| Revision as of 01:15, 29 January 2011 editLoveMonkey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,892 edits →Kierkegaard and accusations of existentialism← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 May 2018 edit undoAnthony Appleyard (talk | contribs)209,150 edits ←Changed redirect target from Essence–energies distinction (Eastern Orthodox theology) to Essence–energies distinctionTag: Redirect target changed | ||
| (67 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT] | |||
| {{Eastern Christianity}} | |||
| {{Copy edit|date=December 2010}} | |||
| {{POV|date=December 2010}} | |||
| This is an article for the general view of the theological teaching for the teaching specific to the Eastern Orthodox church please refer to the ] article. A real distinction between the '''essence''' (''ousia'') and the '''energies''' (''energeia'') of ] is a central principle of]. Eastern Orthodox theology regards this distinction as more than a mere conceptual distinction.<ref name=nichols>{{cite book |url=http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=Nichols+Palamas+%22substance+or+essence%22&btnG=Search+Books |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}}</ref> This doctrine is most closely identified with ], who formulated it as part of his defense of the practice of ] against the charge of heresy brought by ].<ref>"accusing Gregory Palamas of Messalianism" ().</ref><ref>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.</ref> These teachings of Palamas were made into dogma in the Eastern Orthodox church by the ].<ref name=Fortescue/><ref name=Vailhe/> | |||
| Historically, Western Christianity 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.<ref name=Vailhe/><ref name=Meyendorff/> Further, the associated practice of hesychasm used to achieve ] was characterized as "magic".<ref name=Fortescue/> More recently, some Roman Catholic thinkers have taken a positive view of Palamas's teachings, including how he understood the essence-energies distinction, arguing that it does not represent an insurmountable theological division between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.<ref>Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), ''Partakers of the Divine Nature'' (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), p. 243-244</ref> | |||
| ==Nature of the essence-energies distinction in God== | |||
| Philosophers differentiate between various kinds of distinction. A real distinction is drawn between genuinely separable things, each of which is capable of existing independently of all others.<ref name=Pages></ref> For ], the existence of such a distinction between mind and body was an important part of his philosophy.<ref></ref> A merely mental or conceptual distinction is drawn wholly within our minds between aspects that in fact apply to a single thing.<ref name=Pages/> Other kinds of distinction include the virtual distinction (a conceptual distinction that, however, has a basis in reality) and the ]. | |||
| According to ], Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction".<ref name=roman/> Romanides distinguishes this "real distinction" from the ] "virtual distinction" and the ] "formal distinction".<ref name=roman></ref> Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.<ref name=roman/>) | |||
| Many writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as a "real" distinction.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> A few scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence-energies distinction in God as a "real" distinction. For example, David Bentley Hart expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a ''real'' distinction between God's essence and energies".<ref></ref> | |||
| According to Aidan Nichols, Palamas's essence-energies distinction is not a mere "formal" distinction. By a "formal" distinction, Nichols means a distinction merely "demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds".<ref name=nichols/> | |||
| G. Philips argues that Palamas's essence-energies distinction is not an "]" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the Scotist sense of the term.<ref></ref> | |||
| According to Roman Catholic theologian{{Citation needed|date=January 2011}} A.N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than Bentley's and Philips's, in two passages (only) Palamas explicitly says 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>''Partakers of the Divine Nature'', pp. 243-244</ref> | |||
| Western theologians admit no real distinction in God other than that between the three divine Hypostases or Persons. Neither between God's essence and the three Persons of the Trinity, nor between God's essence and his energies, do they admit a real distinction, but only a distinction that has a basis in reality or a formal distinction. | |||
| ==Eastern Orthodox perspective== | |||
| Robert E. Sinkewicz describes Palamas' ultimate perspective as being the "preservation of the reality of God's self-revelation and the divine economy of creation and salvation."<ref>{{cite book |title=The one hundred and fifty chapters |authors=Saint Gregory Palamas, Robert Edward Sinkewicz |publisher=PIMS |year=1988 |page=48 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=hS5LJkFMdOIC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22divine+economy%22+Palamas&source=bl&ots=pO8bRthF71&sig=0kdJsm_VPEnquNUR2-sMt4Mh2L4&hl=en&ei=kwwlTZDiIILSsAOH9ZzAAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22divine%20economy%22%20Palamas&f=false}}}</ref> | |||
| ===The transcendence of God=== | |||
| {{see also|God particle}} | |||
| ====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 as actualized in the world.<ref>Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw pg 91 pg 95 Publisher: Cambridge University Press (December 27, 2004) ISBN 978-0521828659</ref> 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 name="Eastern Church 1997">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 beyond existence and non-existence.<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><ref>Psalm 18:11, Psalm 97:2</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 name="Eastern Church 1997"/> 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 name="The Divine Names 1997">] 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==== | |||
| {{see also|Law of identity}} | |||
| 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 manifestation 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 comprehensible 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 in line 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 dialectical attempt to rationalize the uncreated.<ref>''Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology'' by ]</ref> | |||
| ===Orthodox criticism of Western theology=== | |||
| {{See also|Catholic–Orthodox theological differences}} | |||
| {{Refimprove|date=December 2010}} | |||
| Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, and especially its 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> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| This text is written as a series of assertions (e.g. A, B and C) written as if they were indisputable fact. Instead, it appears to be the orthodox interpretation of the difference between the Orthodox and Scholastic views of the essence-energies distinction. This text should be rewritten to use sentences such as "According to Romanides, A is true." or "Romanides asserts that B is true". Or, if we want to assert that Romanides represents the only EO view on the topic, we could say "The Eastern Orthodox view is that C is true." Above all, we must be careful when we put this under the section heading "Roman Catholic perspectives" because the reader is led to believe that this is the Roman Catholic perspective when it appears to be the Eastern Orthodox view of what the Roman Catholic perspective is. | |||
| There is also the problem that the entire section titled "Orthodoxy and Scholasticism" reads like a theological treatise and thus has a tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. --] | |||
| ==== Orthodoxy and Scholasticism ==== | |||
| Some Eastern Orthodox thinkers view the West's traditional rejection of the essence-energies distinction as a result of a restrictive Western theology that confuses various 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 there is distinction in created and uncreated this distinction does not depict a conflict between these distinctions as God has dominion over all. 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 and truth.<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. They are not to God or as God is within God's being (God's ousia). They are God's acts and potential in that 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, unchanging 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 0-913836-54-0, 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. As man though having a beginning (is a Creature or a created being) become eternal in that he has no end (like God). 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). As God while remaining unchanged, uncaused and uncreated has also all that is created, caused ever changing. | |||
| --> | |||
| ==Kierkegaard and accusations of existentialism == | |||
| {{seealso|Christian existentialism}} | |||
| ] expressed (through writing the works as St John Climacus) in ] for example, an approach to God as, God whom as Father ] (existence) has primacy over ] essence. Hence the teaching that the core of existentialist philosophy can be understood as the teaching of "]". This has caused many Western observers to see Eastern Orthodox Christian theology as existentialist (since the Essence-Energies distinction also somewhat holds the view).<ref>The encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume 5 By Erwin Fahlbusch page 418</ref> This also accounts for other existentialist works such as Dostoevsky's ]. However much of Dostoevsky's works contain existentialist themes. In the case of Dostoevsky his existentialism would have drawn from his Eastern Orthodox faith as there is no record of Dostoevsky (and the Orthodox church in general) being exposed to Kierkegaard nor the later ] movement. | |||
| ==Roman Catholic perspectives on the essence-energies distinction in God== | |||
| The Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrine, which is single and must be accepted by Roman Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, about which Catholics may legitimately disagree. With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Roman 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=http://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.}} A concrete example of the application of this principle is the separate presentation in the 1912 '']'' of the Church's doctrine on the Trinity as interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation.</ref> | |||
| 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></ref> on ].<ref name=Vailhe/> The idea of a real essence-energies distinction in God also conflicted with Western ]'s usual insistence that, as '']'', God can contain no real distinctions besides the distinctions between 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 | |||
| | accessdate = 2008-02-03. | |||
| }}</ref> According to ], Palamas's philosophical opponents always borrowed their weapons from Western Scholasticism.<ref name=Fortescue/> For these opponents, Fortescue claims, an uncreated energy really distinct from God's essence would be either "something neither God nor creature" or a second God. Fortescue reported that Palamas charged his opponents with fifty heresies and that Palamas himself, when condemned by a synod summoned by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1345, "outwardly" withdrew what Fortescue called Palamas's "heresy".<ref name=Fortescue/> | |||
| Resistance to the claim of a real essence-energies distinction in God continued into the twentieth century. In the '']'' of 1911, <!-- I'm not sure if the following statements should be included in this section. They are properly sourced, but they do not directly mention the essence-energies distinction in connection with their attacks on Palamas. For all we can prove from the text, their attacks may be based solely on Palamas's acceptance of hesychast meditative practices, not on his essence-energies distinction. --] | |||
| ] mentioned that "hesychasm" is derived from the Greek word ἥσυχος, meaning "quiet", and "hesychast" from ἡσυχαστής, meaning "quietist", and he characterized some practices of the later hesychasts as "magic".<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 | |||
| | accessdate = 2008-02-03. | |||
| }}</ref> Another writer of the same period, Edward Pace, described the ] means of attaining contemplation of the uncreated light as "prayer, complete repose of body and will, and a process of auto-suggestion".<ref name=Pace>{{Citation | |||
| | last = Pace | |||
| | first = Edward | |||
| | title = Quietism | |||
| | publisher = Robert Appleton Company | |||
| | year = 1911 | |||
| | location = New York | |||
| | volume = XII | |||
| | url = http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm | |||
| | accessdate = 2008-02-03. | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| -->Simon Vailhé accused Palamas's theology of "monstrous errors" and "perilous theological theories", claiming that the Eastern churches' canonization of Palamas's theories represented a "resurrection of polytheism".<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> Fortescue, also writing in the 1911 ''Catholic Encyclopedia'', claimed that "the real distinction between God's essence and operation remains one more principle, though it is rarely insisted on now, in which the Orthodox differ from Catholics".<ref name=Fortescue/> Fortescue saw Hesychasm, which Barlaam called superstitious and absurd, as a form of].<ref name=Fortescue/> ] held that an absence of real distinction between the ]and God's essence is a dogma of the Roman 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 ( et seq.)" ( taught a real distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes."<ref>Ludwig Ott, ''Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma'' (Tan Books and Publishers, 1974), p. 28</ref> In contrast, Jürgen Kuhlmann argues that the Roman 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>{{cite book|title=Partakers of the divine nature: the history and development of deificiation in the Christian traditions |first1=Michael J.|last1=Christensen |first2=Jeffery A.|last2=Wittung |publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press |year=2007|page=243|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=DgtUoMqm594C&pg=PA243&dq=Palamism+%22Catholic+Church%22&hl=en&ei=5WcZTejyK4v2tgOJxuWtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Palamism%20%22Catholic%20Church%22&f=false}}</ref> According to Kuhlmann, "the denial of a real distinction between essence and energies is not an article of Catholic faith".<ref></ref> The ], the collection of Roman Catholic teachings originally compiled by ], has no mention of the words "energies", "hesychasm" or "Palamas".<ref> </ref> | |||
| The later twentieth century saw a remarkable 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 Roman Catholic thought on the distinction.<ref>"Several Western scholars contend that the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas himself is compatible with Roman Catholic thought on the matter" (</ref> 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></ref> 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></ref> Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking.<ref></ref> | |||
| == See also == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| ==Bibliography== | |||
| *] 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, 9780521828659 | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Essence–Energies Distinction}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 May 2018
Redirect to: