Topic: What Grace(s) would the IC Confer?

[ialmisry]

This topic seems to come up a lot on several threads, one of which, already very long, I took this:

Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?

I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?

Another, the issue of interpreting "full of grace" as scriptural proof of the IC (cited by the "infallible" statement of the IC), has come up here:

And furthermore, the way in which I interpreted some passages by St. Jacob of Serugh (a non-Chalcedonian saint) seemed to fortify my beliefs that words like "immaculate" or "pure" or "undefiled" speak of her actions, not necessarily of her soul.  I will share these words with you, in which Marduk interpreted them differently as a "second purification," which I find very confusing to understand personally.

I don’t believe I ever used the words “second purification.” I think that was your interpretation of what I stated. I may have used it (it’s been so long ago), but if I did, I would never have intended it to mean that the first purification was exactly like the second purification. As explained in previous posts, the Holy Spirit gives different Graces, and the Grace received by Mary at her conception is different than other Graces she received later in life.

That sort of negates the "full of grace" argument of your "infallible" statement of the 'singular" grace of the IC:

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.

Since grace is a He, not an it, the energies of God, which are one in essence and undivided, it seems a claim of "full of grace" and "all graces" can only be a relative statement, as the Holy Theotokos never becomes one in essence with her Son, despite what Kolbe and Miravelli teach.  Hence, no necessity of the IC are implied in those phrases that excempts the Holy Theotokos from the general curse.

[elijahmaria]

This topic seems to come up a lot on several threads, one of which, already very long, I took this:

Mardukm , what the Immaculate Conception declares then ?

I'll explain it to you in non-Latin terms:

From the moment of her conception, the Theotokos was given all the grace a creature can receive from the Holy Spirit.

Wouldn't the reception of all the grace a creature can receive, lead directly to theosis?

Another, the issue of interpreting "full of grace" as scriptural proof of the IC (cited by the "infallible" statement of the IC), has come up here:

And furthermore, the way in which I interpreted some passages by St. Jacob of Serugh (a non-Chalcedonian saint) seemed to fortify my beliefs that words like "immaculate" or "pure" or "undefiled" speak of her actions, not necessarily of her soul.  I will share these words with you, in which Marduk interpreted them differently as a "second purification," which I find very confusing to understand personally.

I don’t believe I ever used the words “second purification.” I think that was your interpretation of what I stated. I may have used it (it’s been so long ago), but if I did, I would never have intended it to mean that the first purification was exactly like the second purification. As explained in previous posts, the Holy Spirit gives different Graces, and the Grace received by Mary at her conception is different than other Graces she received later in life.

That sort of negates the "full of grace" argument of your "infallible" statement of the 'singular" grace of the IC:

When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction.

Since grace is a He, not an it, the energies of God, which are one in essence and undivided, it seems a claim of "full of grace" and "all graces" can only be a relative statement, as the Holy Theotokos never becomes one in essence with her Son, despite what Kolbe and Miravelli teach.  Hence, no necessity of the IC are implied in those phrases that excempts the Holy Theotokos from the general curse.

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?

[Papist]

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?

Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?

[elijahmaria]

None of this makes a whole lot of sense. 

If grace is a He and not an it, then how is the He-Grace distinguished from the He-God?

I hesitate to say or ask more for fear of making more of a muddle than is already here.

Is there any way to approach this systematically or is it all too much of a mystery?

If its too much of a mystery than I expect we should not be discussing it at all.

Oh yes, we are standing on the edge of a great mystery.  Thinking about it is as dizzying as staring up into a starry night and trying to comprehend the cosmos.  Exhilarating!

Lossky says, touching the fringe of the mystery:

"The theology of the Eastern Church distinguishes in God the three hypostases, the nature or essence, and the energies. The Son and the Holy Spirit are, so to say, personal processions, the energies natural processions. The energies are inseparable from the nature, and the nature is inseparable from the three Persons. These distinctions are of great importance for the Eastern Church's conception of mystical life: ..."

Read more here
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

Archbishop Basil Krivoshein also speaks of it in his monograph on Saint Gregory Palamas.... Wasn't there an earlier thread on this and didn't we find his wonderful piece of writing on the Web somewhere?

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?

I know that there are quarrels betwen the Catholics and the Orthodox about the meaning of those terms, and I must admit that the details have fallen out of my brain.

So, if you will allow me, I shall fall back on Lossky again.... in his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

"...the Latins might express the mystery of the Trinity by starting from one essence in order to arrive at the three persons … the Greeks [preferred] the concrete as their starting point ( that is to say the three hypostases), seeing in them the one nature."

According to Lossky the Trinity,

"...is not a nature or an essence nor is it a person; it is something which transcends all notions both of nature and of person..."

[Irish Hermit]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

[Papist]

Do nature and essence mean the same thing for you?

I know that there are quarrels betwen the Catholics and the Orthodox about the meaning of those terms, and I must admit that the details have fallen out of my brain.

So, if you will allow me, I shall fall back on Lossky again.... in his The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

"...the Latins might express the mystery of the Trinity by starting from one essence in order to arrive at the three persons … the Greeks [preferred] the concrete as their starting point ( that is to say the three hypostases), seeing in them the one nature."

According to Lossky the Trinity,

"...is not a nature or an essence nor is it a person; it is something which transcends all notions both of nature and of person..."

Seems like nature and essence are grouped together as synonyms but I could be wrong.

[Papist]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

[elijahmaria]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.

[Papist]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.

Definitely a complicated topic.

[Papist]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

The real issue that needs more work is:

Does Essence=Him

And if Essence=Him

How can Energies=Him

And then the question of course

Do Energies=Grace

If so does Grace=Him

If so do we participate in Essence=Him or Energies=Him?

And if there is an Essence=Him AND and Energies=Him...

How many Divinities do we actually have here?

There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

M.

Also one of the reasons that I think that Gregory Palamas may have gone too far.

[Irish Hermit]

I was hoping you'd mention Lossky.  When I have time, I will post something of his here that makes it very clear that Grace=Him needs a little work to make sense.

I suppose the question is, if grace is not Him (God) then who is it?  Are there other uncreated persons or things in existence besides God?

Are the energies also Him? In other words Energies=Him.

Yes, There are not two uncreated things in existence -God and the Energies.  There is only One God who is uncreated and all that is uncreated is Him.

[Irish Hermit]

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.

[Papist]

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.

So Energies = Him then? Thanks.

[deusveritasest]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

[elijahmaria]

[
There are answers to all of this but it makes the assertion that Energies=Him a little bit meaningless when shoved out there as some kind of correction for calling grace "it" or energies "them"...which Lossky does alladarntime!!....ain't that peculiar.

As I just said to Papist, there cannot be two uncreated 'things' - an uncreated God and a bundle of uncreated energies.  There cannot be two Gods.   God in Himself is all that is uncreated.

Ah!!  The joys of language!!

A BUNDLE

A Bundle of Joy!!  An uncreated BUNDLE of Joy!!

Is HE a bundle?

Or is IT a bundle?

Are THEY multiple BUNDLES in one MEGA-BUNDLE?

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

[Irish Hermit]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?

[deusveritasest]

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?

[Irish Hermit]

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?

Not really. no.  That means - I have forgotten if there is any answer to what you are asking about, or I never knew any answer in the first place.  I suspect it is probably the former and we can try to ferret out some small information about the actuality of God.

[Irish Hermit]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

[Papist]

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years

I have never really been able to get decent information on that controversy, so I couldn't really confirm that it was actually His Holiness attacking the Byzantine view on the matter.

Anyway, are you able to answer the question I posed?

Not really. no.  That means - I have forgotten if there is any answer to what you are asking about, or I never knew any answer in the first place.  I suspect it is probably the former and we can try to ferret out some small information about the actuality of God.

Father, what do you mean by actuality? Are you talking about potentiality vs. actuality?

[Papist]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Is that how you see the Trinity?

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?

Can you get me some documentation that Orthodoxy teaches that "God is BEYOND God"

That is quite a statement if you think about it.  Much like the Wizard of Oz....

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"

Besides....Lossky would not entirely agree and certainly does not phrase it that way.

I don't think that Eastern Catholics feel constrained to take St. Gregory's teaching on energies as the ONLY way to express what the teaching on energies are designed to express.

However their spiritual lives, in so far as they retain the eastern hours and liturgies as part of their spiritual lives, or recover it as it may be the case from family to family, are very much distanced from a more western approach to grace.

However there are saints and doctors in the Catholic Church who are also far closer to St. Gregory and the fathers before him with reference to the Prayer of Union, or the Way of Union as Lossky calls it.  

One of Lossky's weaknesses was that he failed to take all that into account in his critique of the west.  I don't fault him for that but I don't get trapped in his critique of the west either.  You can take that or leave it.  Makes no difference to me.

Mary

[Papist]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

God is BEYOND God, at least as we conceive Him.


We could speak of the essence of God and the actuality of God, but those are big words beyond my poor brain.

I know that Pope Shenouda and others in the Oriental Churches have problems with theosis and essence/energy and even attacked Father Matta on this matter for many years but I thought that Eastern Catholics had the same theology on this as the Orthodox?

Can you get me some documentation that Orthodoxy teaches that "God is BEYOND God"

That is quite a statement if you think about it.  Much like the Wizard of Oz....

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"

Besides....Lossky would not entirely agree and certainly does not phrase it that way.

I don't think that Eastern Catholics feel constrained to take St. Gregory's teaching on energies as the ONLY way to express what the teaching on energies are designed to express.

However their spiritual lives, in so far as they retain the eastern hours and liturgies as part of their spiritual lives, or recover it as it may be the case from family to family, are very much distanced from a more western approach to grace.

However there are saints and doctors in the Catholic Church who are also far closer to St. Gregory and the fathers before him with reference to the Prayer of Union, or the Way of Union as Lossky calls it.  

One of Lossky's weaknesses was that he failed to take all that into account in his critique of the west.  I don't fault him for that but I don't get trapped in his critique of the west either.  You can take that or leave it.  Makes no difference to me.

Mary

Did he compeletely miss Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross?

[bogdan]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

[bogdan]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

[Papist]

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

Subjectively being able to identify a person by aprehending his actions, is different fromt the identity person=action. The word "Identity" is being used differently in the two situations.

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

[deusveritasest]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

[Papist]

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

[elijahmaria]

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

LOL...what is the purpose of God?

[elijahmaria]

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

duplicate response..

[bogdan]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

No more than a person's mind and their actions are two tracks.

[bogdan]

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

Creation reflects God's energies, I think that would be a more accurate way of saying it. Some examples of God's energies are Wisdom, Love, Grace, Truth, Beauty, Light, Good, Life, Joy, Hope, Judgment, and Forgiveness. What was purpose of these things before creation?

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Very clever fellow...A righteous tickler!!

Go to the head of the class....I am not joking to this point.

God is beyond BEING is he not?

That would make God beyond BUNDLES!!

So how can BUNDLES=HE?

A BUNDLE of Hypostases?   

Are energies [grace] an eternal part of the God-head, or do they only existed in temporal dispensation?

M.

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

No more than a person's mind and their actions are two tracks.

Essence=Mind

Energies=Acts

Can you get me some reference for this from Palamas or Lossky...anyone who may speak for universal Orthodoxy maybe?

M.

[bogdan]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.

[elijahmaria]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.

Yes.  This was my precise point earlier when I said you cannot define the Energies by what they do.  That is modalism because the Energies ARE one with the Essence.  So as I said, Trinitarian Theology is a tad more subtle than that.

M.

[bogdan]

It seems often the Energies are often expressed as some sort of action.

This may or may not be a proper explanation, or it may be overly simplistic. Please correct me if so.

So, how would God be identified as being His actions?

Don't we identify all persons as their actions? Only a person himself knows his inner dialogue and processes; everything that we can know a person by is actions. The actions may not be substantively the person from his own perspective, but to everyone else the two are inseparable.

Anyway, that's how my priest explained it in my catechesis. But I'm not really a philosopher, so I struggle to explain it properly. It makes sense to my essence, even if my energies don't convey it very well.  

That is classic modalism!

If that's modalism, then every person in this world is schizophrenic.

No person can feel the feelings of my heart or think the thoughts of my mind. The only way I can be known is by what I do and say. The same is with God. That's not modalism, that's essence and energies.

Well...I fear I won't be bettin' on that horse any time soon. 

Trinitarian theology is a tad more subtle than that...and you are not divine so you do NOT make a good analogy.

M.

That actually is a good analogy because it's personal, but I'll try a different one. Assume a pre-scientific mindset for this one. This is a patristic analogy, though I don't recall which Father said it.

We cannot look at the sun or comprehend the sun itself. It's too bright to look at, and too distant and hot to stand on. But now go outside. You see the sun's light, you feel its heat. Yet you are not standing in something separate from the sun, you are standing in the one and only sun. The transcendent surface and the pleasant warmth and light here on earth are all the same sun. Its heat and light are the energies, the transcendent surface is the essence. It's all one.

Yes.  This was my precise point earlier when I said you cannot define the Energies by what they do.  That is modalism because the Energies ARE one with the Essence.  So as I said, Trinitarian Theology is a tad more subtle than that.

M.

I see what you mean. I think we were talking past each other, or perhaps I misunderstood you.

[Papist]

So you have the Triune God running on parallel tracks through eternity?

Track One-Essence

Track Two-Energies

?

That has always been my biggest concern about the essence/energies distinction. They speak of two Trinities. One eternal, the other economic.

[Irish Hermit]

He's already answered that one: they are uncreated.

It seems that the Energies are defined in such a way that their function is to interact with Creation. What was the purpose of the Energies before creation?

LOL...what is the purpose of God?

Is an Eastern Catholic really and seriously asking these questions?