Greek Orthodox relations question

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Myles Domini' post='979976' date='May 13 2006, 08:09 AM']
I'm all for a light hearted discussion--which is why I started out my post with all those light hearted remarks about L_D (not that I didnt mean 'em dude )--but if this is going to turn into something else I dont want to be part of it and that is the reason I left it so long to say anything in the first place and tried to be as diplomatic as possible when I did finally say something. In spite of the fact I thought you were being unfair to St Thomas I tried to empathise with your standpoint by admitting there were Latin theologians of note and merit in the past who had been guilty of the charges you listed. Indeed, I have tried to do the same thing now. Is it too much to ask for you to show us the same empathy especially since I really cannot see what is wrong with the doctrinal presentation of the Trinity presented by the Latins exemplified in the citations from Nichols and the detailed response given by L_D?

As members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church are we not able to agree to disagree within the bounds that the Church allows us to?
[/quote]
Amen Myles... I can't believe you're like buddies with Aidan Nichols!

I hope I haven't come off mean, I'm just playing along with the slightly polemical style. Todd, just so you know I always wait eagerly for your posts because they're always so thought provoking. I hope I'm not ticking you off or anything.

I'm just trying to be provocative for the sake of fun theological dialogue and I'm really curious about how you might respond to this stuff.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979873' date='May 13 2006, 06:30 AM']
The latins teach that the hypostases of the Trinity are truly subsistent and distinct but to call it "mere" relations of opposition is to betray a lack of appreciation for the richness of the west's ponderings on this mystery. Quite frankly the Paternity, Sonship, Spiration approach that the west takes includes the mode of origin but is a better foundational metaphor for describing the mystery because it is more personalistic and isn't married to a temporal or sequential motiff. As Bonaventure says it is the more spiritual and the more proper of God who is Love.
[. . .]
[/quote]
The East rejects the notion that the [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity are mere "relations of opposition" within the divine essence, and it does so: first because it is not possible to know anything about the divine essence, and second because this reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to relations, but they are more than that. In fact the "relations" that the West speaks of are the logical consequence of the different "modes of origin" ([i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]) of the three divine [i]hypostaseis[/i], and so they cannot be the focus of man's experience of God, because God is beyond human intellection and logical deduction. One other problem with the Scholastic teaching is that it reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to "mental" distinctions within the mind of man, because as St. Thomas said:

[quote]. . . relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, [i]but only in our way of thinking[/i]. [St. Thomas, [u]Summa Theologica[/u], Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1][/quote]

The East rejects this idea for the reasons I mentioned above, i.e., because it reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to "relations of opposition," and because it reduces the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to mere epistemic concepts, i.e., since they only differ "in our way of thinking." Moreover, the Eastern Fathers assert the very thing that St. Thomas denies, because they say that the [i]hypostaseis[/i] "really" differ from each other, but without necessarily involving opposition. The East rejects the dialectical approach of the West.

Now it is important to note that the East rejects not only this part of Thomas' philosophical concept of the Trinity, but also what he says about the Trinity just before the quotation I gave above. Here is what St. Thomas said:

[quote]. . . some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be 'adjacent'; considering only in the relations the idea of 'reference to another,' and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. [St. Thomas, [u]Summa Theologica[/u], Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1][/quote]

First, as is clear from my earlier posts, the East accepts the very idea that Thomas rejects, i.e., the East believes that ". . . in God essence and person differ," and so, the two sides really do teach something substantially different about the doctrine of the Trinity. Second, the hypostatic distinctions in God are not "oppositional relations" they are true "modes of origin" independent of human thought. In fact God in His essence is beyond any category of human thought or predication. That being said, the Eastern Fathers teach that God the Father is "cause" (Greek: [i]aitia[/i]), while the Son is [i]generated[/i] by the Father, and the Spirit is [i]processed[/i] from the Father, and both "generation" and "procession" are hypostatic properties of the Father, which cannot be shared by the other two [i]hypostaseis[/i]. In other words, the Father is distinct as "cause" within the Trinity, while the Son is distinct as being "generated," and the Spirit is distinct because He is "processed." Thus, it is true to say that God the Father is the sole source, principle, origin, and font of divinity, and the Son and the Spirit derive their origin from Him, not through a mere "oppositional relation," but through distinct and subsisting hypostatic "modes of origin" ([i]tropos hyparxeos[/i]). As a consequence, any "oppositions" that arise within God are the result of the distinct hypostatic properties, and this means that the [i]hypostaseis[/i] cannot be reduced to "relations of opposition," since these relations are derived from the different "modes of origin" and not vice versa. In other words, the West is reducing the Trinity to a philosophical speculation where man moves through rational categories in order to try and "prove" that God is a triad of divine [i]hypostaseis[/i], while the East holds that it is not possible to "prove" such a thing, because it is in fact a [i]datum[/i] of divine revelation that must simply be accepted by the gift of faith, which transcends reason. The Eastern Fathers are unanimous in teaching that the human mind cannot rise up to, nor discover anything about, the essence of God, because the human mind is a [i]diastemic[/i] reality and the divine essence is [i]adiastemic[/i]. As St. Gregory of Nyssa explains:

[quote]The whole created order is unable to get out of itself through a comprehensive vision, but remains continually enclosed within itself, and whatever it beholds, it is looking at itself. And even if it somehow thinks it is looking at something beyond itself, that which it sees outside itself has no being. One may struggle to surpass or transcend [i]diastemic[/i] conception by the understanding of the created universe, but he does not transcend. For in every object it conceptually discovers, it always comprehends the [i]diastema[/i] inherent in the being of the apprehended object, for [i]diastema[/i] is nothing other than creation itself. [St. Gregory of Nyssa, [i]Homilies on Ecclesiastes[/i], 7:412][/quote]

What St. Gregory is emphasizing here, is the ontological gap that exists between uncreated and created essence, and this gap is permanent, which means that there can be no participation by man in the divine essence, because the divine essence is utterly transcendent. Moreover, because of the [i]diastemic[/i] nature of creation the Eastern Fathers reject the idea that there is an "analogy of being" between the uncreated and the created, because as Fr. Florovsky said, Creation 'comes into being, made up from outside.' [i]And there is no similarity between that which bursts forth from nothing and the Creator Who verily is, Who brings creatures out of nothing[/i]." [Fr. Florovsky, [u]Creation and Redemption[/u], (Nordland Publishing Company: Belmont, Massachusetts, 1976), page 48] Thus, the East rejects as impossible the very thing that St. Thomas tries to do in the quotation I gave above, i.e., to compare "relations" in creatures, and "relations" in God, and then come to a conclusion about the what relations are in the divine essence. This kind of comparison is contrary to the teaching of the ancient Fathers, and that is clear if one remembers that the divine essence is beyond intellectual comprehension; and so, through his intellectual concepts, St. Thomas is trying to do the very thing that St. Gregory of Nyssa condemned and said was impossible, i.e., St. Thomas tries to intellectually transcend the [i]diastema[/i]. Sadly, St. Thomas thought he had "learned" something about the essence of God, but of course the Church Fathers hold that that is impossible; in other words, St. Thomas has fallen into the very same trap that Eunomius fell into centuries earlier, because he mistakenly believed that he has learned something about the divine essence by comparing it to creatures, but as St. Gregory of Nyssa said, ". . . in every object it [i.e., the human mind] conceptually discovers, it always comprehends the [i]diastema[/i] inherent in the being of the apprehended object," and so, all that St. Thomas has done is fool himself into thinking that he has transcended the created order. Moreover, to believe that the epinoetic conceptions that man forms about God rise up and transgress the [i]adiastemic[/i] boundary is the height of hubris and borders on a form of idolatry.

Finally, Laudate_Dominum said:

[quote]Quite frankly the Paternity, Sonship, Spiration approach that the west takes includes the mode of origin but is a better foundational metaphor for describing the mystery because it is more personalistic and isn't married to a temporal or sequential motiff.[/quote]

The problem with the West's position is -- as I have noted above -- that it has reduced to Trinity to a philosophical speculation based upon rational reflection, but God is beyond rational reflection; in fact, God is beyond being, and He is beyond essence (i.e., He is [i]hyperousios[/i]), and the West, by reducing the [i]hypostaseis[/i] to relations within the unknowable divine essence, has made two mistakes: first, it has made the unknowable and utterly transcendent divine essence knowable; and second, it has reversed the order of knowledge in connection with the triad of divine hypostaseis, i.e., it has taken what is a logical conclusion arising from the distinct "modes of origin," and has made those "oppositional relations" the foundation of its philosophical theory of the Trinity. The [i]hypostaseis[/i] of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not distinct because they are in some type of "oppositional relation"; instead, they are distinct because of their different subsisting properties. The error of the Scholastic leads them to posit "four" oppositional relations, yet only three [i]hypostaseis[/i], but the Eastern Fathers never taught this, and in fact they would find it very strange to say the least.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979792' date='May 13 2006, 04:18 AM']
[. . .]

I have yet to see anyone convincingly demonstrate that what the pre-palamite theologians had in mind with the essence/energies distinction is really the same thing that Palamas has in mind.
For one thing, the categories of "real" distinction vs. "notional" distinction are scholastic and while I certainly admit that Palamas clearly make this distinction I find it hard to believe that the sense of the Cappadocians' philosophical underpinnings is quite the same and thus many of the quotes that are often thrown out there have anachronistic baggage included if you know what I mean.
That quote from one of Basil's letters falls particularly flat with me whenever I see you use it. It has absolutely no value in my eyes as a charge against Thomas. The context and content is radically foreign to the discussion of Thomas' theology.

[. . .][/quote]
No offense, but I doubt you have read many of St. Gregory Palamas' writings.

In the [i]Capita Physica[/i] he says quite clearly that there are three "realities" in God, i.e., essence, energy, and a triad of divine [i]hypostaseis[/i]. Thus, Palamas teaches, both in the [i]Capita Physica[/i] and in the [i]Triads[/i], that the distinction between essence and energy, the distinction between [i]hypostasis[/i] and energy, and the distinction between essence and [i]hypostasis[/i], are real, and not merely "formal" or "notional." In fact, [i]theosis[/i] is not possible if one fails to make these real distinctions. The denial of a "real" distinction is a common failure of Western Scholars who desperately try to see the Cappadocian / Maximian / Palamite distinction between essence and energy in Neo-Platonic or Aristotelian terms.

As far as the Cappadocian Fathers are concerned, if a man denies that they make a "real" distinction between essence and energy he destroys their argument against the heretic Eunomius. The divine essence is [i]adiastemic[/i] and that means that man cannot have any knowledge of it, nor can he participate in it in any sense, because to do so would involve the annihilation of created essence. Salvation involves an existential change in man, not an essential change.

Now as far as St. Thomas' philosophical speculations are concerned, the East rejects them because they are founded upon the thought of Aristotle, and the Eastern Church condemned Aristotle's philosophical theories centuries ago. In fact those condemnations are celebrated in the divine liturgy on the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.

Finally, if the quotation from St. Basil falls flat with you, it simply means that you have failed to grasp the true nature of the ontological gap between uncreated and created essence. I must admit that I was truly sad when I read your comments, because it tells me that our instant message conversations on the [i]diastema[/i] have been fruitless.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979873' date='May 13 2006, 06:30 AM']
[. . .]

There are quite a few scholastics and they are all pretty different. This is an outlandish statement. There were scholastics who weren't far from Palamas in some regards.

[. . .]
[/quote]
I would put it this way: when you compare St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure it is like comparing two oranges, one with a "sunkist" sticker on it, and the other without a sticker, while the East is an apple.

But seriously, the Scholastics approach theology from a speculative philosophical perspective and this is simply foreign to the Eastern Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979792' date='May 13 2006, 04:18 AM']
[. . .]

Byzantine theologian Endre von Ivanka actually holds that a "real" distinction of essence and energies contradicts the thought of the Greek Fathers. I believe the reasoning pertains to the Cappadocians intent to avoid formulations which suggest that the creature participates in God's being by virtue of a Neo-Platonic emanationism, which is precisely what some in the east have viewed Palamism to be. Palamism is a reversion to the Platonic idea of participation by the creature in successive levels of God's being.

[. . .]
[/quote]
Well, there are of course a few Byzantine Christians who misunderstand Palamas, but the fact that Endre von Ivanka is in error does not alter the reality that the distinction between essence and energy is "real," and not merely "notional." If the distinction is not "real" the Cappadocian argument against Eunomius collapses. The [i]diastemic[/i] nature of creation is written into its very nature, and that is why creatures cannot transcend, either in thought or in reality, their own dimensional and kinetic being. Salvation, as I have pointed out before, is existential change, not essential change.

Anyone who thinks that Palamas, who attacked explicitly Neo-Platonic thought in connection with [i]theosis[/i] has either never read Palamas, or has misread him. The West commonly makes these types of misreadings, and not only of Palamas, but of Pseudo-Dionysios as well, and Dr. John Jones -- who was formerly the head of the philosophy department at Marquette -- has written some excellent critiques in connection with St. Thomas' misreading of Pseudo-Dionysios (See his articles entitled: [i]Misreading the Divine Names as a Science: A Scholastic Framework for Reading the Divine Names of Pseudo-Dionysios[/i], and [i]Manifesting Beyond-being Being (Hyperousios Ousia): The Divine Essence / Energies Distinction for Pseudo-Dionysios the Areopagite[/i]).

It is important to note that only some of the problems between East and West have there origin in the West's use of philosophy in theology (e.g., the West's acceptance of a concept of divine simplicity built upon the thought of Plotinus, the reduction of the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] to an Aristotelian and Platonic dialetic of "relations of opposition," etc.), while other problems are founded upon basic theological differences in connection with how the two sides understand grace and even salvation itself.

The article in the link below gives a good explanation of the Eastern position on the essence / energy distinction:

[url="http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/yannaras.html"][u]The Distinction between Essence and Energies and its Importance in Theology[/u][/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980240' date='May 13 2006, 11:40 AM']
No offense, but I doubt you have read many of St. Gregory Palamas' writings.

In the [i]Capita Physica[/i] he says quite clearly that there are three "realities" in God, i.e., essence, energy, and a triad of divine hypostaseis. Thus, Palamas teaches, both in the [i]Capita Physica[/i] and in the [i]Triads[/i], that the distinction between essence and energy, the distinction between hypostasis and energy, and the distinction between essence and hypostasis, are real, and not merely "formal" or "notional."[/quote]
Well, I have the Capita in my hand at this moment, and actually the last time I read that exact quotation was about 4 hours ago. And the Triads was my favourite book for a while. I've read books by Meyendorff, Lossky and other neo-Palamites. I am most certainly aware of the fact that for Palamas the distintions are very "real", I stated that in a post above.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980240' date='May 13 2006, 11:40 AM']
In fact, [i]theosis[/i] is not possible if one fails to make these real distinctions.
[/quote]
Naturally I am aware of Palamas' project to defend his understanding of theosis against Barlaam. And many of the reasons underlying the system of Palamas.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980240' date='May 13 2006, 11:40 AM']As far as the Cappadocian Fathers are concerned, if a man denies that they make a "real" distinction between essence and energy he destroys their argument against the heretic Eunomius. The divine essence is [i]adiastemic[/i] and that means that man cannot have any knowledge of it, nor can he participate in it in any sense, because to do so would involve the annihilation of created essence. Salvation involves an existential change in man, not an essential change.[/quote]
As you may know Nyssa's treatise Against Eunomius is one of my favourite patristic works. I understand the categories involved and don't really have a problem with the point you're making. But I will say that I hardly agree that the system of Palamas necessarily follows from the case against Eunomius.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980240' date='May 13 2006, 11:40 AM']St. Thomas' philosophical speculations are founded upon the thought of Aristotle, and the Eastern Church condemned his ideas centuries ago. In fact those condemnations are celebrated in the divine liturgy on the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy.
[/quote]
The Roman Catholic Church also condemned many ideas of Aristotle centuries ago. I don't think anyone in the latin Church would have a problem admitting that Aristotle's world-view was way off. But on the other hand his works have a lot of value as well. And the sources that Thomas drew from are vast. I tend to think the Aristotelian dimension is often exaggerated. And the clear developments of Aristotle, such as you mentioned, his strictly philosophical works, are still far more than commentaries on Aristotle.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980240' date='May 13 2006, 11:40 AM']If the quotation from St. Basil falls flat with you, it means that you have failed to grasp the true nature of the gap between uncreated and created essence.
[/quote]
I find that hard to believe. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel pretty confident in my grasp of the nature of the gap between uncreated and created essence. It's something I think about and read about at least. That's why I'm eager to see that new paper on your website.


Don't misunderstand my intent. I was merely trying to defend Thomas within the realm of Thomas' thought.. My point is that while you might evaluate Thomas from a particular perspective and decide he's a heretic of some sort, Thomas taken on his own terms is anything but a heretic. That's my view at least. I think a lot of theological systems have to be taken as a whole or they break down.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='980350' date='May 13 2006, 11:42 AM']
Well, I have the Capita in my hand at this moment, and actually the last time I read that exact quotation was about 4 hours ago.

[. . .][/quote]
Great, I am glad you have it in your hand right at this moment, because so do I. Now, if you open up the book to chapter number 75 you will see that St. Gregory speaks of three "realities" not three "notions" in God. Thus, the distinct realities of essence, energy, and [i]hypostasis[/i] exist in God, and are [i]not[/i] merely conceptual notions in man's mind.

If you believe that St. Gregory teaches only a notional distinction, please provide the reference from the [i]Capita Physica[/i] and we can debate the issue.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980355' date='May 13 2006, 12:52 PM']
Great, I am glad you have it in your hand right at this moment, because so do I. Now, if you open up the book to chapter number 75 you will see that St. Gregory speaks of three "realities" not three "notions" in God. Thus, the distinct realities of essence, energy, and [i]hypostasis[/i] exist in God, and are [i]not[/i] merely conceptual notions in man's mind.

If you believe that St. Gregory teaches only a notional distinction, please provide the reference from the [i]Capita Physica[/i] and we can debate the issue.
[/quote]
When did I ever say that Gregory teaches only a notional distinction? That has never been my position. I think we've had a miscommunication some place. I mean, I thought the issue was that the east asserts three really distinct realities in God (ousia, hupostasis kai energeia) but you claim that Thomas (and the latins in general I suppose) teach that the hypostases are only notionally distinct from the essence? I was disagreeing with this, not anything about Palamas.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='980350' date='May 13 2006, 11:42 AM']
[. . .]

Don't misunderstand my intent. I was merely trying to defend Thomas within the realm of Thomas' thought.. My point is that while you might evaluate Thomas from a particular perspective and decide he's a heretic of some sort, Thomas taken on his own terms is anything but a heretic. That's my view at least. I think a lot of theological systems have to be taken as a whole or they break down.
[/quote]
And do not misunderstand me either, because I do not believe that St. Thomas intends to be a Sabellian modalist, but I do think that he is in error on the Trinity. The problem with St. Thomas (and the Scholastics generally) is that he often conforms his theology to the pagan philosophical thought of Aristotle.

[Myles Domini]

I have a strong feeling that this thread will no longer be informative. Fortunately Todd you have yet to produce a convincing critique of the Western Trinitarian formula. The resolutions presented to the problems you outlined, problems Western theologians themselves have been well aware of since time immemorial, you have simply dismissed as products of (over)speculative philosophy. Accordingly it appears to me that you are determined to hold Western Theology guilty of heresy and nothing we have to say will get you to see things differently. Hence, I see no point in saying anything more...
...unfortunately

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980357' date='May 13 2006, 12:59 PM']
And do not misunderstand me either, because I do not believe that St. Thomas intends to be a Sabellian modalist, but I do think that he is in error on the Trinity. The problem with St. Thomas (and the Scholastics generally) is that he often conforms his theology to the pagan philosophical thought of Aristotle.
[/quote]
I imagine he must have got that a lot in his lifetime.. Too bad he isn't here to respond, that'd be so cool.

I'd love to see Palamas and Thomas in a debate.

Whenever you and I talk I always feel inspired to read more.. Who are you Lavar Burton or something?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='980356' date='May 13 2006, 11:56 AM']
When did I ever say that Gregory teaches only a notional distinction? That has never been my position. I think we've had a miscommunication some place.
[/quote]
Perhaps I have, but I do not see how a person can believe that St. Gregory Palamas or the Cappadocians (or St. Maximos for that matter) hold to a mere "notional" distinction between the [i]adiastemic[/i] divine essence, which is utterly transcendent, and the uncreated divine energies, which alone can unidirectionally transgress the [i]adiastemic[/i] boundary and enter into the created order (See Dr. Scot Douglass, [u]Theology of the Gap[/u], page 87).

[Myles Domini]

As an aside. I respect your knowledge Todd your knowledge of Byzantine Theology is formidable. We could really learn a lot from you if you ever decided to truly dialogue with us.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='979792' date='May 13 2006, 04:18 AM']
[. . .]

And interestingly, unlike Palamas, when the Cappadocians speak about the divine energies they do not talk at all about the trinitarian persons but remain completely within the field of the classical problem of the one and the many.

[. . .][/quote]
I do not agree with this comment, because part of the argument of Cappadocian Fathers against Eunomius involved distinguishing the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] from the divine energies. That being said, the Cappadocians are foundational in seeing the divine energies as both the essential or natural energies of God, while also holding that they are an enhypostatic reality, i.e., they then flow from the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] as gifts to man.

Michel Rene Barnes touches on this in his book, [u]The Power of God: [i]Dynamis[/i] in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology[/u].


[quote name='Myles Domini' post='980362' date='May 13 2006, 12:06 PM']
As an aside. I respect your knowledge Todd your knowledge of Byzantine Theology is formidable. We could really learn a lot from you if you ever decided to truly dialogue with us.
[/quote]
Myles,

In my opinion we are carying on a dialogue.

It is important to remember that dialogue does not involve compromising one's principles, nor does it require that the partners in the dialogue ultimately agree with each other. In other words, I do not expect that you and Sean are going to become Byzantine Palamite theologians after reading my posts.

One of the problems that Western Christians have is that they think almost everything under the sun has been [i]defined[/i] by the Church. Clearly, that is not the case, because the divine deposit of revelation is not that small.

God bless,
Todd

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980361' date='May 13 2006, 01:06 PM']
Perhaps I have, but I do not see how a person can believe that St. Gregory Palamas or the Cappadocians (or St. Maximos for that matter) hold to a mere "notional" distinction between the [i]adiastemic[/i] divine essence, which is utterly transcendent, and the uncreated divine energies, which alone can unidirectionally transgress the [i]adiastemic[/i] boundary and enter into the created order (See Dr. Scot Douglass, [u]Theology of the Gap[/u], page 87).
[/quote]
Oh, perhaps you're referring to my passing comment about Endre von Ivanka who recognized that Palamas held the distinction to be very real, but believed that he misunderstood the Cappadocians who, in her view, were not making a real ontological distinction but more of an epistemological one. I've encountered the same sort of claim with regard to Maximos.

The heart of the critique seems to be that the theology of Palamas deviates from the fathers because now the Divine activity or manifestation in the oikonimia is monolithic and the Trinitarian character of soteriology is exponged because of this real distinction between hypostases and the uncreated energy, etc.., etc.. To the crude form of the objection I might attempt to respond by perhaps saying that while there is a real distinction between hypostases and energy the energies are enhypostatic and thus manifest the persons. But quite frankly this seems to be at odds with Palamas and he even admits this tension in the Triads without offering a solution.
But the critique of Schonborn is more in depth and sophisticated and I personally would not presume to even attempt to answer it.

Seriously though Todd, I don't have any issues with eastern theology, I think its phat. I just think a lot of latin theologians are quite phat too and I'm just learning as I go in this life. I hope I didn't offend you by taking stabs at eastern theology.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='980380' date='May 13 2006, 12:31 PM']
Oh, perhaps you're referring to my passing comment about Endre von Ivanka who recognized that Palamas held the distinction to be very real, but believed that he misunderstood the Cappadocians who, in her view, were not making a real ontological distinction but more of an epistemological one. I've encountered the same sort of claim with regard to Maximos.
[/quote]
St. Gregory Palamas is reading the Cappadocians correctly, just as St. Maximos and St. John Damascene read them correctly centuries earlier, and made a real distinction between essence and energy in God.

What I am saying is that she has misunderstood the Cappadocian Fathers, because if she really believes that the distinction between essence and energy in their theology is only [i]notional[/i], she has turned the Cappadocians themselves into Eunomian heretics. Now that is quite an ironic reading of the Cappadocians, since they are arguing specifically against Eunomius on this very issue. Perhaps she -- like you -- has not fully grasped the nature of the ontological gap between the [i]adiastemic[/i] uncreated essence of God and the [i]diastemic[/i] created essence of man.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='980374' date='May 13 2006, 01:22 PM']
I do not agree with this comment, because part of the argument of Cappadocian Fathers against Eunomius involved distinguishing the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] from the divine energies. That being said, the Cappadocians are foundational in seeing the divine energies as both the essential or natural energies of God, while also holding that they are an enhypostatic reality, i.e., they then flow from the divine [i]hypostaseis[/i] as gifts to man.

Michel Rene Barnes touches on this in his book, [u]The Power of God: [i]Dynamis[/i] in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology[/u].
[/quote]
I don't necessarily agree with these people, I was just wondering what you made of it. Here are the peeps:

Wendebourg:

[i]Here we have the fundamental difference between Palamas’s system and the classical patristic doctrine of the Trinity, a difference that means nothing less than the complete defeat of trinitarian theology. The distinction in God, which in the eyes of the fourth century allowed men to understand his action and revelation in the world as action and revelation of his innermost, essential being, according to Palamas is raised above any connection with the world and history, closed up in itself. What we have contact with is God himself but a secondary reality in his being. (”From the Cappadocian Fathers to Gregory Palamas: The Defeat of Trinitarian Theology,” Studia Patristica 14 [1982]: 196-197)[/i]


LaCugna:

[i]The heart of the doctrine of the Trinity is the assertion that the ousia of God exists trihypostatically. The ontology set up by the Cappadocians should have prevented Gregory from postulating a superessential essence. For the Cappadocians, God’s ousia exists as Father, Son, Spirit. The three persons do not have a common ousia; they are the divine ousia…. Further, as Rowan Williams points out, the doctrine of the Trinity means the identification of ousia with energeia. The divine ousia, even though unknowable in itself, cannot be elevated beyond the divine persons. But in Gregory’s theology, since the divine hypostases belong to the supraessential, imparticipable essence of God, and since the energies, not the divine persons, enter into communion with the creature, Palamism widens the gap between theologia and oikonomia by postulating a divine realm comprised of essence and persons not directly accessible to the creature. Even though the energies are “enhypostasized”–the energies express what the persons are–the three divine persons are a step removed from the economy of salvation. (Catherine LaCugna, God For Us [1991], pp. 192-193)[/i]


Jenson:

[i]According to Gregory of Nyssa, when we speak of God we may think first of the three identities, each of whom is God. Then there is the life among them, the complex of their “energies,” which, according to Nyssa, is the proper referent of phrases such as “the one God.” And, finally, there is the divine ousia, deity sheerly as such, the character by exemplification of which someone is called God; in Gregory’s theology, this character is infinity. The divine ousia is not an infinite something or infinity as a something, but the infinity of the one God, that is, of the identities’ mutual life.

For the Cappdocians, these distinctions are flexible, and their use of them does not suggest that the ousia is a something other than the divine life. In Palamas, things are more bluntly sorted out: “There are then three in God: ousia, energy, and the triune hypostases….” Palamas posits the distinction to differentiate God as he can be participated in from God as he remains immune to this: “Since … according to his ousia God cannot be participated in at all, and since union according to hypostasis is reserved to the divine-human Word, it remains that others … united with God are united according to energy.”

In Palamas’s use, the ousia is not the deity of the identities and their mutual energies but has become “God himself,” the chief referent of discourse about “the one God.” This entity “cannot be participated in at all” because it “neither becomes nor suffers …”–theology has here concoted yet a new lump for the familiar old leaven to hide and work in. This entity is immune even to the life of the creature who is hypostatically one with the Son; also the events told by the gospel narrative do not touch it. Here is disaster: it is one thing to say that abstract deity is itself always the same quality, as the Cappadocians did; it is quite another to say that deity taken as God himself is a static essence. Ironically enough, Orthodoxy is driven to a bluntly modalist doctrine: God himself is above the biblical narrative, which applies only to his activities. (Systematic Theology [1997], I:152-153)[/i]

[Laudate_Dominum]

And here is a little quote from your buddy Alvin Kimel:


[i]...the critics are probably right that Palamas’s formulations go far beyond the Cappadocians. It really looks to me that Gregory is reading the ontological distinction back into the Fathers. I am by no means unsympathetic with the intent of Gregory’s work, though I am less sympathetic with Lossky, Romanides and their fellow neo-Palamites who are polemically advancing the Palamite distinction to justify continued separation from the Catholic Church. Palamas is trying to assert the reality of our divinization in Christ to the Trinitarian life of God and demonstrate how it is possible for us to be incorporated into the divine life of the Holy Trinity without losing our creaturehood. But is the being/energies distinction, interpreted as a real, ontological distinction, necessary to express this soteriological concern? Irenaeus, Clement, Athanasius, Augustine, and Thomas did not think so. Hence I question the wisdom of Orthodoxy’s apparent dogmatization of this distinction. It appears to me that she has elevated a piece of philosophical speculation to a dogmatic level that cannot be justified. Palamism needs to remain in creative conversation, not only with Athanasius and the Cappadocians, but also with Augustine and Aquinas. [/i]


I actually tentatively agree with much of this, or at least find it to be plausible.

[Apotheoun]

Al Kimmel, like many other Westerners, fails to grasp the full importance of the [i]adiastemic[/i] nature of the divine essence.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='980387' date='May 13 2006, 12:42 PM']
I don't necessarily agree with these people, I was just wondering what you made of it. Here are the peeps:

Wendebourg:

[i]Here we have the fundamental difference between Palamas’s system and the classical patristic doctrine of the Trinity, a difference that means nothing less than the complete defeat of trinitarian theology. The distinction in God, which in the eyes of the fourth century allowed men to understand his action and revelation in the world as action and revelation of his innermost, essential being, according to Palamas is raised above any connection with the world and history, closed up in itself. What we have contact with is God himself but a secondary reality in his being. (”From the Cappadocian Fathers to Gregory Palamas: The Defeat of Trinitarian Theology,” Studia Patristica 14 [1982]: 196-197)[/i]

LaCugna:

[i]The heart of the doctrine of the Trinity is the assertion that the ousia of God exists trihypostatically. The ontology set up by the Cappadocians should have prevented Gregory from postulating a superessential essence. For the Cappadocians, God’s ousia exists as Father, Son, Spirit. The three persons do not have a common ousia; they are the divine ousia…. Further, as Rowan Williams points out, the doctrine of the Trinity means the identification of ousia with energeia. The divine ousia, even though unknowable in itself, cannot be elevated beyond the divine persons. But in Gregory’s theology, since the divine hypostases belong to the supraessential, imparticipable essence of God, and since the energies, not the divine persons, enter into communion with the creature, Palamism widens the gap between theologia and oikonomia by postulating a divine realm comprised of essence and persons not directly accessible to the creature. Even though the energies are “enhypostasized”–the energies express what the persons are–the three divine persons are a step removed from the economy of salvation. (Catherine LaCugna, God For Us [1991], pp. 192-193)[/i]

Jenson:

[i]According to Gregory of Nyssa, when we speak of God we may think first of the three identities, each of whom is God. Then there is the life among them, the complex of their “energies,” which, according to Nyssa, is the proper referent of phrases such as “the one God.” And, finally, there is the divine ousia, deity sheerly as such, the character by exemplification of which someone is called God; in Gregory’s theology, this character is infinity. The divine ousia is not an infinite something or infinity as a something, but the infinity of the one God, that is, of the identities’ mutual life.

For the Cappdocians, these distinctions are flexible, and their use of them does not suggest that the ousia is a something other than the divine life. In Palamas, things are more bluntly sorted out: “There are then three in God: ousia, energy, and the triune hypostases….” Palamas posits the distinction to differentiate God as he can be participated in from God as he remains immune to this: “Since … according to his ousia God cannot be participated in at all, and since union according to hypostasis is reserved to the divine-human Word, it remains that others … united with God are united according to energy.”

In Palamas’s use, the ousia is not the deity of the identities and their mutual energies but has become “God himself,” the chief referent of discourse about “the one God.” This entity “cannot be participated in at all” because it “neither becomes nor suffers …”–theology has here concoted yet a new lump for the familiar old leaven to hide and work in. This entity is immune even to the life of the creature who is hypostatically one with the Son; also the events told by the gospel narrative do not touch it. Here is disaster: it is one thing to say that abstract deity is itself always the same quality, as the Cappadocians did; it is quite another to say that deity taken as God himself is a static essence. Ironically enough, Orthodoxy is driven to a bluntly modalist doctrine: God himself is above the biblical narrative, which applies only to his activities. (Systematic Theology [1997], I:152-153)[/i]
[/quote]
I am familiar with all of these authors and the various misreadings of the Cappadocian / Maximian / Palamite doctrine that they espouse, and that is why -- even after reading them -- I became a Byzantine Catholic.

By the way, Jensen oversimplifies St. Gregory of Nyssa's position. Dr. Mosshammer does more justice to it in his articles, because, as he indicates, there is not a strict identity between the divine [i]ousia[/i] and infinity, since man's divinization involves his becoming infinite, and yet man cannot participate at all in the divine [i]ousia[/i]. Jensen has clearly misunderstood St. Gregory of Nyssa's doctrine of [i]epektasis[/i].

One final comment, and no offense to LaCugna but she really does not know what she is talking about when it comes to the term [i]hyperousios ousia[/i], because it does not mean that God has some kind of super duper essence, it means that God is beyond essence; and so, it ultimately means that God's essence is not being. You might want to read some of the things that Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones have written on their blog [url="http://www.energeticprocession.com/"][u]Energies of the Trinity[/u][/url], because they have written a nice refutation of LaCugna's theological position on this issue. The articles that I mentioned earlier by Dr. John Jones, the former head of the Philosophy Department at Marquette University, also eviscerate LaCugna's understanding of [i]hyperousios ousia[/i], even though he is actually showing where St. Thomas went wrong, and does not directly address LaCugna's writings.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='978884' date='May 11 2006, 07:49 PM']
There is a document on the USCCB website that deals quite nicely with this issue. Click the link below in order to read the document:

[url="http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml"]The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?[/url]
[/quote]

That link was very helpful, thank you sir.

I have a quick question. At some moments the dialogue makes it appear as if Mr.Todd is not catholic, but more of a greek orthodox. I know L_D is catholic, just reads alot of eastern stuff. (and Miles is british so we can pray for him later) What exactly is Byzenntine Catholic and how is it in communion or not in communion with the church? My work is in evangelical/catholic relations so this is the other side of the boat for me. Thanks for putting up with my laymanish tone here. Im really not that dumb(*), this just isnt my field