Dimitru Staniloae says:
Through grace the Spirit eliminates the distance between our 'I' and His 'I', creating between us and the Father through grace, the same relationship He has by nature with the Father and the Son.
This is the problematic quote.
The quote needs to be read in context. Staniloae is talking about our filial adoption in Christ and our incorporation into the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The "distance" to which Staniloae refers (I think) is the distance between Creator and creature. This distance is annulled by adoption: by grace, through union with Christ, in Christ, we truly come to share in the same relationship with the Father that the incarnate Son shares by nature.
This way of talking about theosis--which is simply the biblical and patristic way of talking--is a lot easier to preach and explain than the essence/energies distinction. The latter only becomes necessary within a specific theological-philosophical context, e.g., when one is confronted with someone like Barlaam who rejects divinization in this life altogether or who reduces it to moral imitation. It's perfectly possible to speak of theosis and participation in the Trinitarian life of God without ever invoking the essence/energies distinction. To see that this is the case, all one needs to do is to read the orations of St Gregory the Theologian, the writings of St Cyril of Alexandria, or the homilies of St Gregory Palamas.
IMHO, Staniloae's language is no more problematic than the language of the Apostle Paul:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20).
"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal 4: 4-6).
Hence I agree with Cavaradossi when he writes, "It seems to me that Staniloae is touching on a very interesting dimension of theosis and salvation, namely the relational aspect of it (in accordance with the Scriptural teaching that we will become adopted sons of the Father). This very interesting hypostatic dimension of theosis often gets overshadowed I think, by the great prominence we sometimes give to the essence-energies distinction."