The fact that they are one in essence means that they are one God.

And that God’s Energies are Him means that He is one God.

You are equating Essence=God. That’s the theology of monism and Islam, not the God revealed in Christ Jesus.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

This was clarified on another thread/forum.

Apologetics would be to discuss the Roman Catholic understanding.

Non-Catholic Religions would be to discuss the difference between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox understandings.

Eastern Catholicism would be to discuss the Eastern Catholic understanding or effects on Eastern Catholics.

Which is your intent?

I’d add the difference between the Latins and Protestant, Muslims, etc on the matter as well.

 

[anthony022071]

For now,I’ll give my own objection to the distinction between essence and energies.

I don’t see how anyone can speak of the energies of God as if they are separable from the essence of God.
When the Spirit descends upon men,as with Pentecost in Acts,it is God in person infusing men. It is one thing to distinguish energies and essence in conceptual,philosophical terms,but I think it is wrong to suggest that they are separable entities in actuality. Can anything about God be said to be without Person? If we say that the energies of God separate from the essence of God,then we also say that the energies of God come to us without the Persons.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

For now,I’ll give my own objection to the distinction between essence and energies.

I don’t see how anyone can speak of the energies of God as if they are separable from the essence of God.
When the Spirit descends upon men,as with Pentecost in Acts,it is God in person infusing men. It is one thing to distinguish energies and essence in conceptual,philosophical terms,but I think it is wrong to suggest that they are separable entities in actuality. Can anything about God be said to be without Person? If we say that the energies of God separate from the essence of God,then we also say that the energies of God come to us without the Persons.

Since we do not say that they are separate, what’s the argument?

"One divinity without beginning, simple, super-essential, without parts an indivisible. For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the divinity. And there is one God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For one and the same are the essence and the energy and the power of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [St. Maximos the Confessor, Capita theologica 2,1]

 

[anthony022071]

Since we do not say that they are separate, what’s the argument?

If that is the case,what is the problem with the procession of the Spirit,as person,from the Son? Why should anyone say that only the energies of the Spirit go forth from the Son? If the distinction between the energies and the essence of God is only a matter of terminology,rather than an actual distinction,or separateness,in reality,then there is no reason to object to the going forth of the Spirit from the Son. The essence,and therefore person,of the Spirit must proceed from the Son,identical with the energies.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

If that is the case,what is the problem with the procession of the Spirit,as person,from the Son? Why should anyone say that only the energies of the Spirit go forth from the Son? If the distinction between the energies and the essence of God is only a matter of terminology,rather than an actual distinction,or separateness,in reality,then there is no reason to object to the going forth of the Spirit from the Son. The essence,and therefore person,of the Spirit must proceed from the Son,identical with the energies.

Because the Persons share the essence and energies (rather is the essense and energies). They DON’T share personhood/hypostasis.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

On a related note:

It is unfortunate that in this day and age, people get so attached to personal tastes that they are unwilling to address the substantive issues. The facts are the following:

1. Palamas has never been infallibly cannonized and, thus, it is possible that he is not a saint.

If you mean he wasn’t by the Congregation of the Causes of Saints, so haven’t a number of saints whom the Church glorifed before you put the present scheme in place. Should they be decanonized (what did you do with St. George?).

As for infallible, I keep getting conflicting accounts whether the canonization is ex cathedra or not (but then, we can’t get an agreed list of ex cathedra “infallible” pronouncements.

1. There is great evidence that he should not be considered a saint:
   a. He opposed Communion with the Catholic Church

He followed the Fathers of Constantinople I and Ephesus in opposing those you mangle the Creed.

He was and always remained in communion with the Catholic Church.

 b. He taught doctrines contrary to the teachings of the Church 
 even though those teachings had already been defined by the 
 Church.

Such as?

His energy/essence teaching is that of the Cappodician Fathers, whose is the Church’s teaching, as we have quoted, nearly a millenium before St. Gregory’s own time.

c. It is unlikely that the concept of invincible ignorance applies
to him as he was both learned and intelligent.

That he was.

Given what is stated above, there is not good reason thant any Catholic should venerate him as a saint. In fact, he should be viewed as an example of how a Catholic should not live his life.

God has glorified him as an example of how a Catholic should live his life, and as such every Catholic should venerate him as a saint.

 

[anthony022071]

Because the Persons share the essence and energies (rather is the essense and energies). They DON’T share personhood/hypostasis.

That flies in the face of what Christ said about he and the Father being one,and also what Paul referred to as the “Spirit of the Father” and “Spirit of the Son”. Paul was not speaking only of the energies of the Spirit. If the persons of God are not shared,then they do not share essence either,because personhood is a matter of essence;and thus,God is not unified.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

That flies in the face of what Christ said about he and the Father being one,and also what Paul referred to as the “Spirit of the Father” and “Spirit of the Son”. Paul was not speaking only of the energies of the Spirit. If the persons of God are not shared,then they do not share essence either,because personhood is a matter of essence;and thus,God is not unified.

Then, if you believe they share their hypostasis, then, as we have said, you have composed a Faith for yourselves that differs from that of the Fathers at Constantinople.

 

[anthony022071]

Then, if you believe they share their hypostasis, then, as we have said, you have composed a Faith for yourselves that differs from that of the Fathers at Constantinople.

No,different from Gregory Palamas.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No,different from Gregory Palamas.

Same thing.

 

[anthony022071]

Same thing.

The theology of the Council of Constantinople 1 was approved by Rome. The same cannot be said of the theology of Gregory Palamas. Gregory made a real distinction between essence and energies,which the Council did not do.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The theology of the Council of Constantinople 1 was approved by Rome. The same cannot be said of the theology of Gregory Palamas. Gregory made a real distinction between essence and energies,which the Council did not do.

Rome did not take part in Constantinople (actually NO ONE from the West did). On an erstwhile forum the claim was repeated over and over that Rome did not accept it until Chalcedon. Mute point, it was already an Ecumenical Council.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the Second Council expounded on the Essence/Energies of God. In this they relied on St. Clement, etc. going back to the Apostles. St. Maximus stated the same, as did St. Gregory.

So Rome accepted Constantinople I and not Constantinople V (the series of Pan-Orthodox Councils that stated St. Gregory’s views)? Rome’s problem.

But then, we are told, Rome has approved him on the calendar, and of him as a saint. So I guess it’s your problem.

 

[anthony022071]

Rome did not take part in Constantinople (actually NO ONE from the West did). On an erstwhile forum the claim was repeated over and over that Rome did not accept it until Chalcedon. Mute point, it was already an Ecumenical Council.

That doesn’t make sense. If no one from the West was in attendance,then obviously it was not ecumenical,but regional. It was not an ecumenical council until Rome accepted it’s creed and doctrines as having universal application. Councils didn’t get to decide for themselves if they were ecumenical,and neither did the secular powers that sponsored them. If that were the case,then any of those large heretical councils in the East could have been considered ecumenical. The deciding factor was the approval of the pope.

The Cappadocian Fathers of the Second Council expounded on the Essence/Energies of God. In this they relied on St. Clement, etc. going back to the Apostles. St. Maximus stated the same, as did St. Gregory.

They did not expound anything on the essence and energies that would have precluded the hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son. They did not deal with that matter at the Council.

So Rome accepted Constantinople I and not Constantinople V (the series of Pan-Orthodox Councils that stated St. Gregory’s views)? Rome’s problem.

It isn’t Rome’s problem because his views were not accepted.

But then, we are told, Rome has approved him on the calendar, and of him as a saint. So I guess it’s your problem.

He is a saint primarily out of respect for the Greek Catholics.