www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Todd,

Who believes you are denying the primacy of the Pope? Every Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christian acknowledges the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as you well know, so for someone here to infer that you don't accept this shared belief would be nonsense on his part. But I didn't see anyone say this...did I miss something?

Logos Teen

Dear brother Matt,

As regards �created/uncreated grace.� It is a matter of semantics. The West does not use the language of �essence/energies.� Instead, she makes statements like, �Man can only share in divinity, but cannot become divinity itself.� I�m an Oriental, so brother Ghosty can explain it to you more, since he is a Latin, but such a statement conveys an IDEA that to me rather clearly indicates a compatibility with the explicit distinction of essence and energies proposed by Oriental and Eastern Fathers. �There is no such thing as created grace,� brother Todd keeps asserting. As I stated in an earlier post, this is dangerously close to the heretical docetist complaints against the Incarnation. I would respond to brother Todd, the moment that the Eastern Orthodox can explain to me the mystery of how God became man, then and only then can they have the authority to say that the term �created grace� can be a cause for disunity. Until then, they have no right to use it as an excuse to rend the seamless robe of Christ.

Despite brother Todd�s complaints that the West tries to overexplain and overrationalize things, I think this is one area in which the East takes the cake in overanalyzing, overexplaining and overrationalizing. Easterners should be careful about the log in the eye. As an Oriental, I never heard of a distinction of essence/energies WITHIN the Godhead until I read about it from Easterners in another website. Certainly, I understand that there is such a distinction, a necessary distinction, when explaining the relation between God and his creation, but such a distinction cannot be applied to the Godhead. And this is where Eastern overrationalization of the issue takes the cake. Here are some things to consider:
1) There is ABSOLUTELY no patristic evidence that dichotomizes the divinity WITHIN the Godhead (pay close attention to this clause �within the Godhead� because it is the very thing that resolves the matter) into Essence and Energy.
2) ALL The evidence EO theologians have come up with are MERELY statements SPECIFICALLY addressing the relation of God to His CREATION � thus, the necessary distinction between Essence and Energy. In other words, a distinction of God�s Essence and Energy are made by the Father ONLY WHEN ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN GOD�S RELATIONSHIP TO HIS CREATION.
3) There is UNANIMOUS patristic witness to the idea (expressed in different terminologies) that ALL that the Father has, the Son has also except the being Unbegotten; ALL that the Son has, the Spirit has also except the Generation. THE ONLY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD IS THEIR RELATIONS ACCORDING TO ORIGIN. The Fathers DO NOT say � NOT A SINGLE ONE - that �all that the Son has, the Spirit has also except the Generation and the Essence which the Spirit obtains from the Father alone.� What is it about the word �ALL� do Eastern Orthodox theologians not understand that forces them to dichotomize (falsely, IMO) the Godhead within itself? Do you see where the blame actually lies in overrationalization? What is simple has been confused by second-millenium EO triadology. NOWHERE do the Fathers make a distinction between Essence and Energies WITHIN THE GODHEAD. Despite, brother Todd�s claims, all he has are SECOND millennium Eastern Orthodox INTERPRETATIONS, not first millennium patristic statements.

Brother Todd seems to have a tendency to lump all arguments that disagree with his position as �Latin.� Not that there is anything insulting about being �Latin,� but it seems to haughtily disregard another portion of apostolic Christianity that, to me, is more pure in its theology on the matter in that it has not been influenced by any polemical and overreactive extremes. I came to my conclusions as an Oriental Christian, not as a Latin Christian, utilizing the sources of my pre-Chalcedonian patristic heritage, not the interpretative commentaries of second-millenium Eastern Orthodox fathers. This is part of the humility that I spoke of earlier to brother Todd.

Blessings,
Marduk

Just a point of clarification: I never use the terms "dichotomy" or "dichotomize" in connection with the distinctions within the Godhead, because a dichotomy implies a separation, and there can be no separations in God because the divine essence is adiastemic.

Now, if anyone denies that there are distinctions within the Godhead, it follows of necessity that he denies the doctrine of the Trinity, because the Father is really distinct from the Son, and the Son is really distinct from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is really distinct from both the Father and the Son, and to deny this is to fall into the Sabellian heresy.

Now, as far as the essence / energy distinction is concerned, it is a distinction without a separation (like the distinction of hypostaseis in God), and that is why St. Gregory Palamas -- following the teaching of St. Maximos -- said that God is indivisibly divided among His many energies. In other words, the reality of the multiplicity of the divine energies is real, but it does not destroy the divine simplicity because through perichoresis the whole of the divine essence is present within each energy.

Matt,

I hope that this clarifies things for you as far as the ancient essence / energy distinction is concerned. If you want to read more about this doctrine I recommend reading Fr. John Meyendorff's book entitled, "Byzantine Theology," or Aristeides Papadakis' book, "Crisis in Byzantium," and finally -- of course -- you can read St. Gregory Palamas' own, "Capita Physica," which is found in the fourth volume of the "Philokalia." Two other books that are worth reading are Dr. Scot Douglass' book "Theology of the Gap," and Dr. David Bradshaw's book "Aristotle: East and West," because they show how the essence / energy distinction was used by St. Athanasios and the Cappadocian Fathers.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - As far as the Western doctrine of grace is concerned, I once again recommend that you get a hold of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange's book, because he explains the relationship in Western theology between uncreated grace, which exists only in God, and created grace, which can exist in man.

Dear brother Todd,
Thank you for the rejoinder. I repect Fr. Schmemann, and please permit me to say that I believe that you are misinterpreting him. The headship is a divinely instituted position. We Orientals believe the Apostolic Canons are from the Apostles themselves (in this regard, can you tell me what the EO believe about the Apostolic Canons- do they believe they are truly from the Apostles, or a development from a later age?). Having said that, Nicea was the vehicle to establish the divine mandate of the Apostolic Canon that states that the bishops of all the nations must recognize who among them is their head. This, Nicea faithfully did as regards progressively larger regions (i.e., metropolotan, patriarchate, and the Church as a whole). Nicea recognized that metropolitans were head bishops of a local region, that Patriarchs/primates were head bishops of a larger region, and that among the Patriarchs, the bishop of Rome was first. To repeat, Nicea was putting into practice the DIVINE constitution established by the Apostles. That is all. I believe it is anti-headship advocates who are reading back into Nicea an ecclesiology that was not there. Notice, that even the distinction of metropolitan as a head bishop has disappeared in MODERN Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology - i.e., a metropolitan is nothing more nor less than a bishop with no special prerogatives. This is another indication that the EO must reaquire its own heritage - that is, it is not Rome alone that must do a re-examination - in order for unity to occur among the Easterns, Westerns, and Orientals.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd

Clarification noted.

As I stated, the only distinctions allowed by the Fathers WITHIN THE GODHEAD is their relations as regards origin - the Father is UNBEGOTTEN, the Son is BEGOTTEN, the Spirit PROCEEDS. There is no further distinction to be found of Essence and Energy WITHIN the Godhead.

St. Maximos made the distinction, once again, to explain the manner in which the Godhead relates to the CREATION. The different energies are manifested in the Godhead's communication/relationship with creation (e.g., the Father as creator, the Son as mediator, the Spirit as sanctifier, etc.) yet there is no such distinction WITHIN the Godhead itself.

May I also suggest, brother Matt, that you restrict yourself ad fontes [i.e., to the sources] Though commentary is helpful, they cannot be put on the same plane as the Fathers of the undivided Church. Because no matter how else one may regard the EO Fathers, they represent a development of thought that goes beyond the thought of united Christendom. If one asks how it is that Fathers East and West despite distinctive theologies can still be in communion in the first millenium, then reading scholarly or saintly writings in the second millenium, some of which may have a distinctly polemic character, is not going to help one bit.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sadly, for your theory at least, canon six of the Council of Nicaea does not claim that the primacy of Alexandria in Africa is an Apostolic Tradition; instead, it simply says that it is an ancient custom that should continue to be observed. Nicaea also gives privileges to Jerusalem, which all scholars admit, the Bishop of that city never had prior to the Council.

God bless,
Todd

Your statement is true only if you reject St. Ireneaus, St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, et al., as Fathers of the Church.

Dear brother Todd
I do not see how your response invalidates anything I stated. In any case, I stated that the PRINCIPLE of headship is Apostolic Tradition, and the Council simply put it into practice.

Regarding Jerusalem, Nicea did not grant Jerusalem anything that did not already have. Jerusalem's status as Patriarchate was not established until Chalcedon by the machinations of Juvenal. Juvenal was not content to be suffragan to Caesarea and sought to commandeer ecclesiastical territories not within its jurisdiction. Holy Pope St. Cyril resisted these uncanonical maneuvers. Did you know that St. Cyril even appealed to Rome requesting that the Apostolic See not give sanction to Juvenal's actions? In any case, I don't think the issue of Jerusalem is relevant to our discussion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd
You should read my statements in context. I DO recognize the distinction of Essence and Energies as proposed by these Fathers. And they make the distinction SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to explain the manner in which the ineffable God can relate TO HIS CREATION. What I do NOT recognize, and in fact reject, is the second-millenium Eastern Orthodox Tradition that seeks to impose the distinction of Essence and Energies as a distinction WITHIN THE GODHEAD - an idea that the Fathers you have cited do not permit (it may have been a rational and necessary distinction in reaction to filioque , but, as stated, that itself is a second-millenium EO development).

Blessings,
Marduk

The tone of this thread is getting out of line. If posters can not keep the discussion within the limits that are expected by all posters on this forum, the thread will be closed, and the specific offenders will face warnings.

If you can not post in a civil manner, you then are cautioned either not to post or find some other forum to post on. This will be the only warning on this thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

The distinction between essence and energy in God is real for the Cappadocians, because if it is not real, two things happen: (1) their argument against the Eunomian heretics collapses, and (2) theosis becomes impossible, since in their theology the divine essence is utterly unknowable and incommunicable, and God can only be participated in through His energies.

God bless,
Todd

Fr. Anthony,

I trust your judgment as a moderator; and so, if this thread becomes too contentious or disruptive, by all means close it.

God bless you, and thank you (and all the moderators) for the work that you do here at the Byzantine Forum.

Todd

Being that the starter of this thread has answered the initial questions in depth, I am going to close this thread before it becomes one that causes division instead of creating healing through learning and conversation. I have spoken to the topic starter, and we both agree to close this off on a "high" note.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator.