Revision as of 12:44, 19 May 2009 editD6 (talk | contribs)393,081 editsm fix ISBN syntax (Misplaced Pages Check Misplaced Pages check #69; fmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:14, 1 September 2024 edit undoOmnipaedista (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers242,331 edits no indication of relevance | ||
(447 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Theological concept central to Eastern Orthodoxy}} | |||
{{Eastern Christianity}} | |||
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}} | |||
The '''Energies of ]''' are a central principle of ] in the ], understood by the orthodox ], and most famously formulated by ], defending the ] practice. Which involves the vision of a "]" against charges of ] brought by ]. In support of his understanding of ancient tradition, Palamas argued that conflating "nature" and "things pertaining to nature" would make a Christian fall into ]. | |||
{{Palamism|Theology}} | |||
{{Eastern Orthodox sidebar|expanded=theology}} | |||
In ] (]) theology, there is a distinction between the '''essence''' ('']'') and the '''energies''' ('']'') of ]. It was formulated by ] (1296–1359) as part of his defense of the ] practice of '']''{{refn|group=note|The mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and ] contemplation of God.}} against the charge of ] brought by the ] scholar and theologian ].<ref name="Carile"/><ref name="Romanides_notes"/><ref>{{cite web|title=The Search for Sacred Quietude|url=https://melkite.org/tag/sunday-of-gregory-palamas|date=2019-03-17}}</ref> | |||
Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction.<ref name="nichols">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gO6PAAAAMAAJ&q=%22substance+or+essence%22 |first=Aidan |last=Nichols |title=Light from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology, Part 4 |publisher=Sheed and Ward |year=1995 |page=50|isbn=9780722050804 }}</ref> Historically, ] thought, since the time of the Great Schism, has tended to reject the essence–energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of ].<ref name=Vailhe/><ref name="Meyendorff1">John Meyendorff (editor), , p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, {{ISBN|978-0809124473}}, although that attitude has never been universally prevalent in the Catholic Church and has been even more widely criticised in the Catholic theology for the last century (see section 3 of this article). Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> | |||
==Basic principles== | |||
===The Essence of God=== | |||
The concept of God's essence in Eastern Orthodox theology is called (]) and is distinct from his energies (] in Greek, ] in Latin) or activities in the world. The ousia of God is God as God is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine. At first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or ]. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God is taught in Eastern Christianity as uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".<ref>pg 50-55 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref> God's ousia is beyond all states of (]) consciousness and unconsciousness, being and non-being (like being dead or ]), beyond something and beyond nothing.<ref>Vision of God by ] pg 123 "Knowledge is limited to what exists: now, as the cause of all being, God does not exist (St ] The Divine Names, I, 1, col.588) or rather He is superior to all oppositions between being and non-being.</ref> The God's ousia has not in necessity or subsistence needing or having dependence on anything other than itself. God's ousia as uncreated is therefore incomprehensible to created beings such as human beings. Therefore God in essence is superior to all forms of ] (metaphysics).<ref>pg 50-55 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref> The source, origin of God's ousia or incomprehensibliness is the Father ] of the Trinity, One God in One Father.<ref>Oneness of Essence, and it is absolutely essential to distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as the Holy Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology ] </ref><ref></ref> The God's energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated" just like the existences of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) both God's existences and energies are experience-able or comprehensible. God's ousia is uncreatediness, beyond existence, beyond no existence, God's hyper-being is not something comprehensible to created beings.<ref>] Vision of God pg 123 "Knowledge is limited to what exists: now, as the cause of all being(The Divine Names, I, 1, col.588) or rather He is superior to all oppositions between being and non-being. The Vision of God, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-19-2)</ref> As St ] states "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."<ref>pg 73The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) </ref> | |||
====Distinction between Created and Uncreated==== | |||
For the Eastern Orthodox, the distinction as the tradition and perspective behind this understanding, is that creation is the task of energy. If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we can not fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of ]. <ref>If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St ] (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable. | |||
If we participate in God in His energies, according to the measure of our capacity, this does not mean that in His procession ad extra God does not manifest Himself fully. God is in no way diminished in His energies; He is wholly present in each ray of His divinity. pgs 73- 75 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) </ref> | |||
Eastern Orthodox theologians assert that Western Christianity treats God's ousia as ] and ] (Aristotle's ]) as part of the ] in theology. Which allows God's incomprehensibility to become ], by not making a distinction between God's nature and manifestion of things about God's nature. As Aristotle and Pagan philosophy taught that God was the underlying substance, nature, being, essence (ousia) of all things (as the ] in ]). Making the very thing that makes God, God (uncreated, incomprehensible) the same as God's created world and created beings. God's ousia then becomes detectable and experienced as a substance, essence, being or nature. Rather than God's hyper-being (ousia) as, infinite and never comprehenisible to a finite mind or consciousness. Therefore Pagan philosophy via ] dialects sought to reconcile all of existence (]), with Mankind's reason or rational faculty culminating into deification called ]. Where in Pagan henosis all of creation is absorbed into the Monad and then recycled back into created existence. Since in Pantheism there is nothing outside of creation or the cosmos, including God, since God is the cosmos in Pantheism. Or rather meaning no ontology outside of the ] (creation). Where as Orthodox Christianity strictly seeks ] as reconciliation (via ]) of man (creation, creatures) with God (the uncreated) called ]. Mankind is not absorbed into the God's ousia or hypostases or energies in theosis. Ousia here is a general thing or generality, in this case ousia is the essence, nature, being, substance of the word God and concept of God. Various Orthodox theologians argue Western Christianity teaches that the essence of God can be experienced (man can have the same consciousness as God); they charge that Western Christianity's treatment is very much inline with the pagan speculative philosophical approach to the concept of God. Since no distinction is made between God's essence and his works, acts (i.e. the cosmos) that there is no distinction between God and the material or created world, cosmos. Gregory Palamas' distinction is denied in favor of pagan Philosopher ]'s ]. <ref>There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite -- this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God -- implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause.</ref> Uncreated as that which has no ] and is not caused, in Eastern Orthodoxy therefore being the basis for understanding outside the realm of science. Atheism here being a denial of the uncreated. Pagan philosophical metaphysics being a dialectial attempt to rationalize the uncreated.<ref>Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology by ] </ref> | |||
==Historical background== | |||
====Denial of separation is speculative theology and not empirical theology==== | |||
{{See also|Potentiality and actuality}} | |||
{{seealso|Catholic–Orthodox theological differences}} | |||
The Western Christian church as a matter of dogma rejects the separation of God's incomprehesible essence from God's Activities or energies in creation.<ref>In distinguishing between God and His attributes, one is going against a doctrine of the faith: | |||
"The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence" | |||
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. L. Ott. </ref> Therefore making God his activities or energies, rather than saying God is in essence, being, nature and substance distinct from his activities. Just as Eastern Christians make the distinction between God in essence and God in hypostases. Here distinction does not reflect discord (]) but rather is ]. The denial of separation between God's essence, being, nature and substance and God's creation (from those activities) itself in Pagan philosophy is called ]. In the denial of what God is in essence, being, nature, substance (]) from what God does via energies, acts, power, force (] and ]). This line of thought is the basis for the accusations of Panentheism. The concepts of energeia and dunamis are taken from various Pagan ] including ], ] and ]. This distinction here between Hellenistic philosophy and Eastern Christianity is that, from the perspective of Hellenistic pagan (folk) philosophy, God is a substance, essence, being or nature comprehensible as a ], linear sequential ]. In contrast, from the perspective of Eastern Christianity, God's ousia is apophatic and beyond all forms of finite expression and understanding. Here in Eastern Christianity God because of his ousia is beyond anything and all things comprehensible. God is beyond energeia and dunamis, God as infinite called the Father hypostasis has within his essence, being, nature, substance, of infinite, incomprehensibility and can not be defined or contained into any form of comprehension. Therefore undermining and also transcending metaphysics, God's ousia is not reconcilable to human reason or human rationale and as incomprehensible means God is strictly not one, God is not unity, God is beyond these concepts and is therefore in ousia not definable, experience-able, detectable. God manifests to man in experienceable (but non-confinable) ways as his existences or realities and his energies. Eastern Christians, believe that, at best, God is hyper-being in ousia. Orthodox theologians charge that, through the philosophical teachings of the West, this distinction is denied in Western Christianity. Western Christianity the East charges would not arrive at this teaching if Western theologians used ] rather than speculative philosophy to validate their understanding of God.<ref>FRANKS, ROMANS, FEUDALISM, AND DOCTRINE/'''EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY VERSUS SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY''' Father John S. Romanides A basic characteristic of the Frankish scholastic method, misled by Augustinian Platonism and Thomistic Aristotelianism, had been its naive confidence in the objective existence of things rationally speculated about. By following Augustine, the Franks substituted the patristic concern for spiritual observation, (which they had found firmly established in Gaul when they first conquered the area) with a fascination for metaphysics. They did not suspect that such speculations had foundations neither in created nor in spiritual reality. '''No one would today accept as true what is not empirically observable''', or at least verifiable by inference, from an attested effect. So it is with patristic theology. Dialectical speculation about God and the Incarnation as such are rejected. Only those things which can be tested by the experience of the grace of God in the heart are to be accepted. "Be not carried about by divers and strange teachings. For it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace," a passage from Hebrews 13.9, quoted by the Fathers to this effect.</ref> | |||
The essence–energy distinction was formulated by ] of ] (1296–1359), as part of his defense of the ] ] practice of '']os'', the mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and ] contemplation of God, against the charge of ] brought by the ] scholar and theologian ].<ref name="Carile">"accusing Gregory Palamas of Messalianism"{{snd}} Antonio Carile, Thessaloniki 2000, pp. 131–140, (English translation provided by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece).</ref><ref name="Romanides_notes"> by John S. Romanides, ''The Greek Orthodox Theological Review'', Volume VI, Number 2, Winter, 1960–61. Published by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School Press, Brookline, Massachusetts.</ref> | |||
==The Distinctions of God== | |||
===The existences of God=== | |||
God as infinite and hyper-being (as existent) is called the Father (])<ref>Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion – By Aristotle Papanikolaou</ref> as origin of all things created and uncreated. <ref>pgs 50-53 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref> God's hands that created the finite or material world are the uncreated existences (hypostases) of God named the Son (God incarnate ]) and God immaterial and in Spirit (called the Holy Spirit).<ref>"Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and moulded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom also He said, "Let Us make man." Genesis 1:26." Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) Adversus Haereses (Book IV, Preface) </ref> Since all of the existences of God as well as all things derive from the Father. What is uncreated as well as created also too, comes from the God the Father (hypostasis).<ref>Oneness of Essence, and it is absolutely essential to distinguish this from another dogma, the dogma of the begetting and the procession, in which, as the Holy Fathers express it, is shown the Cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit. All of the Eastern Fathers acknowledge that the Father is monos aitios, the sole Cause” of the Son and the Spirit. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology Michael Pomazansky | |||
</ref>The God as uncreated in ] is infinite and is therefore beyond (not limited to) being or existence.<ref>] Vision of God pg 123 "Knowledge is limited to what exists: now, as the cause of all being(The Divine Names, I, 1, col.588) or rather He is superior to all oppositions between being and non-being. The Vision of God, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-19-2)</ref> The ousia of God is uncreated and is a quality shared as common between the existences of God. This in Eastern Christianity is called hyper-being, above being (hyperousia).<ref>The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology Dionysius the Areopagite pg 64 </ref><ref>Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion – by Aristotle Papanikolaou University of Notre Dame Press February 24, 2006 ISBN 0268038309 </ref> | |||
The ] teachings of hesychasm were approved in the Eastern Orthodox Church by a series of local ] in the 14th century, and Gregory's commemoration during the liturgical season of ] is seen as an extension of the ].<ref name="Fortescue">{{Citation | last = Fortescue | first = Adrian | title = Hesychasm | publisher = Robert Appleton Company | year = 1910 | location = New York | volume = VII | url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm | access-date = 2008-02-03}}</ref><ref name="Vailhe">"No doubt the leaders of the party held aloof from these vulgar practices of the more ignorant monks, but on the other hand they scattered broadcast perilous theological theories. Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the 'holy doctor' and 'one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church', and his writings were proclaimed 'the infallible guide of the Christian Faith'. Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism" (</ref> | |||
===The realities of God=== | |||
It is also taught that there are three distinct realities of God. There is the ] of God in existence; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Second there is the essence, nature, substance, being of God as ] that confirms that each hypostasis of God is God, as only God is uncreated. God is uncreated as infinite, God is uncreated as ], God is uncreated as immaterial Spirit, life, consciousness. There finally is God as the energies (uncreated and supernatural) activities of God in the created world as well as the created world itself i.e. love, beauty, faith, good, kindness, truth, humility and wisdom.<ref>If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St ] (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable. | |||
If we participate in God in His energies, according to the measure of our capacity, this does not mean that in His procession ad extra God does not manifestHimself fully. God is in no way diminished in His energies; He is wholly present in each ray of His divinity. pgs 73- 75 The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)</ref> | |||
== |
==Eastern Orthodox views== | ||
With the Essence-Energies distinction the economy of God or oikonomian in Greek is established within Eastern Orthodox theology. This allows for one to speak of God in essence, being, nature, substance and also of God as his activities in the world. As one must not confuse the transcendent and unknowable essence, being, nature, substance of God with His activity in history. | |||
===Essence and energy=== | |||
In Eastern Christianity Hellenistic philosophical words or concepts are used, due to it being the common language of the Christians and Pagans at the time of Christianity appearance, but the meanings and the concepts themselves are different. In Eastern Christianity God's energies can not be created or destroyed unlike in the West where some energies are created and others not. Energies here as ] of God are the activities (]) of the human spirit (]) that validate the existence of the uncreated in the world. They are unbegotten or uncreated, because they are an experience of something which comes from beyond existence. Orthodox theology holds that while humans can never know God's "Essence" and that direct experience of God would simply obliterate us (much as Moses could not survive seeing God's face), God's "Energies" can be directly experienced (as Moses could see God's back and live). The energies here being distinct from the existences or hypostasis<ref>] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997.</ref>, of the God in Trinity. The energies of God are not considered to be unique to a specific ] of the ]. Instead, they are common to all three. | |||
In Eastern Orthodox theology God's essence is called '']'', "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another", and is distinct from his energies ('']'' in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.<ref>''Aristotle East and West'' by David Bradshaw, pp. 91, 95 Cambridge University Press (27 December 2004) {{ISBN|978-0-521-82865-9}}</ref> | |||
The ousia of God is God as God is. The essence, being, nature and substance{{clarify|date=September 2020}} <!--this is sloppy writing, please explain that substantia is simply the Latin translation of ousia, which we have already agreed to call essence. So how do we end up with a list where "essence" and "substance" appear as two distinct items?--> of God as taught in Eastern Christianity is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. According to Lossky, God's ousia is "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".<ref name="Eastern Church 1997">''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 50–55, {{ISBN|0-913836-31-1}}, (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. {{ISBN|0-227-67919-9}})</ref> God's ousia has no necessity or subsistence that needs or is dependent on anything other than itself.<ref name="Eastern Church 1997"/> | |||
The presence of the energies is not to be taken as denial of the philosophical ] of God. Therefore, when speaking of God, it is acceptable within Eastern Orthodoxy to speak of his energies as God. These would include ] or positive statements of God like the list of St Paul's energies of God. God being love, faith and hope and knowledge (see 1 Cor. 13:2 - 13:13).<ref>] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church pg 81</ref> As is also the case of Gregory of Palamas that God is grace and ] ].<ref> ] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church pg 70</ref> | |||
It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or ]. As St ] states in Chapter 4 of ], "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."<ref>''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. {{ISBN|0-913836-31-1}} (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991, p. 73, {{ISBN|0-227-67919-9}})</ref> | |||
==In the life of the believer== | |||
The important ] and ] distinction remains that people experience God through his energies, not his essence. Traditionally, the energies have been experienced as light, such as the light of ] that appeared at the ] (called photimos). The light that appeared to St Paul on the Road to ]. The light that appeared to the apostles in the book of Acts 2:3. Orthodox tradition likewise holds that this light may be seen during prayer (]) by particularly devout individuals, such as the ]s. In addition, it is considered to be ] in that it is also considered to be the "Light of the Age to Come" or the "Kingdom of Heaven" the reign of God, which is the Christ. | |||
===Distinction between essence and energy=== | |||
==Catholic perspectives== | |||
{{thomism}} | |||
] philosopher and blogger Dr. Michael Liccione argues that the Essence-Energies Distinction, as expounded by St. Gregory Palamas, is true and is compatible with the Catholic dogma of absolute divine simplicity according to the definition given at the ] and the ]. Dr. Liccione says that Divine simplicity and the distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Energies would be contradictory if Divine Essence is taken "to mean God as ''what He eternally is''" because "God is '']'', and thus has no unrealized potentialities." However, if we define God's essence as what "He necessarily is ''apart from'' what He does," then God's "essence is incommunicable" and communication would necessitate Divine actions, or Energies. Thus there is a real distinction between God's Essence, what "He necessarily is apart from what He does," and His Energies, "God as what He eternally does."<ref>{{cite web | |||
| last = Liccione | |||
| first = Dr. Michael | |||
| title = Essence/energies, at last | |||
| work = Sacramentum Vitae | |||
| date = 2006-11 | |||
| url = http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/essenceenergies-at-last.html | |||
| accessdate = 2008-02-04 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
====Real distinction==== | |||
This latter-day treatment contrasts sharply with the polemical assessments in the ], in which ] charges Palamas with heresy and "monstrous errors"<ref>{{Citation | |||
According to Fr. ], Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction", as distinguished from the ] "virtual distinction" and the ] "formal distinction". Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.<ref name="roman">John S. Romanides, . Orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref> Other writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as "real".<ref>Joseph Pohle, ''Dogmatic Theology'', "The Essence of God in Relation to His Attributes", vol. 1, p. 146</ref><ref>Erwin Fabhlbusch, , vol. 4, p. 13, {{ISBN|978-0802824165}}. ]. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>John Meyendorff (1979) , p. 59. Fordham University Press, {{ISBN|978-0823209675}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>John Farrelly (2005) , Rowman & Littlefield. p. 108. {{ISBN|978-0742532267}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>, vol. 7 (1990), Cistercian Publications, p. 258. Books.google.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>Vladimir Lossky, , pp. 73, 77. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976 {{ISBN|978-0913836316}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>Gabriel Bunge, , p. 75. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1 January 2007, {{ISBN|978-0881413106}}, Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref><ref>Karl Rahner, , p. 391. A&C Black, 1975, {{ISBN|978-0860120063}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref> | |||
| last = Fortescue | |||
| first = Adrian | |||
| title = Hesychasm | |||
| publisher = Robert Appleton Company | |||
| year = 1910 | |||
| location = New York | |||
| volume = VII | |||
| url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm | |||
| accessdate = 2008-02-03. | |||
}}</ref> and S. Vailhé characterizes ] as a "no more than a crude form of auto-suggestion"<ref name="OCEGC">{{Citation | |||
| last = Vailhé | |||
| first = S. | |||
| title = Greek Church | |||
| publisher = Robert Appleton Company | |||
| year = 1909 | |||
| location = New York | |||
| volume = VI | |||
| url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm | |||
| accessdate = 2008-02-03. | |||
}}</ref> and calls the theology of Palamas a "resurrection of polytheism."<ref name="OCEGC" /> | |||
As ] <ref>] of Saint ], Of God and His Creatures Section titled That in God Existence and Essence is the same ''PLEASE NOTE: the subtext of: That is to say, it is the same thing for God to be at all and to be exactly what He is. 'Godhead' and 'this God' are identical. No one possibly could be God save Him alone who actually is God. In God the ideal order and the actual order coincide, the order of thought (essence) and the order of being (existence)." Is an added on part and not part of the original work nor the Work of Aquinas but is a distinction added to Aquinas work.''</ref> in his work ] dedicates an entire chapter to the concept. Aquinas' chapter is called '''That in God Existence and Essence is the same'''.<ref>] of Saint ], Of God and His Creatures Section titled That in God Existence and Essence is the same ''PLEASE NOTE: the subtext of: That is to say, it is the same thing for God to be at all and to be exactly what He is. 'Godhead' and 'this God' are identical. No one possibly could be God save Him alone who actually is God. In God the ideal order and the actual order coincide, the order of thought (essence) and the order of being (existence)." Is an added on part and not part of the original work nor the Work of Aquinas but is a distinction added to Aquinas work.''</ref> | |||
::4."'Existence' denotes a certain actuality: for a thing is not said to 'be' for what it is potentially, but for what it is actually. But everything to which there attaches an actuality, existing as something different from it, stands to the same as potentiality to actuality. If then the divine essence is something else than its own existence, it follows that essence and existence in God stand to one another as ]. But it has been shown that in God there is nothing of potentiality (Chap. XVI), but that He is pure actuality. Therefore God's essence is not anything else but His existence." | |||
::5. Everything that cannot be except by the concurrence of several things is compound. But nothing in which essence is one thing, and existence another, can be except by the concurrence of several things, to wit, essence and existence. Therefore everything in which essence is one thing, and existence another, is compound. But God is not compound, as has been shown (Chap. XVIII). Therefore the very existence of God is His essence. This sublime truth was taught by the Lord to Moses (Exod. iii, 13, 14) If they say to me, What is his name? what shall I say to them? Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is hath sent me to you: showing this to be His proper name, He who is. But every name is given to show the nature or essence of some thing. Hence it remains that the very existence or being of God is His essence or nature. | |||
For Aquinas since God is simplistic and unchanging, God in concept lacks potential (] in Greek). God according to Aquinas is pure ] or action. | |||
Therefore without potential, God not being dynamic (ever-changing), God as eternal, is without distinction between his actions in the world and his essence. | |||
==== Orthodoxy and Scholasticsm ==== | |||
The use of this ] by Aquinas has the potential to be viewed by the East as speculative and limiting to the infinite God. Since it appears to confuse the definitions and distinctions about God. Mostly God's essence, being, nature, substance with God's activities and potential as made manifest through God's created beings and creation. As God can be limitedly known through God's creation or what God has caused or created (see ]). As it removes the distinction of God's ousia from God's economy. That is, what God's immanence and transcendence cause or trigger by interfacing with the Material World. Thereby applying to the infinite God, human rational and philosophical limitations and attributes. It appears to attempt to reconcile God with the goals of Pagan philosophy in specific ]. Philosophy as the theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.<ref>Patristic Theology, by John Romanides: ISBN:978-960-86778-8-3 | |||
The rules of logic are valid, in so far as they are valid, only for God’s creation. The rules of logic or philosophy are not applicable with God. There is not any philosophical system or system of logic that can be applied to God. The Fathers consider those who think that they can approach God via pure mathematics to be terribly naive, simply because there is no similarity between created and uncreated. (p.85) | |||
Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone studying philosophy as long as he rejects philosophy’s teachings on the existence and nature of God. After all, philosophy trains the human mind. This is what all the hesychastic Fathers say, including Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, the Church Father whose ability to reason like a philosopher is unsurpassed. And if you read St. Dionysius the Areopagite, you will see that he even follows this same line of thought. So we can conclude that there is nothing wrong with someone spending his time with philosophy in order to train his mind, but it is sheer stupidity to accept the teachings of philosophy when it comes to theological subjects. (Chapter 61. - p. 229)</ref><ref> | |||
CHURCH SYNODS AND CIVILISATION by John S. Romanides | |||
e) Theology and dogma. | |||
All who have reached glorification testify to the fact that "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him" because they know by their experience that there is no similarity whatsoever between the created and the uncreated. God is "unmoved mover" and "moved" and "neither one". Nor oneness nor unity,. nor divinity... nor sonship, nor fatherhood, etc." In the experience of glorification. The Bible and dogmas are guides to and abolished during glorification. They are not ends in themselves and have nothing to do with metaphysics, either with ] or with ]. This means that words and concepts which do not contradict the experience of glorification and which lead to purification and illumination of the heart and glorification are Orthodox. Words and concepts which contradict glorification and lead away from cure and perfection in Christ are heretical. This is the key to the decisions of all Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils as well as that of the Eighth of 879 and especially of the Ninth of 1341. Most historians of dogma do not see this because they believe the Fathers were, like ], searching by meditation and contemplation to understand the mystery of God behind words and concepts about Him. They induct even such Fathers as ] into the army of Latin theology by translating him to say that to philosophise about God is permitted only to "past masters of meditation," instead of "to those who have passed into ]", which is vision of Christ "in a mirror dimly", by "kinds of tongues" and "face to face" in "glorification". | |||
The Fathers never understood the formulation of dogma as part of an effort to intellectually understand the mystery of God and the incarnation. St. Gregory the Theologian ridicules such heretics: "Do tell me, he says, what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God". Neither did the Fathers ever entertain the Augustinian notion that the Church understands the faith better with the passage of time. Every glorification is a participation in all the Truth of Pentecost, which can neither be added to nor better understood. This also means that Orthodox doctrine is purely pastoral since it does not exist outside the context of the cure of individual and social ills and perfection. | |||
Being a theologian is first and foremost to be a specialist in the ways of the Devil. Illumination and especially glorification convey the charisma of the discernment of spirits for outwitting the Devil, especially when he resorts to teaching theology and spirituality to those slipping from his grip. | |||
</ref> The energy or actions of God as well as the power or potential of God are in God's creation, are not to God or as God is within God's being (God's ousia). God's acts and potential, God created by creating the cosmos. It is in God's relationship with man and the created world as can be seen in the teaching of St. ], not God in and onto God's self. Gregory of Nyssa taught "Glory to Glory", which presents God's creation as energy or action and dynamic or potential and how God's creation is constantly transformative by God's uncreated presence in and amongst His creation.<ref> | |||
From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa's Mystical Writings By Gregory of Nyssa, Jean Daniélou, Herbert Musurillo, Herbert Anthony Musurillo Translated by Herbert Musurillo Contributor Herbert Anthony Musurillo By: Gregory Of Nyssa St Vladimir's Seminary ISBN 0913836540, 9780913836545 </ref> Our knowledge of God, therefore, confined as it is to His operations in the created order, leads to a concept of salvation involving eternal yearning (]) for an ever-more intimate knowledge of God's powers. This is how St. Peter's famous reference to our becoming "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pet 1:4) came to be interpreted. Therefore God remains eternal and without change in his nature, substance, being, essence. Through the process of ] mankind's understanding of God is infinite in potential or power (] in Greek), (potentia in Latin). Unlike in Aristotle and the scholastic movement, the Christian God greatly differs from the Pagan God in that the Christian God truly remains Uncreated. It is God's interaction (economy) with the Created that manifests as Action (energy) and Potential (dunamis). | |||
According to ] of the neopatristic school, if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and/or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear ], leading to the teaching of ].<ref>"If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St ] (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable. If we participate in God in His energies, according to the measure of our capacity, this does not mean that in His procession ad extra God does not manifest Himself fully. God is in no way diminished in His energies; He is wholly present in each ray of His divinity." ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 73–75 ({{ISBN|0-913836-31-1}}) James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. ({{ISBN|0-227-67919-9}})</ref> | |||
==Byzantine and Russian Philosophy== | |||
{{seealso|stochastics|Andrey Markov|Pavel Florensky}} | |||
After the conversation of the Pagan Greek society to Christianity many of the pagan philosophical concepts where re-imaged to conform to Christian concepts. The philosophical concepts where changed to reflect the Christian understanding of the Roman and then Byzantine society and by proxy ]. Which then led to the formation of ]. Where the God of the Pagan Philosophers was a deterministic God who was based on a rational Good called order. The Christian God was Uncreated in essence and brought meaning to existence through reconcillation of the individual to the God while not absorbing the individual into God (in contrast to ]). This understanding, was over time articulated as God in his ousia as incomprehensible, God is however ] in the material world as both finite, creation (ordered and limited) and infinite (beyond order understanding and limitation). Unlike the various dualist concepts of creation and divinity the Christian God is not in essence, nature, being and substance, order or chaos for example but is beyond these concepts of created beings. Created and Uncreated are complimentary and not in opposition to one another. As the God of Christianity (unlike the Pagan creator) creates ] it is also this God who is experienced logically (dianoia) and intuitively, noetically (]). Evil in Christianity is not strictly the agent of chaos (]) who manifests in the material world causing hardship, tragedy called the absences of Good. Evil in Christianity is the rebellion to and vilification of life. Evil culminates into the active pursuit of the destruction of existence. In Orthodox Christianity mankind has chosen to use his freewill for selfish aims (to have a separate ]) and therefore caused the ]. | |||
====Modern interpretation==== | |||
==Quotes== | |||
Some contemporary scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence–energies distinction in God as a metaphysically "real" distinction. Orthodox ] ] expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a ''real''<!-- italics in source --> distinction between God's essence and energies."<ref>David Bentley Hart, , p. 204, Eerdmans, 2004, {{ISBN|978-0802829214}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref> G. Philips argues that Palamas's distinction is not an "]" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the ] sense of the term.<ref name="Partakers243">Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), (Associated University Presses 2007 {{ISBN|0-8386-4111-3}}), pp. 243–244, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2007 {{ISBN|978-0838641118}}. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.</ref> According to ] ] theological historian Fr. ], Palamas's essence–energies distinction is "not simply by virtue of his saving action '']'', much less as a merely 'formal' distinction, something demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds."<ref name=nichols/> | |||
'We ought at all times to wait for the enlightenment that comes from above before we speak with a faith energized by love; for the illumination which will enable us to speak. For there is nothing so ] as a mind philosophising about God, when it is without Him'." Of "]" Discourse number 7 ] volume 1 pg 254 — St ] | |||
According to Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than the assessments of Hart and Philips, in only two passages does Palamas state explicitly that God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases," and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction," and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.<ref name=Partakers243/> | |||
"We know our God from his energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near to his essence; for his energies come down to us, but his essence remains unapproachable." (Letters 234, 1) St. ].<ref>pg 245 Andros Odyssey: Byzantium Under Siege | |||
By Stavros Boinodiris Ph D Published by Universe, 2005 | |||
===Eastern Orthodox criticism of Western theology=== | |||
ISBN 0595360270, 9780595360277</ref> | |||
{{See also|Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences}} | |||
Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, especially the traditional ] claim that God is '']'', for its alleged incompatibility with the essence–energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)"<ref>Christos Yannaras, ''Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age'' (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 36.</ref> According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence–energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".<ref>George C. Papademetriou, ''Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas'' (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), p. 61.</ref> | |||
==Catholic perspectives== | |||
The Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrine, which is single and must be accepted by Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, about which Catholics may legitimately disagree. With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html |title=UnitatisRedintegratio |quote=In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130306113628/https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html |archive-date=6 March 2013}} A concrete example of the application of this principle is the separate presentation in the 1912 '']'' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513013754/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Blessed_Trinity,_The |date=13 May 2011 }} of the Church's doctrine on the Trinity as interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation.</ref> | |||
According to Meyendorff, from Palamas's time until the twentieth century, Roman Catholic theologians generally rejected the idea that there is in God a real essence–energies distinction. In their view, a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God contradicted the teaching of the ]<ref name="Meyendorff">John Meyendorff (editor), , p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, {{ISBN|978-0809124473}}. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> on ].<ref name=Vailhe/> Catholic theologian ] held that ] is a ] of the Catholic Church.<ref name="LudwigOtt">"In distinguishing between God and His attributes, one is going against a doctrine of the faith: 'The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence' (''De fide''). The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a ], in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real difference between Deus and Divinitas, so that there would result a quaternity in God (Three Persons plus Godhead). This teaching, which is not obvious in Gilbert's writings, was rejected at the Council of Rheims (1148) in the presence of Pope Eugene III ( {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110120225346/http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma4.php |date=20 January 2011 }} et seq.)" (James Bastible (editor)</ref><ref name="Ludwig28">Dr Ludwig Ott, , p. 28, Tan Books and Publishers, 1960, Retrieved 12 September 2014)</ref> | |||
In contrast, Jürgen Kuhlmann argues that the Catholic Church never judged Palamism to be heretical, adding that Palamas did not consider that the distinction between essence and energies in God made God composite.<ref name=Partakers243/> According to Kuhlmann, "the denial of a real distinction between essence and energies is not an article of Catholic faith".<ref>Catherine Mowry LaCugna, , p. 200. HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, {{ISBN|9780060649128}}. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.</ref> | |||
According to Meyendorff, the later twentieth century saw a change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized.<ref name=Meyendorff/> Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Catholic thought on the distinction.<ref name=Partakers243/> According to G. Philips, the essence–energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium.<ref name=Partakers243/> Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism and neo-Palamism".<ref name=Partakers243/> Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence–energies distinction into their own thinking.<ref>Kallistos Ware ; (Oxford University Press 2000 {{ISBN|0-19-860024-0}}), p. 186. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.</ref> | |||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
'''Orthodox theology''' | |||
*] | |||
* ] ('']'') and ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
'''Neo-Palamism''' | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
'''Western philosophy''' | |||
* ] | |||
* '']'' | |||
'''Asia''' | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* '']'' and '']'' division | |||
* ] | |||
'''Judaism''' | |||
* '']'' | |||
* ] | |||
* ] and ] | |||
==Notes== | |||
{{reflist|group=note}} | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist|30em}} | |||
<references/> | |||
==Bibliography== | ==Bibliography== | ||
{{refbegin}} | |||
*] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) | |||
* {{Cite book|editor-last1=Athanasopoulos|editor-first1=Constantinos|editor-last2=Schneider|editor-first2=Christoph|title=Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God|year=2013|location=Cambridge, UK|publisher=James Clarke & Co|isbn=9780227900086|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=950ABAAAQBAJ}} | |||
*] The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. ({{ISBN|0-913836-31-1}}) James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. ({{ISBN|0-227-67919-9}}) | |||
*David Bradshaw Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom Cambridge University Press, 2004 {{ISBN|0-521-82865-1}}, {{ISBN|978-0-521-82865-9}} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
== Further reading == | |||
* {{Cite journal|last=Mitralexis|first=Sotiris|title=The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance (by Christos Yannaras)|url=https://www.academia.edu/4516822}} | |||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
* | |||
* {{cite SEP |url-id=byzantine-philosophy |title=Byzantine Philosophy |last=Ierodiakonou |first=Katerina|last2=Bydén |first2=Börje}} | |||
{{Christian theology by tradition}} | |||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Essence-Energies Distinction}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 11:14, 1 September 2024
Theological concept central to Eastern Orthodoxy
Part of a series on |
Palamism |
---|
Gregory Palamas |
History |
Theology |
Influences and precursors |
Palamites |
Similar positions |
Contrary positions |
Related |
Christianity portal |
In Eastern Orthodox (palamite) theology, there is a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God. It was formulated by Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of Hesychasm against the charge of heresy brought by the humanist scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria.
Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction. Historically, Western Christian thought, since the time of the Great Schism, has tended to reject the essence–energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism.
Historical background
See also: Potentiality and actualityThe essence–energy distinction was formulated by Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki (1296–1359), as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of hesychasmos, the mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and noetic contemplation of God, against the charge of heresy brought by the humanist scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria.
The mystagogical teachings of hesychasm were approved in the Eastern Orthodox Church by a series of local Hesychast councils in the 14th century, and Gregory's commemoration during the liturgical season of Great Lent is seen as an extension of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodox views
Essence and energy
In Eastern Orthodox theology God's essence is called ousia, "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another", and is distinct from his energies (energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.
The ousia of God is God as God is. The essence, being, nature and substance of God as taught in Eastern Christianity is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. According to Lossky, God's ousia is "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing". God's ousia has no necessity or subsistence that needs or is dependent on anything other than itself.
It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. As St John Damascene states in Chapter 4 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."
Distinction between essence and energy
Real distinction
According to Fr. John Romanides, Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction", as distinguished from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Scotist "formal distinction". Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies. Other writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as "real".
According to Vladimir Lossky of the neopatristic school, if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and/or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of pantheism.
Modern interpretation
Some contemporary scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence–energies distinction in God as a metaphysically "real" distinction. Orthodox philosophical theologian David Bentley Hart expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a real distinction between God's essence and energies." G. Philips argues that Palamas's distinction is not an "ontological" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the Scotist sense of the term. According to Dominican Catholic theological historian Fr. Aidan Nichols, Palamas's essence–energies distinction is "not simply by virtue of his saving action ab extra, much less as a merely 'formal' distinction, something demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds."
According to Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than the assessments of Hart and Philips, in only two passages does Palamas state explicitly that God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases," and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction," and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.
Eastern Orthodox criticism of Western theology
See also: Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differencesEastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence–energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)" According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence–energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".
Catholic perspectives
The Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrine, which is single and must be accepted by Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, about which Catholics may legitimately disagree. With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."
According to Meyendorff, from Palamas's time until the twentieth century, Roman Catholic theologians generally rejected the idea that there is in God a real essence–energies distinction. In their view, a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God contradicted the teaching of the First Council of Nicaea on divine unity. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott held that an absence of real distinction between the attributes of God and God's essence is a dogma of the Catholic Church.
In contrast, Jürgen Kuhlmann argues that the Catholic Church never judged Palamism to be heretical, adding that Palamas did not consider that the distinction between essence and energies in God made God composite. According to Kuhlmann, "the denial of a real distinction between essence and energies is not an article of Catholic faith".
According to Meyendorff, the later twentieth century saw a change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized. Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Catholic thought on the distinction. According to G. Philips, the essence–energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium. Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism and neo-Palamism". Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence–energies distinction into their own thinking.
See also
Orthodox theology
- Deification (theosis) and synergy
- Uncreated Light
- Cappadocian Fathers
- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
- Byzantine philosophy
- Pavel Florensky
Neo-Palamism
Western philosophy
Asia
- Bhedabheda
- Essence-Function
- Brahman and Ātman division
- Shakti
Judaism
Notes
- The mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and noetic contemplation of God.
References
- ^ "accusing Gregory Palamas of Messalianism" – Antonio Carile, Η Θεσσαλονίκη ως κέντρο Ορθοδόξου θεολογίας – προοπτικές στη σημερινή Ευρώπη Thessaloniki 2000, pp. 131–140, (English translation provided by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece).
- ^ Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics by John S. Romanides, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Volume VI, Number 2, Winter, 1960–61. Published by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School Press, Brookline, Massachusetts.
- "The Search for Sacred Quietude". 17 March 2019.
- ^ Nichols, Aidan (1995). Light from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology, Part 4. Sheed and Ward. p. 50. ISBN 9780722050804.
- ^ "No doubt the leaders of the party held aloof from these vulgar practices of the more ignorant monks, but on the other hand they scattered broadcast perilous theological theories. Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the 'holy doctor' and 'one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church', and his writings were proclaimed 'the infallible guide of the Christian Faith'. Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism" (Simon Vailhé, "Greek Church" in Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909)
- John Meyendorff (editor), Gregory Palamas – The Triads, p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, ISBN 978-0809124473, although that attitude has never been universally prevalent in the Catholic Church and has been even more widely criticised in the Catholic theology for the last century (see section 3 of this article). Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
- Fortescue, Adrian (1910), Hesychasm, vol. VII, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 3 February 2008
- Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw, pp. 91, 95 Cambridge University Press (27 December 2004) ISBN 978-0-521-82865-9
- ^ The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 50–55, ISBN 0-913836-31-1, (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. ISBN 0-913836-31-1 (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991, p. 73, ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- John S. Romanides, Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics. Orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Joseph Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, "The Essence of God in Relation to His Attributes", vol. 1, p. 146
- Erwin Fabhlbusch, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 4, p. 13, ISBN 978-0802824165. Eerdmans. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- John Meyendorff (1979) Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 59. Fordham University Press, ISBN 978-0823209675. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- John Farrelly (2005) The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery, Rowman & Littlefield. p. 108. ISBN 978-0742532267. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Cistercian Studies, vol. 7 (1990), Cistercian Publications, p. 258. Books.google.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, pp. 73, 77. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976 ISBN 978-0913836316. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Gabriel Bunge, The Rublev Trinity, p. 75. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1 January 2007, ISBN 978-0881413106, Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, p. 391. A&C Black, 1975, ISBN 978-0860120063. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- "If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St Mark of Ephesus (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable. If we participate in God in His energies, according to the measure of our capacity, this does not mean that in His procession ad extra God does not manifest Himself fully. God is in no way diminished in His energies; He is wholly present in each ray of His divinity." The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 73–75 (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
- David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, p. 204, Eerdmans, 2004, ISBN 978-0802829214. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- ^ Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Traditions (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), pp. 243–244, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0838641118. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
- Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 36.
- George C. Papademetriou, Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), p. 61.
- "UnitatisRedintegratio". Archived from the original on 6 March 2013.
In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting.
A concrete example of the application of this principle is the separate presentation in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Blessed Trinity Archived 13 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine of the Church's doctrine on the Trinity as interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation. - ^ John Meyendorff (editor), Gregory Palamas – The Triads, p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, ISBN 978-0809124473. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
- "In distinguishing between God and His attributes, one is going against a doctrine of the faith: 'The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence' (De fide). The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a Synod at Rheims, in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real difference between Deus and Divinitas, so that there would result a quaternity in God (Three Persons plus Godhead). This teaching, which is not obvious in Gilbert's writings, was rejected at the Council of Rheims (1148) in the presence of Pope Eugene III (D. 389 Archived 20 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine et seq.)" (James Bastible (editor)
- Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 28, Tan Books and Publishers, 1960, Retrieved 12 September 2014)
- Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, p. 200. HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, ISBN 9780060649128. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
- Kallistos Ware Oxford Companion to Christian Thought; (Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-19-860024-0), p. 186. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.
Bibliography
- Athanasopoulos, Constantinos; Schneider, Christoph, eds. (2013). Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God. Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co. ISBN 9780227900086.
- Vladimir Lossky The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9) Google books
- David Bradshaw Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom Cambridge University Press, 2004 ISBN 0-521-82865-1, ISBN 978-0-521-82865-9 Google books
Further reading
- Mitralexis, Sotiris. "The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance (by Christos Yannaras)".
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
External links
- Theoria, Prayer and Knowledge by Dr M.C. Steenberg Theology and Patristics University of Oxford
- "Orthodox Psychotherapy" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos
- Excerpt from "Byzantine Theology, Historical trends and doctrinal themes" by John Meyendorff
- Partial copy of V. Lossky's Chapter in Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church dedicated to the Essence and Energies distinction
- International Conference on the Philosophy and Theology of St Gregory Palamas, 7–15 March 2012, with links to on line material from the Conference
- Ierodiakonou, Katerina; Bydén, Börje. "Byzantine Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.