Energy-essence distinction (2024)

Energy-essence distinction

New York

I was recently chatting and having a discussion with one of my Greek orthodox friends, And we started talking about the energy essence distinction. And he brought up that the eastern/byzantine Catholics venerate Gregory Palamas (which I don't necessarily have a problem with) But then he said that you guys believe in the energy essence distinction. But then I brought up that its dogmatic in the catholic church that there is no distinctions or divisions in God. And he said that the byzantine catholic church believes in it a different way then the Greek orthodox church does.

But my question is why do you guys exactly believe about the essence-energy distinction? do you guys think its heresy? or do you follow it to a extent? What do you think about Gregory Palamas?

Re: Energy-essence distinction

Peterferrelli#42363204/30/23 05:34 PM

Hollidaysburg, PA

Christ is Risen!!

Peterferrelli,

Welcome to the forum.

This is true; there are no divisions in God.

As I understand the "essence/energies" theology, these two concepts don't divide God. "Essence" is the part of God that makes Him Who He is. It is the part of God the, if we understood it, would make Him no longer God. It is His Inmost Being. "Energies," on the other hand, are the manifestations of Who He is that make us able to interact with Him. I will let discussion for our more erudite brethren here to flesh this out for you.

Bob
Moderator

Re: Energy-essence distinction

theophan#42363505/01/23 12:58 PM

MD

I think this illustrates the pitfall of taking a legitimate Patristic illustration and inadvertently giving it more theological weight than is proper or intended. Since there are "no divisions in God," it is not proper to then say -- and I understand that this was done here to explain the distinction, but it is not proper to say-- "the part of God ... It is the part of God ...": No divisions so, no parts.

Consider this: Creation cannot be a part of God, nor can it be apart from God.

See Re: Eastern Catholic theology and doctrine and other posts in the thread.

Post 420891 and Post 420896.
Also Post 301307

So, someone tell me, is the concept of Energy/Energies on a par with Essence in Trinitarian theology; is it Orthodox dogma or not?

Re: Energy-essence distinction

Peterferrelli#42363605/01/23 01:08 PM

MD

My (BCC) position: It's OK as a theologoumenon [en.wikipedia.org]; so it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

St. Gregory was Archbishop of Thessaloniki.

Re: Energy-essence distinction

Peterferrelli#42363805/03/23 01:48 AM

Canada

Dear Peterferrelli,

It seems that the main issue at stake in the questions you raise is about Grace: Is Grace created or uncreated?

The Christian East affirms that Grace is Uncreated and that we can and do participate in the Uncreated Energies of God which is the Holy Spirit sanctifying and deifying us in Christ for the glory of God the Father. We certainly cannot participate in the Divine Nature of God nor in the Divine Prosopa or Persons, of course. But we can, and do, participate in the Divine Energies that emanate from God, much LIKE the rays that emanate from the sun.

The teachings of St Gregory Palamas (Palamas himself was acknowledged as a saint by Rome in 1973) are certainly affirmed by the Orthodox Church and his theology as contained in The Triads (Meyndorff, Paulist Press) is a beautiful and patristics-based outline of the process of divinization and the acquisition of the Holy Spirit as the goal of the Christian life. The Ukrainian Catholic patriarch Josef Cardinal Slipyj was particularly interested in the theology of St Gregory and had his name included in his Paritcular Church's calendar - as it is in those of other EC Churches. Were he a heretic in any way, that would be an impossibility.

Rome has often affirmed the sanctity of those who were not in communion with it. For example, Armenian saints are in the Roman calendar like Saint Nerses the Gracious and his nephew, Saint Nerses of Lambron. They were both very well disposed toward union with Rome and worked to achieve it in their lifetimes. Not to mention St Gregory of Narek who, although not in communion with Rome, was declared a Doctor of the Church by Rome!

The theological issues surrounding the work and theology of Palamas are crucial in any real ecumenical theological convergence between East and West. Certainly, Orthodoxy does indeed maintain that the theology of Uncreated Grace is an integral part of Orthodox doctrine as it was proclaimed during the Hesychast Councils in the fourteenth century - which some Orthodox theologians would like to see formally elevated to an Ecumenical conciliar status.

Certainly the next time Rome wishes to declare a Doctor of the Church who was not in formal communion with it, St Gregory Palamas would make an excellent candidate and would make great ecumenical headway with respect to the issue of Grace. In the meantime, we can all rededicate ourselves to the means whereby we can actualize the patristic teaching of Palamas: the continual Prayer of Jesus, fervent reception of Holy Communion, active participation in the Divine Liturgy, the psalsm and the Offices of the Church, spiritual reading of the Gospel etc.

Re: Energy-essence distinction

Orthodox Catholic#42363905/03/23 01:13 PM

MD

Why can't it be both? What is the sanctifying grace of the West but uncreated grace? Why can't there also be a created grace?

The complexity -- "Uncreated Energies of God " -- of this statement, though quite articulate, gives me the theological creeps. The Church realized and established a theology of the person, in particular the All Holy Three, and we need only say and refer to that ultimate expression, and the Divine Persons, for explanation -- as did Jesus, Himself:

RSV John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit (λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον). Simple: we receive the Holy Spirit.

So we "cannot participate" but we do partake?

RSV Philippians 1:7 It is right for me to feel thus about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers (συγκοινωνούς) with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.

RSV Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers (μετόχους) of the Holy Spirit,

RSV 2 Peter 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως).

O God, who wonderfully created the dignity of human nature and still more wonderfully restored it, grant, we pray, that we may share (consortes) in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share (particeps) in our humanity.

-- The Collect for Christmas Mass During the Day and the prayer at the mixing of water and wine in the Missal of Pius V:
Deus, qui humanæ substantiæ dignitatem mirabiliter condidisti, et mirabilius reformasti: da nobis per hujus aquæ
et vini mysterium, ejus divinitatis esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostræ fieri dignatus est
particeps, Jesus Christus, Filius tuus, Dominus noster: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate
Spiritus Sancti Deus: per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.

What I'm saying is that Essence-Energy is an artifact of the development of the revelation in Christ, the Incarnation. The Church used, perhaps even needed, essence (see the Creed) and divinity for the sense of god-theos, but having done so, Christian theology is inherently and properly a theology of the Person(s).

Re: Energy-essence distinction

Peterferrelli#42364005/03/23 09:27 PM

Canada

Bless, Reverend Father Deacon and Doctor!

You make very important points

Yes, Eastern theology on Theosis truly Is a theology of the Persons of the All-Holy Trinity. We can and should begin with this statement. This is also why Theosis is about the Energies of the Triadic God - we truly DO participate in God's Divine Life.

The Divine Energies is about the "how" this is done, beginning with St Athanasius' view that God became Man in Christ so that humanity may become divinized by way of participating in the Deified Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

it is the Person of the Holy Spirit that imparts what the West would call "sanctifying Grace" which, for the East especially, is the Gift of Himself. That is why, as I understand it, Grace is Uncreated - because the Holy Spirit is God and so is Himself Uncreated.

Today, I don't believe the West would have any difficulty affirming this at all. I believe you are correct in saying that the reality of Theosis can be "both" - Uncreated with respect to the Sanctifier Who dwells within us (and you know there are plenty of Scriptural verses attesting to this, especially in the Gospel of John) and also "Created" which might be understood as the "existential and ongoing process of sanctification" of the people of God.

I don't see any problem with what you've said except, of course, the "knee-jerk" reaction of those who are entrenched in certain positions, historically conditioned, of course, that sees the other as "heretical."

IF the West sees "sanctifying grace" as a created thing separate from the Person of the Holy Spirit, then that would be a problem for the East. But IF the West accepts what you yourself have so clearly elucidated with respect to the Person(s), then there should be no problem at all.

As for the distinction between participate or partake - as you like it. Palamism really only came about in reaction to the Nominalism of Barlaam of Calabria and his ilk so it needed to define and even create theological definititions, based on Patristic theology, to counter it. Of course that occurs any time the Church faces a theological challenge to its faith and praxis.

The process of understanding the interpretation of these historical perspectives is exactly that - a process. I don't believe that there is any specific texts in Scripture or Tradition that can be pointed at so as to solve the issues at hand. For example, Arians and Catholics shared the same Bible but came to widely different interpretations of what it meant with respect to the Son of God.

That is the great thing about theological reflection and development. The Western scholastic tradition, however, is now being more closely scrutinized in the West and wide areas of mutual theological agreement is at least open between East and West as both return "Ad Fontes" with a more focused attention on Patristics.

The East will never, of course, accept the Scholastic tradition.