www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Catholic to Orthodox

I would suggest that you become more familiar with the Byzantine theological tradition.

Below is a link to a response written by a Ukrainian Catholic priest (from Mother of God Ukrainian-Byzantine Church, Conyers, GA) to a question about the doctrine of epektasis. The response highlights a few of the fundamental differences between Eastern and Western theology:

Epektasis [christianforums.com]

I think I read something about this on your blog, and it may have been in an article written by Fr. Azkoul. I'll have to give it more thought.

Blessings to you,
Todd

[/QUOTE]I would suggest that you become more familiar with the Byzantine theological tradition.[/QUOTE]

I am quite familiar with the Byzantine theological tradition (but perhaps not at the level you are), having studied it, and catechized with it, over the years, and, more recently, having done course work at St. Tikhon of Zadonsk OCA seminary. I generally lean heavily to the side of accepting the teachings of the Eastern Fathers vis a vis an opposing view taught by somebody from the West when I perceive the freedom to do so (i.e. when an issue has not definitively been decided by the Magisterium). As an example, St. Isaac of Nineveh taught that even if Adam had not fallen, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity would have taken on human nature, for the sake of our divinization. A good number of Western theologians held/hold that the Incarnation took place ONLY because of the Fall, and the need for the human race to be saved. I accept St. Isaac's teaching, as opposed to the above Western view. It makes sense to me. BUT, I make a distinction between theological schools of thought (whether Eastern or Western) AND finalized, official, definitive dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium. The former must yield to the latter, since the former works in service to the teaching Church. A REAL theologian, in addition to possessing a sharp intellect, is also characterized by the virtue of humility. When his or her findings and/or insights are not adopted by the teaching Church, in humility, he or she must back off and assent to what the Sacred Magisterium teaches. Historically, heretics have been those who succumb to intellectual pride, and persist in spreading/teaching what has been rejected by the Church (i.e. Arius, Nestorius, Luther, and others, ad infinitum). I can readily think of one instance of an Eastern Father who was characterized by such humility-St. Theodore of Mospuetia. He had taught that Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His human nature, was burdened by concupiscence. One of the Ecumenical Councils held at Constantinople rejected this teaching. From what I remember, he backed off and accepted the Council's teaching. I doubt he would be acknowledged as a saint had he obstinately clung to his heresy.

Fr. Deacon Robert

Fr. Deacon,

The problem that I have with your position, is that you appear to be reducing the doctrinal tradition of the Catholic Church to the Latin Scholastic tradition of the second millennium alone, and I simply refuse to do that.

Now with that said, let me ask you a specific question: Do you believe that grace is created or uncreated?

I believe, in line with the teachings of the Eastern Fathers, that it is uncreated, because grace is God Himself as energy. The Latin Scholastics taught that grace, as received by man, is created. Which position is correct? If you go with what the Scholastics taught -- which I do not -- then you must throw out 2,000 years of tradition flowing out from the Eastern Fathers on the doctrine of grace (i.e., divine energy).

Another question: Do you believe that we will participate in (or see) the divine essence in the eschaton?

I hold, in line with the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, that the divine essence is beyond any kind of participation, and that salvation involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energies. The Scholastics denied this distinction, and taught that man will behold the divine essence through a created light of glory. Which position is correct?

Honestly, I think you are limiting the teaching of the Church, because you are taking things to be dogma, which are not dogma, but which are merely theologumena of the Latin Church.

Todd,

I am just about finished with a paper on Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa that touches on this very issue being discussed. I just need to tidy it up in a few places. I will let you know when I post it on my blog.

Photios

Apotheoun,

Aren't the things you mention also "merely" Eastern theologumena? They certainly haven't been dogmatized, and I don't believe them. I follow my own Latin Church's tradition, as you do yours. But why suggest that your theologumena are better than mine? I don't think so.

Logos Teen

LT,

The East does hold that the Energy-Essence distinction is dogmatic and essential and this is why the Second Sunday of Lent is dedicated to St. Gregory Palamas, who defended this teaching. It is essentially a second Sunday of Orthodoxy, the first Sunday of Orthodoxy celebrates the triumph of Icon veneration, the second celebrates the triumph of Hesychasm in the person of St. Gregory Palamas.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you for your post, but sadly you haven't answered the questions.

(1) Is grace created or uncreated?

(2) Do the blessed see the divine essence, or do they participate in the uncreated divine energies?

These are not difficult questions to answer and in fact they can be answered quite directly.

I answer the first question by saying: Grace is uncreated.

I answer the second question by saying: No man can see the divine essence, and so divinization involves participation in the divine energies, and not the divine essence.

Nevertheless, I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree.

I stand by the words of Pope John Paul II who indicated that for the Eastern Fathers the divine essence is unapproachable, because as he put it: ". . . the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit." [Pope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen, no. 6]

Perhaps Mr. Likoudis should have informed the previous Pope of his error on this topic.

As far as Mr. Likoudis' views of the teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church are concerned, I think it would be better to ask the holy synod of that Church what its position is on the doctrine of uncreated energies and theosis.

Father Deacon,

Dogmatic and essential? But we Roman Catholics do not subscribe to such a view, right?

Then it certainly is neither dogmatic or essential if that is the case, it seems to me?

Logos Teen

I look forward to reading it.

Have you read Dr. Douglass' book Theology of the Gap? I found it an interesting read, and although I don't agree with everything he said, it is an important work on the theology of the Cappadocians.

Todd,

It was actually you who made me aware of that book on another blog, in which I went out and bought it. My paper deals with the issue of dialectic of opposition and the ordo theologiae of Eunomios and Gregory's response (which is quite hostile towards dialectic even calling it a blasphemous method).

Photios

I stand by the words of Pope John Paul II who indicated that for the Eastern Fathers the divine essence is unapproachable, because as he put it: ". . . the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit." [Pope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen, no. 6]

Perhaps Mr. Likoudis should have informed the previous Pope of his error on this topic.


I don't necessarily see a conflict with the teaching on the Beatific Vision here. God's Essence is unknowable and incomprehensible to us, and yet He reveals Himself to us. In the state of glory, He will show us His face, and yet we will not be able to comprehend or "get our arms around" His "stuff" or His Essence. I am quite confident that John Paul II would not deny the Church's teaching on the Beatific Vision, and that he did not intend to do so while upholding the teachings of the Eastern Fathers on the "unknowability" of the Divine Essence.