Originally posted by Ecce Jason:
Hello again, Everyone,
[As a preface before my post, let me say that my central question here is whether Rome allows the Eastern teaching of a real distinction between the divine essence and energies, or has instead defined against this teaching.]
Jason
listen and understand.
Eastern theology is Eastern theology (a foundation of the Greek language within Greek culture right when the early church had adopted Greek as it universal language and most of the movers and shakers in the church were - Greek thinkers)
Western theology is Western theology (a foundation in the Latin language within the Latin culture of Rome one ancient Rome became a serious new frontier for the church)
Both - arose from Semetic theology. Both developed in specialized ways - according to the needs of a portion of the church to explain the gospel and church theology - to peoples of different language and cultures.
So the underlying theology is - the same - but the expression of it - is different according to language and culture.
Eastern / Western.
Both theologies (and keep in mind when we say �theology� we are by necessity speaking of - expression (language and symbols) further developed - within the cultures in which they were used.
You can not take the early Greek language - and the Latin language - and squash them together - and expect to have somehow made both languages - the same language.
You can not take Eastern theology - and Western theology - and some how squish them together - and try to made - one - same - theology.
It - is - impossible. Just as impossible as trying to say that the German languages is the same thing as the French language.
The fact remains (after the mental gymnastics that makes one dizzy) that they - are not - the same - language.
The first theology of the church was Hebrew theology (that is what Jesus was - a Hebrew) and it was spoken in Aramaic - and used the language of cosmology (the form of philosophy at the time). So it is filled with parables (the language of natural images).
As the church grew - and Greek began to be used as its universal language - the Greek �fathers� adopted the current form of the Greek language as used by Greek philosophy - to translate Semitic theology - into the Greek mind.
A Greek man named Origen - did most of the transformation from Semetic to Greek. He was considered to be absolutely brilliant by the Greeks of the church - everyone read his works and attended his lectures - and then when they learn all they could from him - they turned on him and called him a heretic. The students - turn on the teacher. The son murders his father the king - in order to take his throne. A typical theme of Greek myth and tragedy plays - it was a Greek cultural tendency. Fighting among the sons and the murder of their father. Arguments among the students for first place and the discrediting and overthrow of the teacher.
Eastern theology (and again - theology is the form of its expression and not the substance of its teaching) reached its peak within the culture of the Byzantine Empire - where - it became the language of the educated - the language of science and law - among the great schools of the Byzantine Empire - where Greek was the natural language.
Concurrently - as the church was also growing quickly within another culture (the Latin culture of Rome) where Greek was not well understood and Latin was the natural language - - - the Earlier from of Eastern expression of theology (using early forms of the Greek language) was transferred to - the Latin language and its culture. Just as the Greek fathers had used the Greek language of Greek philosophy to express Semetic concepts - the church in Latin speaking cultures adopted the Latin language as used by Latin philosophers - to express itself.
So both - churches - did the same thing. They adopted the natural language and concepts of the peoples that they were trying to give the gospel - to.
Latin theology (again - we say that because of the use of the Latin language and culture concepts used to express it) developed (just as the Eastern Greek did) and became pretty solid - also.
And so both expressions of the same contents - developed in isolation from each other (communication was difficult as the internet had not yet been invented J ) to the point where neither Church was well versed in what the other was saying - anymore. So - they argued - and miscommunicated - and got prideful and judgmental on the other - and eventually a tug of war took place as to who would be top dog of the entire church - the Byzantine Emperor (new Rome) or the Bishop of Rome (Old Rome). And the great separation took place along the lines of the split of the Roman empire.
Now - back to the Eastern Expression of theology and the Western expression of theology.
To understand Eastern theology correctly - one must grasp the concepts of Greek philosophy (in its peak) fairly well. For Eastern theology - adopted the terms of Greek philosophy - for its use. We are taking pre-Aristotle - and more what is called today - Neoplatonism - in as much as that name expresses the state of Greek philosophy about the time of Plato.
To understand Western theology - one should grasp Aristotle and Augustine - and them on to Thomas Aquinas.
In other words - each form of theology must be understood with in its own - context of historical time /culture / base language / and current from of philosophy.
Now if you wanted to learn the German language and the French language - you would not go to school and take both classes at once - in the same room - at the same time - while both the German teacher and the French teaching were speaking - at the same time. You might learn some - of both - but you would eventually get confused and cross them up together - and wind up learning neither - well.
So learn one (take your time and do the background reading to learn the culture in which it was formed) and then - learn the other.
If you do that - you will understand both fairly well and fined they compliment each other and do not disagree with each other. If you do not do that - you will be amoung those who - think they understand both - yet understand neither. And find yourself thinking you are forced to pick one as �right� and the other as �wrong�. Or - not wanting to do that (and you should not have to do that) you will try gymnastices to squish them both into a languge agreement - and actually be trying to form yet - another - theology from the two.
A �Franco-German� language (in our example). Now you should be able to see the non-sense - of that. No one will ever agree on that - neither the Germans nor the French because it would bend both languages in foolish ways.
Now - back to Rome - you second misconception - is that Rome �allows� or �disallows� anything - to Eastern theology.
Eastern theology (as I have described it) has been approved through early Councils - and it has not changed in essense - or even much in expression (except it is spoken in English a lot now instead of Greek) - so what - is to dis-allow?
Also - Eastern theology belongs to the Eastern churches - and Rome (since the voluntary separation of some of the Eastern churches from unity with the Latin churches) does not violate the independence of the Eastern churches.
Each church (Eastern and Latin or Western) has the independent right - to its own expression of theology.
Any cooperation with Rome - on these matters - is entirely voluntary. Rome has jurisdiction over - Rome. The Vatican Patriarch is Patriarch and head bishop over - the Latin church - and not over any other church. The Eastern Patriarates are head bishops over their own independent churches - and have no jurisdiction over - the Latin churches.
So Rome has no authority over the expression of Eastern theology - except when (many moons ago) the Eastern churches voluntarily gave the bishop of Rome that authority - when Eastern theology was approved in Ecumenical Councils which were approved by the Pope of Rome. So that phase - was all done - before the separation took place. Exactly how that Eastern theology further developed after the separation - is for the Eastern churches - and not proper to Rome. Exactly how Roman theology developed from Eastern theology - is for Rome - and not for the Eastern churches.
Now - on to the last subject - your question regarding - uncreated energies.
Each expression of theology make use of some words and phrases - in metaphorical ways.
The phrase �uncreated energies� makes sense in the context of Eastern theology. Certainly it is clear that energies - to be energies - must be created (if they are not created they are no-thing). So in the phrase �uncreated energies� the term �uncreated� negates the term �energies�. � indicating that it is �like� energies - but is not - energy. We are to imagine something that is like the energies we experience in the world - but is not the same as the energies about us.
All human words - come to us from our sense experience of the created world. As such - they are not appropriate to express something that is not a part of the created world and our sense experiences. So philosophy and theology - use them (it must) as images and symbols - of something else. And do so in an inappropriate use of words.
Both expressions of theology do this. A metaphorical use of some terms. And Jesus did this himself very often - in Jewish parables - similes - and metaphors. After all - no one should really think that Hell is under the crust of the earth in subterranean tunnels - nor that heaven is a place of time and location off in some other dimension. So it is very clear that - at times - theology is spoken in terms that have a symbolic meaning. Shall we think that Hell actually has physical fire?? Of course not. It is symbolic of - emotions and the way fire and unbearable heat feels to our senses.
Natural, physical, and material images - are used to indicate - that which is not physical nor material.
So it is easy to misunderstand these phrases - unless - you are aware of their use within the particular cultures, language, history, and human experience - in which they were coined. And it has been the thorn of all theology that some �theologians� will only grasp a literal meaning (having no background to grasp the metaphorical meaning that was intended) and pass broken judgment on the theology that he has absolutely no authority (let alone understanding) - of. And by doing that he perpetuates rumor which amounts to slander - and places himself above the structure of the episcopate which God assigned to the church - and by that dames the unity of the church.
Now, I would think, that anyone in their right mind, would be a bit fearful of passing such a judgment - where he has no right to judge. But pride - and self importance - fog the brains of some men - and we are all works in progress - so - much will be forgiven - and we all will eventual see things we did that we will be regretful for in front of God. So I would not take these arguments over the semantics of theology - too seriously. Nor would I take theologians too seriously.
When reading theology - take what helps you toward God - and ignore as �too hard to understand� whatever does not seem yet to assist you toward God.
After all - God did not put you here to learn theology - he put you here to pay attention to your conscience in the midst of the events which he arranges for you each day.
When you gate to the gates of heaven - believe me! - you will not be quizzed on - theology. And if you find yourself in a line with a bunch of theologians - I would be a bit concerned and - run!
It is not your intelligence that is tested - it is your heart.
>What do we do with the following definition of doctrine by Pope Benedict XII
Make and effort to understand it within the context of the Latin expression of theology and do not confuse it with the Eastern expression of theology. If you can do that you will come to find that there is no disagreement as you suppose. Both - are saying the same thing - and neither should be taken literally. There is no such thing as uncreated energies and God does not have a face.
Take each form of theology in its own context and do not try to mesh them together on the level of words. They are not the same langauge.
-ray
