Essence–energies distinction

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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 Eastern Orthodox (palamite) theology, there is a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God. It was formulated by Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of Hesychasm[note 1] against the charge of heresy brought by the humanist scholar and theologian 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

[edit]
See also: Potentiality and actuality

The essence–energy distinction was formulated by Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki (1296–1359), as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of hesychasmos, the mystical exercise of "stillness" to facilitate ceaseless inner prayer and noetic contemplation of God, against the charge of heresy brought by the humanist scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria.[1][2]

The mystagogical teachings of hesychasm were approved in the Eastern Orthodox Church by a series of local Hesychast councils in the 14th century, and Gregory's commemoration during the liturgical season of Great Lent is seen as an extension of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.[7][5]

Eastern Orthodox views

[edit]

Essence and energy

[edit]

In Eastern Orthodox theology God's essence is called ousia, "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another", and is distinct from his energies (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 noetically. As St 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

[edit]

Real distinction

[edit]

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

[edit]

Some contemporary scholars argue against describing Palamas's essence–energies distinction in God as a metaphysically "real" distinction. Orthodox philosophical theologian David Bentley Hart expresses doubt "that Palamas ever intended to suggest a real distinction between God's essence and energies."[21] G. Philips argues that Palamas's distinction is not an "ontological" distinction but, rather, analogous to a "formal distinction" in the Scotist sense of the term.[22] According to Dominican Catholic theological historian Fr. Aidan Nichols, Palamas's essence–energies distinction is "not simply by virtue of his saving action 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

[edit]
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

[edit]

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

[edit]

Orthodox theology

Neo-Palamism

Western philosophy

Asia

Judaism

Notes

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

References

[edit]
  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. ^ a b Nichols, Aidan (1995). Light from the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology, Part 4. Sheed and Ward. p. 50. 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. ^ John Meyendorff (editor), Gregory Palamas – The Triads, p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, 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. ^ Aristotle East and West by David Bradshaw, pp. 91, 95 Cambridge University Press (27 December 2004) ISBN 978-0-521-82865-9
  9. ^ a b The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 50–55, ISBN 0-913836-31-1, (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
  10. ^ The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997. ISBN 0-913836-31-1 (James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991, p. 73, 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. ^ Erwin Fabhlbusch, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, vol. 4, p. 13, ISBN 978-0802824165. Eerdmans. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  14. ^ John Meyendorff (1979) Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, p. 59. Fordham University Press, ISBN 978-0823209675. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  15. ^ John Farrelly (2005) The Trinity: Rediscovering the Central Christian Mystery, Rowman & Littlefield. p. 108. 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. ^ Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, pp. 73, 77. St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976 ISBN 978-0913836316. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  18. ^ Gabriel Bunge, The Rublev Trinity, p. 75. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1 January 2007, ISBN 978-0881413106, Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  19. ^ Karl Rahner, Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, p. 391. A&C Black, 1975, ISBN 978-0860120063. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  20. ^ "If we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any very clear borderline between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world: both the one and the other will be equally acts of divine nature. The being and the action of God would then appear to be identical and as having the same character of necessity, as is observed by St Mark of Ephesus (fifteenth century). We must then distinguish in God His nature, which is one; and three hypostases; and the uncreated energy which proceeds from and manifests forth the nature from which it is inseparable. If we participate in God in His energies, according to the measure of our capacity, this does not mean that in His procession ad extra God does not manifest Himself fully. God is in no way diminished in His energies; He is wholly present in each ray of His divinity." The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, by Vladimir Lossky, SVS Press, 1997, pp. 73–75 (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991. (ISBN 0-227-67919-9)
  21. ^ David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite, p. 204, Eerdmans, 2004, ISBN 978-0802829214. Retrieved on 13 September 2014.
  22. ^ a b c d e f Michael J. Christensen, Jeffery A. Wittung (editors), Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deificiation in the Christian Traditions (Associated University Presses 2007 ISBN 0-8386-4111-3), pp. 243–244, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press, 2007 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. ^ a b John Meyendorff (editor), Gregory Palamas – The Triads, p. xi. Paulist Press, 1983, 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. ^ Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life, p. 200. HarperSanFrancisco, 1991, ISBN 9780060649128. Retrieved on 12 September 2014.
  30. ^ Kallistos Ware Oxford Companion to Christian Thought; (Oxford University Press 2000 ISBN 0-19-860024-0), p. 186. Retrieved on 21 January 2012.

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essence–energies_distinction&oldid=1243426316"