The Essence and Energies Distinction (Synthesizing the East and West-Ontology, Economy, Eschaton)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- The last of a four part series. This episode seeks to bring together the groundwork laid in the other three. Including in this episode is a reflection on the Logoi, the Energies, The Missions in the West and Predestination. Drawing heavily from Maximus and Dionysius, we are able to make sense of the ambiguous statement of Palamas which presuppose knowledge of his predecessors. And by looking past the box of Aquinas's natural theology of "cause and effect" we are able get to his more mystical roots where this conversation should be.
Thank you for this series. It's the most comprehensive treatment of this topic online, hands down, and is a real blessing on Pentecost.
You've made a lot of connections here, across multiple saints, east and west: the ontological unity of essence and energy (latter manifestation of, but not as apart from, the former) as goodness; the delineation of the energy into the myriad (divine names) by the logoi; the logoi as the divine ideas, or blue prints of reality, that ground supernatural relations; our sensible perception of the logoi (with Trinitarian logic) that *potentially* results in an apophatic/spiritual and supernatural ascent through the ladder/pyramid of being; the eschatological procession from unity, to plurality, to a plurality back in unity; the exercise of virtues as the manifestation of Christ by the Holy Spirit; and other topics.
Tons of food for thought here. For example, with this framework in mind, the Book of Ephesians reads totally differently (no longer about Protestant double predestination but rather an exposition of the logoi). I hope your series gets more traction.
Awesome summery. Thanks for commenting and pleased to hear the series was packed with useful content to chew on.
-Irenaeus
Really appreciate you using St Symeon the new theologian. I personally beleive his hymns on the divine eros are among the greatest treatise composed on the topic.
This is a great video and is very comprehensive. Typically, videos, I find, are low on information. But this is packed, almost like a book. It’ll definitely take a few days to unpack this.
Thanks Irenaeus!
Thanks Mario, the comment is appreciated. Feel free to reach out with any additional questions. Also, I haven’t had the chance to respond to your email yet. I glanced at it but will get back to you.
This is absolutely excellent. Thank you. Mission accomplished, as far as I am concerned.
Thank you Fr. John. Your comment is very much appreciated. Blessings to you this Sunday.
-Irenaeus
Looking forward to getting through this. Blessed All Saints/Trinity/Pentecost Sunday!
Thanks Shocky102, blessings to you as well!
-Irenaeus
The best channel out there tbh!!
3:53 Where is the source of this quote from Alexander of Alexandria?
"Natural energy is the innate motion of every essence. Energy is nature. It is the power indicative of every essence."
It’s a quote which Maximus the Confessor has from his Opusculas. I have been unable to identify directly from any of his works though Maximus states it’s from Saint Alexander.
-Irenaeus
Oh yes! Excited to watch; thank you for it!
It’s been an absolute pleasure researching this topic. And though this is only 2 hours I could’ve easily gone for many more had I shared all the things on my mind. Thanks for journeying with me through this series!
Congratulations on finishing the series!
Thanks @max the confessor. I didn’t finish the series as comprehensively as I wanted to, but at least I’ve passed along the fringes for others to touch and investigate deeper.
Blessings,
-Irenaeus
My blessed friend! Youve done it!
Yes! Didn’t get everything in there I wanted but left many crumb trails for others to run with. Blessings my friend.
-Irenaeus
Brilliant my friend.
Hey Irineus.Have you thought about making a filioque video?
God bless
I’ve considered it. It seems the topic has been discussed near ad nauseam as of late. Not sure what I can add to the discussion. Thanks for the recommendation.
-Irenaeus
THE LAST PART IS FINALLY HERE LETS GOOO
Last sentence of concluding point 3 is where I think is a crucial point which is debated back and forth... I believe lot's of people would disagree that it conveys the same truth. Also, did St. Gregory of Nyssa affirm that the attribute of goodness is identical to the essence?
Hey Nico…
Would you mind leaving a time stamp so I can answer adequately? I haven’t been as sharp in this conversation as I was when I made the video.
-Irenaeus
Around 54:12 I’m thinking of Arvo Part’s “Spiegel im Spiegel” as a musical corollary.
Mirror in the mirrors…would be fitting indeed!
Hello Irenaus. I haven't watched all of this video yet as I write this. However, I have a question for you: have you thought of maybe setting up some talks with scholars on this topic? For example, Dr. Tikhon Pino? Maybe you should also do some more video reviews or even book reviews. I don't recall if I asked you this, but it would be awesome if maybe you could do a video examining if there was a western equivalent of essence and energies in the early western church. An Orthodox Priest I know told me he found something about "essence and operations"
Hey @101caliber,
For the time being, I am still unsure which direction I am going with the channel. Some have suggested I branch out and have more formal discussions on these things (like with Dr. Pino) though that would be difficult for me for many reasons.
When I started this channel I didn’t expect to have much of an audience (not that I do have a lot) and only considered it as a place to ruminate my own thoughts. After I got them out I planned on closing up shop. Right now I am still not sure where I stand with the channel.
In regards to fathers of the West drawing a distinction (in the terms the East does), I was unsuccessful in finding one. The Nicean Father of the West, Marius Victorinus, held to the same language as Augustine. Though he does have some nuance I want to make a video on someday…maybe.
Thanks for the comment,
-Irenaeus
What does it mean then when nearly the entire western church deems this doctrine heretical when it is so clearly truth and easily synthesized?
To be quite honest, I think the schismatic mind is clouded by misapprehension which feeds polemics. As such, there is a formulation of the EED which is to be rejected by Catholics and even some Orthodox alike and that formulation is what I call “neopalamism.” What I have attempted to do is use the Eastern sources in a way that isn’t in tension with Catholic Dogma. I don’t appreciate any apologetics that simply hand waves “the other side” and seeks to score points. For I recognize that the Eastern Fathers are not another “side” (neither are the Western Fathers to the East) and as such must be treated reverently. I hope my videos have done that and provided a fresh look at the EED controversy.
@@MountAthosandAquinas well, I think you’re doing a great job. I think the main problem with apologetics is an us versus them mindset, and instead of trying to reach a higher understanding of truth, or help others reach a higher understanding of truth. It is simply a war against an ideology that someone deems “other”.
@What.Is.Truth. I think that is spot on. Really appreciate the feedback!
@@MountAthosandAquinas alright, don’t block me lol but I had this thought about how quantum physics might help us shed light on the essence energies distinction…
So orthodox are saying God’s energies are uncreated because they are co eternal manifestations of God’s essence.
Catholics would say nothing is uncreated expect the divine essence itself and there are no distinctions within the divine Essence..
To me, space time seems to be the issue. It’s hard for our minds to grasp something being created and eternal at the same time.
However, if we examine quantum entanglement, one electron acts on another electron outside of space time.. but, while no time elapses, it still required an precondition in which it’s action was instantiated.
Could We think of Gods essence interacting through his energies/grace in a sort of “gracious quantum entanglement” where grace is created in the sense it emanates from Gods essence, but uncreated in the sense it’s happening outside of space time?
I like that your wheels are spinning. The quantum entanglement analogy is interesting but I wouldn’t want to draw the parallels that you are suggesting. If I follow you, it seems that you want “grace” to be the emanated term that makes contact within the realm of space and time but is relational to God as uncreated and timeless. Is this a fair summery?
I'm 1 hour and 30 in and think i understand perhaps. Is it basically the one energy is the essence but when that energy comes down to us in creation it gets 'mixed' with creation and various/multiform? Thus the energies are neither created or uncreated but both?
One clarification I see the energy is the movement which is the logos (or begetting of) is that correct? I need to go back and understand how the spirit is included in that.
That’s close, only in no way can we say the energy is uncreated and created. Energy is the essential motion of the nature and as such Gods energy has no aspect of being created.
The Son and Spirit in the West enter the economy through the “Missions.” These “missions” (sending of the Father) are not a change in their essential nature but their beginning to be in a place in a new and supreme way. In Western Theology, the Sons generation is conceptualized analogously as that of an internal Word, remaining inseparable from the Mind (Father) in which it substantially exists. This is a natural generation. The Holy Spirit is conceptualized as the innate motion, proceeding naturally as fruition from the Wills actualization of its final end. With this in mind, the West has a secondary term of these inner relations towards the creature (divine exemplars-ideas). But this “second term” isn’t a movement outside the agent but a formally immanent movement within the agent. This “second term” is generated from the will and thought of God. God creates simply by willing it. His essential motion causes a creation that is in motion from God and in motion towards God. This motion “from” and motion “towards” are “predeterminations” and exemplars of the created order. A lot more to unpack here. The exitus and reditus of creation in imitation of the inner trinitarian relations, and the Divinization through the theological outlines.
The Logoi are the blueprint and patterns in the mind of God and the motion of the virtues which are the secondary term intentions (and movements) of God towards his creatures with the primary so as to move them towards Him as First Truth and final end. This returning to the First and final End contracts the many Logoi (thought (Son) wills (Holy Spirit)) into the One Logos (since God made all through Him). In a Divinization above nature and all affirmation or negations the whole of the intellect is mingled with the whole of the Divine Glory, placing the subject face to face with God in Consummation.
Hope this makes some sense. I haven’t visited this video or the material since I made it, and my mind is engrossed with worldly cares so as to dry up the divine stream that saturated my understanding. Nothing is as clear these days. Pray for me, a man absorbed with worldly cares. This mystery is too deep right now.
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas
Thanks, that and watching your video on created grace has really helped 👍. As a man who has been caught up in a lot of worldly cares myself I can understand, i will pray for you. Pray me also. God bless.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Where does the bible say that energy is the essential motion of nature?
Where does the Bible say energy is “pure potential” as you define it? What Church are you from?
1:52:42 Palamas' conflation.
Do you have a link for the sources, especially St Maximus ad Thassalium? I’m looking through archives and I can’t find that exact quote about divine simplicity
Hey Christian,
If you email me at greekandhebrewf@gmail.com I can send you sources.
-Irenaeus
Also, you might just be searching the wrong book. Maximus has a couple of interactions with Thalassius.
Thinking about writing a dissertation on a synthesis between Aquinas and Palamas.
Would you happen to have an email adress I could email in case I have any questions? Or would you prefer to stick to youtube comments?
Hey @dubbelkastrull
You’re welcome to send questions to greekandhebrewf@gmail.com
-Irenaeus
It’s time…
How would you respond to this statement by an Orthodox priest regarding the Filioque:
I agree with Craig on his concerns.
The attempt is to match the "filioque" with an idea acceptable to Orthodox, with qualifications, that while proceeding from the Father, the Holy Spirit can be said to receive from what is the Son's or even to receive from the Son. This reception is in relation to their common nature. This can be coupled with the argument of St Hilary of Poitiers that to receive from the Son is the same as to proceed from the Father. Thus, admitting to receive from the Son is to admit to proceed from the Son and hence the "filioque". However, receiving from the Son pertains to the common nature and proceeding pertains to hypostasis as origin. The equivalence is only found so far as proceeding entails receiving the common nature. That is the argument of St Hilary only requires that if one proceeds from one then one receives common nature from that one. It does not need the equivalence that if one receives common nature from one then one proceeds from that one. Thus, the Orthodox can, and do, deny proceeding from the Son, while accepting the argument of St Hilary. The position of Florence is to equate reception of common nature with origin of procession. (I argue that while it may appear consistent with St Hilary, his manner of speaking is more consistent with the Orthodox logic.)
The clarification seems to be trying to bypass this difference by saying that proceeding from one does not mean receiving common nature from that one. That is receiving is no longer a consequence of proceeding, but a distinct act/event in itself. Thus, the constitution of the Holy Spirit has two parts, the proceeding from the Father and the communication of the nature from the Father and the Son. The "filioque" is reconciled because the Greeks are referring to the first and the Latins to the second. However, the question is whether this separation of proceeding from receiving is acceptable to either the Greeks or the Latins. The key issue is how one can separate proceeding from reception of essence. The key question is what proceeds without essence? The answer is nothing because there can be no thing without nature or essence, something only is with essence. The hypostases of the Triad are the essence either in a specific manner of existence, for Orthodox, or with a specific hypostatic origin for RCs. That is the essence existing as cause, begotten and proceeding (Orthodox) or the essence as uncaused, caused from one hypostasis, and caused from two hypostases (Florence). The essence is not the cause or origin or principle in itself but only as hypostasis. Thus, we cannot make such a distinction as claimed in the clarification.
We get a similar problem when trying to speak of the Father as first cause of the Spirit in a way that tries to come closer to the Orthodox position of only cause. The only meaningful way to speak of the cause of the Holy Spirit is to have one single cause or principle. There cannot be any dual cause, such as first and second cause, without composition or deficiency in cause. Either the Holy Spirit is only from the Father as cause or He is from the Father and the Son together as one cause or principle, each is cause or principle the same way as stated in Florence. (Note: this is not to say that the Father is not principle without principle as cause and the Son is not principle from principle as cause, but not to speak of cause in relation to the Spirit as in any way differing for the Father or for the Son.
We may argue over either Father alone or Father and Son together, but moving off these two options just isn't theologically viable.
Hey Ivan,
I’ve carefully read your post and there is a lot to take into consideration. The apparent contradiction is not easily settled. I will admit that I lack the sharpness that I once had in regards to the details surrounding this issue. For that reason I prefer to hold my peace until I recollect all the sources.
I will quickly say, after all the sources I have studied in depth for the Essence and Energies distinction, I have come to the realization that the West has left no room to concede a divergence between Nature and Hypostasis so as to posit the Natures receptivity from the Son while at the same time denying Hypostatic Origin. There is, however, another avenue that I think hasn’t been investigated fully. I intend to give this greater thought and bring it to fruition at some point in the future.
-Irenaeus
First of all define energy
secondly you are long winded and seem to be twisting words diff ways accordign to which way you want to argue
thats why I aks of you to simply define the words you are using
1. Define Energy
2. Define Essence
then tell me how there is seperation between the Father, the son, and the holy spirit through conference...
Energy is the essential motion of the Essence and is that which discloses it.
Essence is nature, predicating a universal thing to many distinct entities. Essence is abstract and static.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the Hypostasis which are distinguished by their modes of existence.
@@MountAthosandAquinas Energy is not motion
@@MountAthosandAquinas Light doesnt not TRAVEL
Again, this why you guys are confused.