www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hesychasm

Thank you, and thank everyone else who said nice things about me too. I feel most welcomed.

I am sorry to jump into such a long and developed thread� I just know I will be missing much that has come on later� and if so� people can just ignore me (which is often a good thing to do anyway).

Now I do not argue with Phoitus � this is not even addressed to him.

I simple use a portion of his post to make a point in debates regarding Eastern theology given expression through the words and concepts of early Greek philosophy (which I am very familiar with) � and the Latin (Western) form of theology (origin of the same but later shifted to the Latin language and concepts) which I am also very familiar with.

Here it is�

Of course� ! � if we take the Latin theological concept of �created grace� � literally � it is nonsense. There can be no such thing.

But just as nonsensical is the concept of �uncreated energies� � if taken literally.

All energy can be measured with physical devises (example: I can measure the voltage and amperage of electrical energy with my multimeter). There is no energy which can not be measured with a devise of science. All energy can be physical measure - and if it can not - then it simply can not be � energy.

Because�. (listen well) THAT IS the definition of the word (energy). Period.

Physically measurable.

The Meaning of - Uncreated Energies�

The word �un-created� cancels out the meaning of the word �energy�.

Literally - this phrase HAS NO MEANING - except to imagine an energy which has no existence - to actually exist. An impossibility.

It is an oxymoron.


- because �. [I]it would not be � energy �. by the definition of the word because all energy is created substance in tension of motion and can be measured with physical devises. Period. End of story.

And Eastern theology tells us plainly that there is not one blessed way or thing which we CAN attribute to God in a positive way. God can only be defined by a [I]negation[I/I] of anything we might say or think about him.

Therefore �.

The term �uncreated energy� is an oxymoron.
Plain as day. End of story. Period.

A bending of words - to - point - to something - that words - can not really express.

What Is A Human Word??�.

Words - spoken of written - by their inherent nature are created things. They are physical things. Sound (hear) or read (sight). As such (and hear me well) thy by necessity - are symbolic of things within created nature. They can NOT in themselves carry anything other than - created nature. Period. End of story.

Their essential meaning - must - therefore - always be a literal meaning - a meaning intrinsic to - created nature. Period. End of story.

They work in us - by embedding a literal image of a created thing, event. Object, or experience - within the faculty of our imagination. They do this by way of our memory� if we have no memory of a physical ans sense experience of the - thing - that the word signifies - then - we can have no meaning of the word. Example: someone speaks to you in a language that you do not know - if you do not know the language - then you have within your memory - no vasodilatation to a physical object, event, or experience - to put into your imagination. Hence = you have no idea what the guy is talking about. Period. End of story.

It is important to clarify the meaning of the term "energy" as it is used in Byzantine theology, because it is not used in any sense that is related to modern physics; instead, it is a metaphysical term. In other words, it concerns the metaphysical nature of a being. The uncreated divine energies are God's manifesting reality outside of His essence (ousia), and thus the uncreated enery of God corresponds to the Old Testament concept of the Shekinah glory.

Another term that can be used in order to convey the meaning of the word "energy" in theology, is the English word "activity." Now a being without any "activities" is a mere abstraction or mental fiction, and thus it has no actual existence. Moreover, because the activities of a being are its essential manifestation outside of its essence, it follows that the activities or energies correspond to the nature from which they flow. Thus, the energies (or activities) of an uncreated being, are uncreated; while the energies (or activities) of a created being, are by definition created.

That being said, the divine energies are the uncreated light of God that surrounds the divine essence, and which flows out from the divine essence through the three divine persons (hypostases), in order to reveal God to man.

In order to clarify the issues involved in this thread I recommend reading St. Gregory Palamas' One Hundred and Fifty Chapters and his Triads, along with St. John Damascene's Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Both of these saints explain the nature of the uncreated divine energies.

Apoutheon (and Augustini) is it possible at all to syncronise Thomist natural theology with the Greek Catholic understanding of God's essence not being the same as his existence? Also if possible could you explain how Palamism avoids metaphysical composition in God?

Sorry to pester you with all these questions but I am honestly trying to bridge the gap between the Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic approach to Triadology.

Thank you
Myles

I am not sure that the two systems (i.e., Thomism and Palamism) can be reconciled. I do not believe that the Thomist view of the identity of essence and existence in God can be reconciled with Palamism, which holds that there is a real distinction between essence and existence. The identity of essence and existence in God would be seen as modalistic in Palamism, since God's existence is tri-hypostatic. There are other difficulties as well with Thomas' philosophical views, especially his views on the nature of the relationship that exists between God and the world. I have been thinking about these issues for a while now (for about 5 years or so), but still have not been able to see a solution to the problem.

God is not composite because the whole of the divine essence coinheres in each of His energies. Thus, the distinction between God's incommunicable essence and his communicable energies does not lead to composition in God, any more than the fact that God is a Trinity of persons leads to composition in God.

I understand your concerns and your interest in this topic. I will say this, the Vatican's Clarification on the Filioque was a great first step in trying to resolve some of the theological difficulties existing between East and West on the Trinity. That document is an excellent basis for further study in order to try and reconcile the two systems.

Myles,

The reason why God isn't metaphysically composite in Maximus or Palamas's view is because terms like composition, act, potency, et al. are all categories of being. God for Maximus is literally on the other side of being. So none of those things say anything about God's essence. For Thomas, following the Augustinian tradition, God's essence is subsumable under the categories of being (although not in any qualified sense) or the transcendentals (beauty, infinity, unity, etc.). This is why Aquinas's view, in my opinion, is rationalistic. Following Aristotle, to have knowledge and hence to have a science is to know the causes of things. But to know the causes of things is to grasp the essences of things. If there is a science of anything we have to know the cause of that thing. But God is the cause of everything and so we must be able to grasp the essence of God. While such a grasping isn�t done through discursive reasoning, it is still grasped by the intellect nonetheless and hence by reason. If the essence of God isn�t graspable by reason, then there can�t be a science of anything. If God isn�t subsumable under reason then there can�t be any knowledge of anything. Thus, simplicity for Thiomas is an operator that "fixes" our mode of employment of the divine names. God's essence transcends the multiplicity of the human judgements about Him, and therefore must be identical to all of them. Although, Thomas is often thought of as an Aristotelian since he uses many of the terms (very transformed however), he's a Neo-Platonist when it comes to the notion of Being, or at least divides up the Neo-Platonic tradition like Augustine and grasps onto Plotinus's notion of simplicity.

Daniel

This gets to the heart of the matter, because God is beyond all categories, and so He is not a being among beings. As St. Gregory Palamas said: "Every created nature is far removed from and completely foreign to the divine nature. For if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings. And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings." [St. Gregory Palamas, One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, no. 78] God is hyper-theos.

But for St Aquinas God is nature and other things are not nature. At least God is the only being who is His own nature and is not given a nature. Likewise God is the only being also, in a sense that he is the only perfect act, and all other beings exhibit potentiality which means they are becoming rather than being.

God is beyond being.

I believe that the above citation from the One Hundred Fifty Chapters is actually a denial of the analogy of being.

To Myles, Todd and Daniel,

I have tried to follow your discussion about reconciling St. Thomas Aquinas' system of theology with St. Gregory Palamas' system of theology.

I can understand studying each others' systems of theology out of intellectual interest and ecumenism and personal spiritual development, but I wonder if (after a certain point) it becomes meaningless.

It seems to me that East and West are ultimately saying the same things, that they are just using different words to state it.

For example, the West says that God is absolute being; the East says God is absolutely beyond being; the difference seems to be how West and East understand the concept of "being"; yet, both East and West seem to be saying that God Is, as He revealed to the prophet Moses when He said: I Am Who Am.

For another example, the West says that the Eucharist comes into existence at the words of Jesus; the East says the Eucharist comes into existence at the epiclesis; yet, there is the Eucharist !

Etc.

It seems that we (not you three, I mean all of us) get so caught up in our systems for understanding the Truth that we a) overlook the primary importance of Truth itself (which is Jesus), and b) we pay insufficient attention to living the Truth in our lives and with our neighbor.

When I think about hesychasm, the dear monks who invented that system of meditation were trying to live a fuller union with God. Even though I'm Roman Catholic and I haven't read the writings of St. Gregory of Palamas, I can still celebrate and use the highlights of that system (such as the Jesus prayer) to improve my own union with God and love of the neighbor.

So, while all of the theological discussion is interesting, I have three questions for you:

For better living of the Gospel (including, perhaps, a reconciliation Christian East and Christian West), do we even need to reconcile the Eastern and Western systems of theology? Can we agree to disagree, recognizing that we are both talking in different words about the same things that are, ultimately, beyond human concepts and words? Or, in the alternative, do we need to craft a new system of theology that builds on our respective Fathers but that also transcends them ?

God Bless, and thank you for your responses.

--John

Dear John I would like also to think that we're ultimately trying to talk about the same thing. But every time I think I've found a point of commonality between Occident and Orient I am corrected. This discussion in particular has become deeply important to me because many of the truths I cling to are expressed in a Thomistic terminology. Not only this but many of the arguments I use against other people i.e. the 5 ways depend on that terminology.

If God cannot be posited as a perfect act then the first of the 5 ways (if not the first 3) are automatically invalid because their conclusion, I am being told, cannot cohere to an objective reality. This was/is the rational basis of my act of the intellect and has permeated the way I approach God. From these comes the Thomist understanding of God's simplicity, which I am told borders on monoenergism or alternatively Arianism. This I cannot understand, from my understanding of Thomas' system creation is the work of the Trinity not the Father alone. But Apoutheon and Augustini are telling me that there are valid reasons for their objections so I'm listening and trying to understand.

Until this discussion began I didnt think there was that much difference between East and West. I must confess I was ignorant with the Triadology I am now being confronted with and thats possibly why. I still cannot fully apprehend the arguments against St Aquinas' system and I am still trying to understand why Apoutheon and Augustini see Thomism as being such a dangerous system. Thus I am perpetuating this discussion in order to find out. For me, originally, it wasnt important to argue out the pro's and con's of Thomism. But the system has been brought into disrepute as being practically heretical. Thus I am taking a deep interest in the posts on this thread because I learnt my basic doctrine from the Catechism, Sacred Scripture and the Summa Theologiae. The last of which, according to Apoutheon and Augustini, is at best misleadingly entitled.

Myles,

Let me try and explain why I don't want to say that God's essence and His existence are identical.

As I understand St. Gregory Palamas' teaching, God's existence is tri-hypostatic, and so to identify essence and existence would ultimately lead to a form of Sabellianism. Thus, in order to defend the dogmatic truth about the Trinity of hypostases in God, Palamas holds that God's essence, existence (i.e., the triad of divine hypostases), and energy must really be distinct, but without being separated.

If on the other hand the divine essence and the three divine hypostases are identical, it follows that the essence of God would be Fatherhood, and consequently the Son and the Spirit, who both equally possess the divine essence, would also be the Father. This holds for the other two divine hypostases as well, for if the divine essence is Sonship, it follows that the Father and the Holy Spirit, who both equally possess the divine essence, would also be the Son, etc., and so the Trinity of divine hypostases collapses into a form of modalism.

The three divine hypostases are hypostatically distinct from the divine essence, and from each other, while simultaneously possessing the divine essence.

Now as far as it concerns the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energy, if one holds that they are in reality identical, it follows that there would be no difference between the generation of the Son from the Father's essence and the creation of the world from the divine will (energy). As a consequence, the Son of God would become a product of the Father's will and as such He would be a creature, and of course this is nothing more than a form of the Arian heresy. [See St. Gregory Palamas, One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, nos. 96-98]

Based upon what has been said, it becomes possible to see why St. Gregory Palamas distinguishes between God's essence, His tri-hypostatic existence, and His energies; because to fail to make these distinctions leads in Trinitarian theology to a form of modalism (confusing essence and hypostases), and in Christology to a form of Arianism (confusing generation and creation).