Oriental Orthodoxy and the energies-essence distinction

[Gorazd]

It came up in the other thread, but I do think it needs to be discussed separately.

What is/are the OO position(s) on the energy/essence distinction?

What is/are the OO position(s) on the Western alternative to that, the analogia entis?

[Elijah]

It came up in the other thread, but I do think it needs to be discussed separately.

Which thread did it come up? Sorry I was not following the forum attentively. 

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It came up in the other thread, but I do think it needs to be discussed separately.

What is/are the OO position(s) on the energy/essence distinction?

What is/are the OO position(s) on the Western alternative to that, the analogia entis?

That is a great question, I have asked that here before.  It is practically non-existent in the Oriental Fathers and so it very difficult to assess the Oriental stance, though from my understanding and discussions with Oriental clergy, at least the Ethiopian Orthodox rejects this distinction for similar reasons that the Roman Catholic theologians argue against it, but I am not that familiar with the details of the RC doctrine. 

In the Oriental Orthodox, we do not feel the need to break it down as specifically as the later Palamas theology chooses to, so it really doesn't come up half as often as it does in the footnotes of my Byzantine tradition's "Orthodox Study Bible"

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[minasoliman]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It came up in the other thread, but I do think it needs to be discussed separately.

What is/are the OO position(s) on the energy/essence distinction?

What is/are the OO position(s) on the Western alternative to that, the analogia entis?

That is a great question, I have asked that here before.  It is practically non-existent in the Oriental Fathers and so it very difficult to assess the Oriental stance, though from my understanding and discussions with Oriental clergy, at least the Ethiopian Orthodox rejects this distinction for similar reasons that the Roman Catholic theologians argue against it, but I am not that familiar with the details of the RC doctrine.  

In the Oriental Orthodox, we do not feel the need to break it down as specifically as the later Palamas theology chooses to, so it really doesn't come up half as often as it does in the footnotes of my Byzantine tradition's "Orthodox Study Bible"

stay blessed,
habte selassie

But Palamite theology is nothing new under the sun.  It's based on Cyrillian and Cappadocian theology.

Coptic theology, as is understood through her hymns and later Church fathers have maintained a theology of theosis that necessitates this distinction and implies it.  Here are some examples:

Iris Habib el Masry

Bishop Bulus el Bushi

[minasoliman]

And here are some posts that highlight St. Cyril's views and how it logically leads to an energies/essences distinction:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33668.msg532494.html#msg532494
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33668.msg532522.html#msg532522
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33668.msg532509.html#msg532509
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33668.msg532579.html#msg532579

We can see here St. Gregory Palamas in the EO's was right to make the distinction, as this is only done because he was protecting from what seemed to be the heretical opinions of Barlaam of Calabra.  His Grace Bishop Youssef, bishop of the Coptic diocese of the South writes about them here, even quoting from EO fathers:

http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1246&catid=383
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=649&catid=383

And as we uncover more medieval Copto-Arabic sources, we find that this distinction was also implied.  I'll try to find something from the Church hymns that emphasize this.

If the Ethiopian Church does the research, at least with St. Cyril, they should be in full agreement with Palamite theology, which is essentially Orthodox theology.

[minasoliman]

If anything, Roman Catholics presently is accepting theosis and slowly finds Palamism acceptable in their Church.

[Father Peter]

I don't think there is any problem with the basic patristic distinction between the unknowable essence of God, and His self-revelation by means of His energy and activity.

The issue I do have is with some modern EO with whom I have corresponded who seem to treat the energies of God as if they were separate from God and not God at all. They seem to be thinking that when we say we know God by means of His energies we don't actually experience God, but some intermediary.

While rejecting this view, I think I would insist that when we experience God we are truly experiencing God Himself who is not separated from His essence, but is not known in His essence but by means of His energies which are no less God but could be considered God as He is known and makes Himself known, and not God in Himself.

As Mina says, the basic distinction is found in St Cyril and the other Fathers.

I am not sure that the Palamite controversy has a great deal of meaning in the OO Tradition.

[Severian]

--Subscribed--

[witega]

The issue I do have is with some modern EO with whom I have corresponded who seem to treat the energies of God as if they were separate from God and not God at all. They seem to be thinking that when we say we know God by means of His energies we don't actually experience God, but some intermediary.

While rejecting this view, I think I would insist that when we experience God we are truly experiencing God Himself who is not separated from His essence, but is not known in His essence but by means of His energies which are no less God but could be considered God as He is known and makes Himself known, and not God in Himself.

Odd, the first paragraph is basically the position St. Gregory was arguing against. And the second is the basic Alexandrian (it's as much Athanasian and even Irenean as it is Cyrillean) and Cappadocian theology that St. Gregory was expounding upon to refute it.

[Father Peter]

Can you unpack what you mean by odd?

The position of the OO is essentially the patristic view of essence/energies. That is why my view is the basic view that St Gregory also adopted.

[witega]

Can you unpack what you mean by odd?

The position of the OO is essentially the patristic view of essence/energies. That is why my view is the basic view that St Gregory also adopted.

It's your correspondents that I find odd, since as I say they are apparently espousing the very position that EO explicitly rejected via its recognition of St. Gregory as a champion of Orthodoxy.

I don't find it odd that you are rejecting this view in basically the same terms as St. Gregory did since I agree that 'Palamite' theology, is essentially Patristic theology--just explicated/expounded in response to an actual heresy.

[Father Peter]

I have corresponded with a wide range of EO! 

Some (not very many of course) have definitely espoused a Nestorian separation of humanity and divinity because they have wished to insist so much on the humanity of the humanity of Christ that they have neglected the reality of the hypostatic union. They have often also wished to insist that they do not believe what I believe as a non-Chacedonian and so have taken a more and more extreme position just to avoid agreeing with me!

[Benjamin the Red]

I don't think there is any problem with the basic patristic distinction between the unknowable essence of God, and His self-revelation by means of His energy and activity.

The issue I do have is with some modern EO with whom I have corresponded who seem to treat the energies of God as if they were separate from God and not God at all. They seem to be thinking that when we say we know God by means of His energies we don't actually experience God, but some intermediary.

While rejecting this view, I think I would insist that when we experience God we are truly experiencing God Himself who is not separated from His essence, but is not known in His essence but by means of His energies which are no less God but could be considered God as He is known and makes Himself known, and not God in Himself.

As Mina says, the basic distinction is found in St Cyril and the other Fathers.

I am not sure that the Palamite controversy has a great deal of meaning in the OO Tradition.

I have corresponded with a wide range of EO! 

Some (not very many of course) have definitely espoused a Nestorian separation of humanity and divinity because they have wished to insist so much on the humanity of the humanity of Christ that they have neglected the reality of the hypostatic union. They have often also wished to insist that they do not believe what I believe as a non-Chacedonian and so have taken a more and more extreme position just to avoid agreeing with me!

What you describe in your second message is most unfortunate, Father. I'm sure there are both those in our tradition which tend Nestorian for this reason, as there are most likely those who tend Eutychean for the same purpose. I pray one day that our churches heal our schism, as we have already pronounced our oneness in matters of faith.

As for your first post, I agree. We must remember that the energies of God are the divine nature, as much so as the essence. Without this clear understanding, as was mentioned above, we fall into the heresy of Barlaam.

[Father Peter]

Unfortunately there are people in every tradition who get things very wrong.

I have not actually corresponded with anyone who thinks that the humanity and divinity in Christ are mixed or confused, though there may well be such of course. Eutychianism (a bit of a misnomer IMHO) has always been dealt with very severely from the beginning. Synousiasm is probably a better term. St Cyril had to deal with Synousiasts, as did St Timothy Aelurus.

St Severus corresponded with a Sergius who tended to synousiasm through thinking a little too highly of his abilities.

I would say that the closest that non-Chalcedonians get to this false Christology is when some might mistakenly and naively consider that 'one incarnate nature' refers to ousia and/or a simple unitary state of being.

Any OO who knows St Cyril and St Severus could not fall into such an error.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I don't think there is any problem with the basic patristic distinction between the unknowable essence of God, and His self-revelation by means of His energy and activity.

The issue I do have is with some modern EO with whom I have corresponded who seem to treat the energies of God as if they were separate from God and not God at all. They seem to be thinking that when we say we know God by means of His energies we don't actually experience God, but some intermediary.

This is what I mean by the Ethiopian Fathers not accepting the distinction.  Yes, the Cappadocian fathers discuss things similar to Palamas theology, but I think they are apples and oranges.  When you actually put together the Cyrillian and others like Saint Basil, or Athanasius, or Saint Gregory the Theologian who do in fact discuss the energies, they are not as strictly distinct as the fullness of Palamas theology.  I have read Palamas, and find a lot of things which disagree with the Fathers, and further, as Father Peter has mentioned, the EO today seem to OVEREMPHASIZE this distinction to the point of separation, as if the Energies were a kind of mediator.
You have to get almost scientifically specific to understand how Palamas theology is different from the early Fathers discussions of energies.  Saint  Cyril clearly did not imply the same degree of separation which Palamas elucidates in his lengthy discussions, the energies which these fathers mention are not quite as elaborately distinct as the Palamas theologians suggest.  I think that Saint Cyril would have many qualms with some of the later theological implications of Palamas' writings, particularly as mentioned by Father Peter in regards to the over-emphasis of the distinction in contemporary popular EO theology.  Realistically, the EO has gotten a bit too OT in regards to the separation of the Divine Nature, as if God couldn't interact within His Creation and in this process inadverantly place limits on the Omnipotent God who is by definition Unlimited.

stay blessed,
habte selassioe

[Gorazd]

I am quite sure that Palamas did not intend a separation. He spoke of one God, as he is in himself (essence) and as he interacts with his creation (energies). This is why he insists on the energies being uncreated.

Now if anyone claims the energies to be not God himself but something separate from him, I think he has very much misunderstood the whole thing.

[minasoliman]

Habte, perhaps, for a better discussion of these things, you should share with us some of the passages St. Gregory Palamas wrote that you find disconcerting.

By the way, what is "analogia entis"?

[Hiwot]

selam lekulekemu

as far as I can understand him St.Gregory Palamas's view on theosis is entirely Orthodox, the elaborate explanation was because of what he was dealing with at that time required that he went in detail as far as it was possible in this matter to present an 'air tight' argument. the angelic hosts and us man kind can hope to achieve theosis a far as it is possible for created beings. we understand the never ending journey of it as the psalmist have said Psalm 84:7'They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appears before God. '  we say for the saints 'amalikt zebe tsega'/ gods through grace/ is our understanding of theosis and palamas explains both what is meant by the 'gods' and what is meant by 'grace 'as it refers to theosis.  for the angels :'adrobachew yeminor qidusan melaekt/ the holy angels whom God dwells in,' what palamas defended is that theology.the fact that we must know the difference between becoming God Himself,that is :equal in essence and through grace( through his love) that is energies. one is unknowable unapproachable to created beings, the other is part of them. St. Athanasius has said He is both outside of Nature and inside of it. this is Orthodox Theology and St.Gregory Palamas defends it well. I saw no separation that will end up making like there is another that is God and another that animates and sustains creation.
 now these kinds of theological talks I rather not get into because i know very little but if I am mistaken in this please correct me so i can learn.Thank you.

selam hunu.

[minasoliman]

From the Coptic Psalmody on terms of theosis and partaking of the divine nature:

God is Emmanuel
The True Food
The Immortal Tree
Of Life

Here we start with the idea that the Tree of Life is God, who is our sustenance.  Only God is immortal, and by partaking of immortality, it is an uncreated energy of God.

Come to us today
O Christ our Master
Shine upon us
With Your exalted divinity

Send to us
This great grace
of Your Holy Spirit
the Comforter

Here, we ask God to give us the light of His divinity, and we call this "This great grace of Your Holy Spirit."  Therefore, grace is the uncreated energy of God, and His light is an uncreated energy, which comes from from His divinity.

You are the bush
which Moses saw
Flaming with fire
And was not consumed.

That is the Son of God
Who dwelt in your womb
The fire of the Divinity
Did not consume your body.

This idea about the "fire of His divinity" was repeated in most other Theotokias of the week.  Here, we see the Divinity burns, as is popular among some contemporary EO's in their eschatology.  Nevertheless, we understand that this burning is not a burning of destruction, but of glorification.  This fire does not consume, but deifies.  Therefore, we hail the Theotokos:

Hail to the incorrupt vessel
Of the divinity
Which heals everyone
Who drinks from it

Notice the fire of the Divinity IS the Divinity.  Her womb held the fire of divinity, and now she is called the "vessel of the divinity."  The fire being divinity is uncreated.  This distinction is implied and necessary.  It agrees with Palamism.  While the hymns are quite strong in their language, nevertheless, the Church teaches we are not partaking of the essence of the divinity.  It is implied in this, whatever we partake of from the divine nature is  necessarily distinct into whatever one wants to call it, grace, energy, glory, love, power, all from God, and all uncreated.

[Severian]

Mina thank you very much for gathering all this information. This thread has been most edifying.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

What exactly did the Cappadocian fathers imply with the word distinction?

Did they use diastole or heteron? Either way, could folks elaborate for me, I am lately diving deeper into fully understanding this from all sides.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Ortho_cat]

ya, the word distinction has to be used very carefully here, not implying that they are different or isolated, but the same.

I like the sun and the rays of the sun analogy. We feel the rays of the sun as warmth, but if we touched the sun we would burn up.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Oriental Orthodoxy and the energies-essence distinction