www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Essence and Energies of God

I found your website and am curious, if I may-are you Byzantine Catholic or Orthodox from the denominational sense? I saw your piece on the magesterium and at a glance you sound rather pro-western... or did I just not read enough?

I was RC, then was introduced to the BC about 20 years ago by Rt Rev Joseph Stanichar of Seattle Washington. After 4 years celebrating the Ruthenian Rite, I went to Europe and lived in spiritual darkness for 15 years (though kept at reading things from a historical perspective). Now am back with the Byzantines... it's good to be home. I'm currently reading "The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church" by Vladimir Lossky... next to Holy Scripture, I just want to eat the pages. What other resources do you have to get someone clearly Eastern in their spirituality to gain greater knowledge, love and appreciation for this great Tradition?

Thanks for your insightful posts--you have a gift from God.

Mark.

Todd,

You are clearly misreading Fr. Quay and I think St. Gregory of Nyssa as well.

lm

Certainly there has been a misreading of St. Gregory Nyssa.

To say that St. Gregory in the following quotes is NOT speaking of the Holy Spirit, third person of the Trinity, is stretching the theological rubber band to its breaking point:

Mary,

Nowhere in the text you have quoted from St. Gregory does the word hypostasis appear, because he is not talking about the person of the Spirit, but the economic manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.

Moreover, your views, and those of Fr. Quay, were condemned as heretical both at the Palamite Councils in the 14th century, and in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. Thus, as an Eastern Catholic Christian I cannot subscribe to your erroneous interpretation of the text in question.

God bless,
Todd

lm,

I suppose it is not all that surprising, but you and I are yet again in disagreement on a theological issue. That said, as I see it, both you and Fr. Quay are misreading St. Gregory.

God bless,
Todd

Mark,

I am Byzantine Catholic, but I hold the Orthodox faith.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I am canonically Ruthenian, but I attend divine services normally at a Melkite mission.

P.P.S. - My website contains things that I have written over a period of many years. Thus, older texts on the site do not necessarily reflect my theological position at the present time. Nevertheless, I keep those articles on my website, because I wrote them, and they witness to the intellectual progression of my theology.

Q. 1. Who can explain this in simplest terms?
A. Both can be explained simply but you asked "who" and that is difficult. Very few � I would answer as most people do not want their theology simple. They want you to believe that theology is very complex and difficult and only for the intelligent and already-holy � meaning that you should accept what you are told in faith and you are only �right� if can work your way to the already-accepted conclusions. But for me, just quoting someone else is not a real sign of - understanding. So mine will not be qoutes - but I am not sure about - simple.


Q. 2. What would the equivalent concept be in the Latin West?
The Uncreated Energies in the East are the same as what is called virtues in the West. It is the same object viewed from two vantage points. Kind of like one guy defining a car by looking at it from the front - and another guy defining the same car by looking at it from the back. It is the same object from different vantage points.

The East used to call the uncreated energies �virtues� when they were sorting out the doctrine. These virtues are gained when one cooperates with Providence and some of them are only gained while enduring situations which are uncomfortable. The East originally divided all virtues into only four categories just as the Semitic did and these are the four rivers which �water� Paradise. During the time of the Prophets virtues were often called �fruits of the spirit� in the same way that Jesus said, �You shall know them by their fruits� (meaning you can recognize a Godly man by the presence of virtues). The virtues were later further subdivided. The East came to call them uncreated energies as an answer to �what are they in substance??� and the West put them in the category of grace (a particular kind of grace) and had asked �what are they in man?�. Both essentially came to the same conclusion that they are �God�s life in man�.

Neither theology came to any conclusion as to what they are in substance. The West did not come to any answer and neither did the East as evidenced by saying they are energies (a category of nature) like to the created energies found in nature � but then negating that (un-created). So this means �like - but not the same as� And so these energies are likened to the created natural energies of wind, water, fire, etc� but are not the same as these natural and created energies.

As to the essence of God � East and West use a bit of different language for this concept but underneath the words (which are merely pointers) these doctrines are the exact same. Now as for church politics - the trouble comes with semantics and centers around the filoque. The history of that is that the original formula was agreed upon before there was a division of �East vrs West�. It was one church and the tug of war between Byzantine and Rome had not yet begun. The East then further developed and defined it at a time when the technical meaning of one Greek word of it � was in transition. The East adopted the newer Greek wording which was then current Greek use � while Rome continued to use the original Greek meaning of that word when it further transposed it to Latin. The Eastern church was divided on a question if the Roman formula was correct or not (Rome was using the orginal meaning of the Greek while the East had adopted the newer development of the Greek words) but the power struggle between Emperor and Pope being in full sway - politics won the day and the wording of a filoque became a political rally point (are you with us or against us??).

It is much too wordy to explain why - but both formulas express (within their own context) something a slightly different - yet entirely compatible. I will not explain that here but ask yourself for either �what is being sent?� and �Sent where?� for what is being sent in both are a bit different and also where it is being sent to. If you come to see that you will also come to see that both are right. Keep in mind that the schism had already taken place in men�s hearts and only a matter of time and excuse to burst into history � when these formulas we adjusted further. So each was done in isolation with malice of forethought and real intent that the other side be excluded from deliberations. But � that does not mean that one must be right and the other must be wrong.

If hearts were in the right place then the shift in the technical meaning of one Greek word would have been no obstacle to overcome � however � in the competition for who would be head of the earthy empire of the Church (the Byzantine Emperor or the Pope of Rome) the church was already splitting along cultural lines and it was in the interest of those playing the game to deepen and widen the split. And so hearts were poisoned through heads (we call this �spin� today). And so for some it is a tenant of faith to believe that the two expressions are not compatible. And so to come to believe that they may be compatible - is akin to apostasy and adopting the heretical.

Semantics - the tool of the politician.

The earthly empire of Byzantine was the first to fail and be crippled � by Providence, and during the Reformation the earthy empire of Rome was crippled � by Providence. These are historical facts � while it is I whom am saying the this was the doing of Providence which does not allow the Kingdom of Heaven to be an earthy empire or condition.

The moral of the story is that any reunion of the church can not be done through the method of the head (intellect and its discussions) without the desire (heart) for reunion first. Humility - which is apparently lacking. And so do not bang your head against the wall with this. You will only get a headache. Certain upper management of the church want the status quo to remain. Pride, adulation, property, revenues. However - if you split a hologram in two - both parts do contain the whole (if you know what I mean by that). If the church does unite again it will be by a ground swell of the laity and the ordinary priests who no longer understand nor care for the disagreements of the past.

One of the major items which has caused or influenced much trouble in popular books of theology is the definition of the word �spirit�. There has always been those in the church who use a material like definition of this. It is quite interesting that Issac Newton (known for gravity) thought that his most important theory was �Absolute Space� in which he answered the question �Is empty space � really entirely empty?� � his answer was that it was not empty but filled with invisible spirits. You win one (gravity) you lose one (Absolute Space). The Western Church thought that was a terrific answer because it was considered common knowledge that spirits were like an invisible gaseous like ethereal substance which fly about in the air. And so this idea that spirit is a substance (but not an earthy substance) like thing has always been hard to shake.

However - the original meaning of the word is from the Greek �psyche� which gave it a meaning in Greek philosophy of an experience (I repeat - an experience - not an object or substance). An experience had to (or had by) the human mind. And so when we read �God is spirit� we are not reading that God is a different kind or category of substance than what creation is made out of - we should be reading the NATURE (act - action) of God is not an experience that can be had to our senses - but is an experience had only by the mind. God is not a thing - God is an act. It is a difference between a baseball bat (substance) and the swing (an act or action). And this act (that is God) can only be had as an experience within our mind.

I present it for your consideration. I hope this helps. Back up what I say with your own study. Research things on your own - come to your own conclusions and do not be afraid of the judgmental opinions of others. Be not afraid.

I will be away for awhile so I will not see any reply.

Peace to you and to your church.
-ray