Essence–energies distinction

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Essence–Energies distinction
)

Part of a series on
Palamism
Gregory Palamas
History
Theology
Influences and precursors
Palamites
Similar positions
Contrary positions
Related
icon Christianity portal
Part of a series on the
Eastern Orthodox Church
Christ Pantocrator (Deesis mosaic detail)
Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator, Hagia Sophia
Overview
Background
Organization
Autocephalous jurisdictions
Autocephalous Churches who are officially part of the communion:

Autocephaly recognized by some autocephalous Churches de jure:

Autocephaly and canonicity recognized by Constantinople and 3 other autocephalous Churches:

Spiritual independence recognized by Georgian Orthodox Church:


Autonomous jurisdictions

Semi-Autonomous:

Episcopal assemblies
Noncanonical jurisdictions
Ecumenical councils
  • Other possible ecumenical councils:
  • Other important councils:
History
Theology
Liturgy and worship
Liturgical calendar
  • The four fasting periods:
Major figures
Other topics

In

Barlaam of Calabria.[1][2][3]

Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction.[4] Historically, Western Christian thought, since the time of the Great Schism, has tended to reject the essence–energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism.[5][6]

Historical background

See also: Potentiality and actuality

The essence–energy distinction was formulated by

Barlaam of Calabria.[1][2]

The

Sunday of Orthodoxy.[7][5]

Eastern Orthodox views

Essence and energy

In Eastern Orthodox theology God's essence is called

energeia in Greek, actus in Latin) or activities as actualized in the world.[8]

The ousia of God is God as God is. The essence, being, nature and substance[clarification needed] of God as taught in Eastern Christianity is uncreated, and cannot be comprehended in words. According to Lossky, God's ousia is "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing".[9] God's ousia has no necessity or subsistence that needs or is dependent on anything other than itself.[9]

It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine, at first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or

John Damascene states in Chapter 4 of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."[10]

Distinction between essence and energy

Real distinction

According to Fr. John Romanides, Palamas considers the distinction between God's essence and his energies to be a "real distinction", as distinguished from the Thomistic "virtual distinction" and the Scotist "formal distinction". Romanides suspects that Barlaam accepted a "formal distinction" between God's essence and his energies.[11] Other writers agree that Palamas views the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as "real".[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

According to Vladimir Lossky of the neopatristic school, if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons (as existences and/or realities of God) and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of the divine nature (strictly uncreated from uncreated). The being and the action(s) of God then would appear identical, leading to the teaching of pantheism.[20]

Modern interpretation

Some contemporary scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence–energies distinction in God as a metaphysically "real" distinction. Orthodox

ab extra, much less as a merely 'formal' distinction, something demanded by the limited operating capacities of human minds."[4]

According to Anna N. Williams's study of Palamas, which is more recent than the assessments of Hart and Philips, in only two passages does Palamas state explicitly that God's energies are "as constitutively and ontologically distinct from the essence as are the three Hypostases," and in one place he makes explicit his view, repeatedly implied elsewhere, that the essence and the energies are not the same; but Williams contends that not even in these passages did Palamas intend to argue for an "ontological or fully real distinction," and that the interpretation of his teaching by certain polemical modern disciples of his is false.[22]

Eastern Orthodox criticism of Western theology

See also:
Eastern Orthodox – Roman Catholic theological differences

Eastern Orthodox theologians have criticized Western theology, especially the traditional scholastic claim that God is actus purus, for its alleged incompatibility with the essence–energies distinction. Christos Yannaras writes, "The West confuses God's essence with his energy, regarding the energy as a property of the divine essence and interpreting the latter as "pure energy" (actus purus)"[23] According to George C. Papademetriou, the essence–energies distinction "is contrary to the Western confusion of the uncreated essence with the uncreated energies and this is by the claim that God is Actus Purus".[24]

Catholic perspectives

The Catholic Church distinguishes between doctrine, which is single and must be accepted by Catholics, and theological elaborations of doctrine, about which Catholics may legitimately disagree. With respect to the Eastern and Western theological traditions, the Catholic Church recognizes that, at times, one tradition may "come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or [express] it to better advantage." In these situations, the Church views the various theological expressions "often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting."[25]

According to Meyendorff, from Palamas's time until the twentieth century, Roman Catholic theologians generally rejected the idea that there is in God a real essence–energies distinction. In their view, a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God contradicted the teaching of the First Council of Nicaea[26] on divine unity.[5] Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott held that an absence of real distinction between the attributes of God and God's essence is a dogma of the Catholic Church.[27][28]

In contrast, Jürgen Kuhlmann argues that the Catholic Church never judged Palamism to be heretical, adding that Palamas did not consider that the distinction between essence and energies in God made God composite.[22] According to Kuhlmann, "the denial of a real distinction between essence and energies is not an article of Catholic faith".[29]

According to Meyendorff, the later twentieth century saw a change in the attitude of Roman Catholic theologians to Palamas, a "rehabilitation" of him that has led to increasing parts of the Western Church considering him a saint, even if uncanonized.[26] Some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Catholic thought on the distinction.[22] According to G. Philips, the essence–energies distinction of Palamas is "a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism" that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium.[22] Jeffrey D. Finch claims that "the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism and neo-Palamism".[22] Some Western theologians have incorporated the essence–energies distinction into their own thinking.[30]

See also

Orthodox theology
Neo-Palamism
Stochastics
Western philosophy
Asia
Judaism

Notes

  1. ^ The mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and noetic contemplation of God.

References

  1. ^ a b "accusing Gregory Palamas of Messalianism" – Antonio Carile, Η Θεσσαλονίκη ως κέντρο Ορθοδόξου θεολογίας – προοπτικές στη σημερινή Ευρώπη Thessaloniki 2000, pp. 131–140, (English translation provided by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece).
  2. ^ a b Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics by John S. Romanides, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Volume VI, Number 2, Winter, 1960–61. Published by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Theological School Press, Brookline, Massachusetts.
  3. ^ "The Search for Sacred Quietude". 17 March 2019.
  4. ^
    ISBN 9780722050804
    .
  5. ^ a b c "No doubt the leaders of the party held aloof from these vulgar practices of the more ignorant monks, but on the other hand they scattered broadcast perilous theological theories. Palamas taught that by asceticism one could attain a corporal, i.e. a sense view, or perception, of the Divinity. He also held that in God there was a real distinction between the Divine Essence and Its attributes, and he identified grace as one of the Divine propria making it something uncreated and infinite. These monstrous errors were denounced by the Calabrian Barlaam, by Nicephorus Gregoras, and by Acthyndinus. The conflict began in 1338 and ended only in 1368, with the solemn canonization of Palamas and the official recognition of his heresies. He was declared the 'holy doctor' and 'one of the greatest among the Fathers of the Church', and his writings were proclaimed 'the infallible guide of the Christian Faith'. Thirty years of incessant controversy and discordant councils ended with a resurrection of polytheism" (Simon Vailhé, "Greek Church" in Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909)
  6. ISBN 978-0809124473
    , although that attitude has never been universally prevalent in the Catholic Church and has been even more widely criticised in the Catholic theology for the last century (see section 3 of this article). Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
  7. ^ Fortescue, Adrian (1910), Hesychasm, vol. VII, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 3 February 2008
  8. ISBN 978-0-521-82865-9
  9. ^
    ISBN 0-227-67919-9
    )
  10. ISBN 0-227-67919-9
    )
  11. ^ John S. Romanides, Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics. Orthodoxinfo.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  12. ^ Joseph Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, "The Essence of God in Relation to His Attributes", vol. 1, p. 146
  13. Eerdmans
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  14. ISBN 978-0823209675
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  15. ISBN 978-0742532267
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  16. ^ Cistercian Studies, vol. 7 (1990), Cistercian Publications, p. 258. Books.google.com. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  17. ISBN 978-0913836316
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  18. ISBN 978-0881413106
    , Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  19. ISBN 978-0860120063
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  20. ISBN 0-227-67919-9
    )
  21. ISBN 978-0802829214
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  22. ^
    ISBN 978-0838641118
    . Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  23. ^ Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006), p. 36.
  24. ^ George C. Papademetriou, Introduction to St. Gregory Palamas (Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004), p. 61.
  25. ^ "UnitatisRedintegratio". Archived from the original on 6 March 2013. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God's truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. A concrete example of the application of this principle is the separate presentation in the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Blessed Trinity Archived 13 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine of the Church's doctrine on the Trinity as interpreted in Greek theology and in Latin theology, without denigrating either interpretation.
  26. ^
    ISBN 978-0809124473
    . Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
  27. ^ "In distinguishing between God and His attributes, one is going against a doctrine of the faith: 'The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence' (De fide). The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a Synod at Rheims, in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real difference between Deus and Divinitas, so that there would result a quaternity in God (Three Persons plus Godhead). This teaching, which is not obvious in Gilbert's writings, was rejected at the Council of Rheims (1148) in the presence of Pope Eugene III (D. 389 Archived 20 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine et seq.)" (James Bastible (editor)
  28. ^ Dr Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 28, Tan Books and Publishers, 1960, Retrieved 12 September 2014)
  29. ISBN 9780060649128
    . Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
  30. ISBN 0-19-860024-0
    ), p. 186. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.

Bibliography

External links

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essence–energies_distinction&oldid=1188578402"