Essence and Energy distinction (An analysis on the Light of Tabor from Fathers to Palamite councils)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лис 2022
- In this video we continue our analysis on the Essence and energy distinction through the lens of the Eastern Patrimony.
About the shekinah: the eastern position is that energy is not separated or "really" (pragmati) distinct from the essence. Thats why Chrysostom says that the theophanies were "condescension of the essence".
Most robust presentation of this topic available online. Also refreshing how objective and neutral the presentation is, free from the polemics (on both sides) that seems to haunt St. Palamas in the modern age.
A very refreshing comment. Thanks for the feedback!
@CultofModernism do you have an email? You seem incredibly knowledgeable and I'd like to ask you some questions about Orthodoxy.
Gregory Palamas is THE supreme polemicist of the ancient Churches of Christendom (second only to Martin Luther), who dogmatized his opinions and anathematized all those who did not agree with him. This even Luther did not do. The polemics directed against him is the fruit of his own Church dividing activity during his lifetime.
I’m an EO and the happy effects of these teachings is palpable within Orthodoxy. But it’s not something the vast majority of us are conversant in. The difference with RC teaching became plainer to me the other day when I heard a homily by a RC priest teaching as did Kyndones’. It was a bit jarring though I did not know if Kyndones at the time. Also, the quote from the CCC is the Troparion of Transfiguration from the Orthodox liturgy.
The return! Couldn't have picked a better topic, too.
Yes indeed, this topic has been on my mind for quite some time now. Glad to get it off my chest. (Especially since so much reading and research went into it)
The light is uncreated
I've been watching some of your videos, starting with the comparison of St. Maximus's logoi and St. Thomas's divine ideas, and they've all been very insightful. I hope you keep up the good work, and may God be with you!
As an aside, do you have any thoughts on the nature and origin of the Dionysian corpus? I've read one defense of their authenticity by a Rev. John Parker, which was interesting, but modern scholarship is overwhelming in its assessment as pseudo-Dionysius.
Hi Eric,
Thank you for the feedback. It’s much appreciated.
As far as the Dionysian corpus goes, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus among scholars as to its authenticity. I haven’t searched deeply into the topic to give a good defense as to its authenticity. However, I think it’s important that the later Fathers (and the middle age scholastics) attribute the corpus to the very same Dionysius of Acts 17. Personally, I believe it’s his work. If it’s not, then we have someone who is deceptive in his writing which I don’t believe a Saint would do. For instance, he claimed to have interaction with Paul, and see the darkness over the earth at Christ crucifixion. If this did not indeed happen, then the author has gone beyond embellishment and passed into the domain of lying. The arguments for its later dating seem plausible but hardly definitive.
@@MountAthosandAquinas That's been my belief as well, but on occasion I've wondered, so I appreciate this reply.
If inauthentic, I could imagine that his name might have been used as Cicero used, say, Cato's name in his dialogues, that is, as a vehicle for discussion of a certain topic connected to him. But given the existence of those more personal letters, it seems that, if inauthentic, this would tend more towards lying, as you say, than towards embellishment, which would be improper of a holy author.
But excuse my thinking out loud. Thank you again for the food for thought.
It’s conceivable that the writer intended a kind of Cicero/ Cato technique for the sake of greater dialogue. But like you said, the personal letters would seem to step beyond embellishment.
As far as the Corpus itself goes, the Syriac tradition maintains its authenticity. Though often accused of being Monophysite in nature, and possibly written by Severus, nevertheless the Monophysites themselves didn’t claim this. It was when the Chalcedonians were in dialogue with the Monophysites that the Dionysian corpus came out from hiding. Rather it came out as an apostolic work hidden beneath the Syrian shelter, or a pseudo work slipped in with the intention of giving credence to the Monophysite heresy is the question. Given that the Fathers of the East interpret the author as not supporting the Monophysite position but rather the Orthodox one (such as a Maximus Scholia on Dionysius) gives me greater certitude that it’s an apostolic work which was hidden in the dark during the early periods of the Church.
Dialogue and personal thoughts are always welcome. No need to apologize.
-Irenaeus
Two quotes from Wikipedia in its article on the Pseudo Dionysius are sufficient to address this question.
One: "The Florentine humanist Lorenzo Valla (d. 1457), in his 1457 commentaries on the New Testament, did much to establish that the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum could not have been St. Paul's convert, though he was unable to identify the actual historical author."
Two: "During the 19th century modernist Catholics too came generally to accept that the author must have lived after the time of Proclus. The author became known as 'Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite' only after the philological work of J. Stiglmayr and H. Koch, whose papers, published independently in 1895, demonstrated the thoroughgoing dependence of the Corpus upon Proclus. Both showed that Dionysius had used, in his treatise on evil in Chapter 4 of The Divine Names, the De malorum subsistentia of Proclus.
Indeed, if you read Proclus' work On the Theology of Plato, and then read just even the introductory chapters of 'Dionysius' On the Divine Names, you will see that his theology is riven with Neoplatonic metaphysics, so much so that Martin Luther reproved his works by stating, in Luther's pithily derisive manner of saying things, that 'he Platonizes more than he Christianizes', which pretty much sums up the matter for critics of the 'Dionysian' corpus.
Now since Palamas' essence-energies doctrine is little more than a stripped down representation of 'Dionysius's' theology of divine procession (by way of Neoplatonism), it is clear that the Eastern Church has dogmatically established pagan Neoplatonism as its own official theology. What a blunder! The fact that most of the Eastern fathers were Platonists of one sort or another obscured the fact the Gospel itself had been thoroughly Platonized by the Eastern tradition.
The same of course could be said for Aristotle and Thomism in the West.
Thomas,
I respectfully disagree. Dionysius works were quoted from and known from Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid third century (long before Proclus). Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a letter to Pope Sixtus the second affirming Dionysius Areopogite had a corpus of work which was authentic and impenetrable. What you are presuming is that if X is found in Proclus and X is found in Dionysius, then Dionysius learned X from Proclus. This is the same atheists assert about Christ and the fables. Let’s not mention that Marius Victorinus also wrote like Dionysius as well and he was at the time of the first Nicean Council.
I gather, from your comments, that you belong to some Christian group outside of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Is this correct?
once again, good video! do you know where you can find St. Macarius' writings?
Hey Joshua,
Amazon has his homilies for Kindle or hardback. Should pop right up if you search for it.
Need to set up an interview with you. If you would do so.
Hey Joe,
Several have reached out to me to come on their channel. For right now, I have decided to not go to other platforms. If you’d like to chat, I can give you my discord or email.
Blessings,
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas send that discord!
I wanted l listen, but the volume was just too low. Could you raise the volime in future videos? Thank yo
Hi Karen,
I did recognize this as an issue with this video. I think I resolved it for the videos following, but your welcome to give more feedback.
Blessings,
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas Thank you for responding. I'll listen again tomorrow and concentrate more to hear. Blessings from upstate New York.
Are you a dominican?
Hey A.D.
I was about to be received as a third order Dominican but pulled out. The Dominicans are near to my heart and have provided me much spiritual direction.
Are you Eastern Orthodox or RC? They disagree.
Catholic
@@MountAthosandAquinas
So you are a Catholic that affirms EE-distinction?
Eastern Catholic?
Hey M,
I am a Catholic who appreciates all 24 rites in the Church. Currently my home rite is Latin, though I have been discerning other rites for quite some time.
As far as the EED goes, I affirm that a Catholic can hold this distinction if it is held in the way the Fathers of the East articulated it. If one holds to the EED in a neo palamite way then I believe this is not only incongruent with the Eastern Patrimony but crosses the line of heresy. More on this to come after the Lent season.
-Irenaeus
To offer up a critique of this video, it is not licit to cite pseudonymous authors as being representative of the figures they purport to represent. The Pseudo Athanasius teaches that the Light of Tabor is uncreated, but the actual Athanasius, at least according to Philip Schaff, believed that the OT theophanies were created apparitions of light.
Also, this video fails to distinguish between uncreated energy and uncreated essence. The pre Nicene fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen) tended to view John 1:18 as referring to the Father, so they believed that the Son revealed His nature as light in the theophanies, while the Father's nature remained unseen. In the Nicene era this idea was set aside, lest the Son be viewed as subordinate to the Father, as the Arians believed, and it was decided in the East at least that the theophanies were appearances of God's energy, that is, the energy of Father and Son, and not of His (their) nature.
However, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906, in an article on the Shekinah, for the ancient Jews, "in the great majority of cases "Shekinah" designates "God"." Indeed the article notes for example that the great medieval commentator Nahmanides "considered it [i.e. the Shekinah--ed.] the essence of God as manifested in a distinct form." There is as a matter of fact little or no mention made of energy in respect to Shekinah (light-glory) within that article.
In fact, I find few if any Biblical references to God's light as energy anywhere within the text of Sacred Scripture, whereas Wisdom 7:26 and Hebrews 1:3 do in fact identify God's uncreated light and glory with His essence, lest the Son be considered to be an energy of the Father.
Note, however, the idea that the Divine Light energizes and the idea that the Divine Light is energy are two distinct propositions.
Since you mentioned the Western Father Ambrose in this video, why did you not mention Pope Leo I the Great's commentary on the Light of Tabor, who says the following in Sermon 51.2:
"And, therefore, rightly and significantly, had He promised that certain of the disciples standing by should not taste death till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom, that is, in the kingly brilliance which, as specially belonging to the nature of His assumed Manhood, He wished to be conspicuous to these three men. For the unspeakable and unapproachable vision of the Godhead Itself which is reserved till eternal life for the pure in heart, they could in no wise look upon and see while still surrounded with mortal flesh. The Lord displays His glory, therefore, before chosen witnesses, and invests that bodily shape which He shared with others with such splendor, that His face was like the sun's brightness and His garments equaled the whiteness of snow."
And in that same Sermon (viz., 51.6): "And so while He was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him. The Father was indeed present in the Son, and in the Lord's brightness, which He had tempered to the disciples' sight, the Father's Essence was not separated from the Only-begotten: but, in order to emphasize the two-fold personality, as the effulgence of the Son's body displayed the Son to their sight, so the Father's voice from out the cloud announced the Father to their hearing."
Thus we observe that in Leo's interpretation, the Father's essence was present in the brightness of the Son on Mount Tabor, but their true glory was tempered to the capacity of the disciples in the flesh, and will not be seen in its true nature or fullness of nature until the age to come. This is a valid interpretation of this Biblical text, and at least as equally valid and as Biblically licit as the energies interpretation of the Eastern fathers, if not moreso.
In the energies interpretation, the only difference between St. Paul's distinction between seeing the glory of the Lord darkly in a mirror while in the flesh and seeing God face to face in heaven is seeing His energy in a certain degree on earth and seeing His energy in a greater degree in heaven, which indicates a quantitative rather than a qualitative transformation of vision/participation, whereas Leo's interpretation distinguishes between dark and enigmatic vision of God's glory as witnessed in the veil of the flesh, and true and unmediated vision of His glory in the age to come, which appears to be closer to the qualitative transformation that St. Paul is alluding to in 1 Cor 13:12 and 2 Cor 3:17.
Thanks again for another thoughtful comment. I follow everything you wrote all the way. I am very much aware of Pope Leo the Greats sermons which you cite. Read them through and through. But this video was really an analysis from the East Perspective. Ambrose slipped in as an authority from the West showing that the West and East don’t have a chasm between them. But, again, this video is just historical in nature as the last.
The next video on the EED in the West will be more to your liking. The last one I actually disclose my thoughts. The language of the West is different from the East, but it doesn’t mean the concepts are. Happy listening.
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas I'm commenting as I go through the videos. I do believe that the Synodikon of Orthodoxy anathematizes Leo's interpretation of the transfiguration, while Benedictus Deus anathematizes the Palamite denial of its own interpretation of the beatific vision.
Obviously the modern Roman Catholic Church has downplayed the differences between the Church's theologies in the interests of ecumenism, but I do believe that the differences are real, and I believe the arrogant polemics of the Palamites deserve a full throated rebuttal.
Observe that I do not raise objections to Palamism based upon Thomistic methodology/Aristotleanism, but based upon Scripture and ancient Christian teaching, including that of the Jews regarding the Shekinah in my last posting.
But you do your thing, and I'll do mine.
I will continue to view your videos on this subject and comment.
Thomas,
I have a lot on my heart I could say in response. I am, again, letting much of it stay within until you finish the series so as not to detract from the path. Thanks for checking it out.
Irenaeus
Orthodoxy is ontological different from catholic dogma in the sense that between them are talking about a different Deity
This is a very shallow comment not worth engaging. I recommend you try and formulate your comments in a way that is befitting true dialogue.
Peace
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas well things are simple orthodox theology says the energies of God are deity uncreated ,catholic say they are some created forms. So something _ energies one calls it as Deity , the other that some thing calls it created ... So ontological difference how can one say something is actuall God and the other see that as something created?
@user-pj7sq7ce1f there is no Catholic that says Divinity is a created form. This in itself shows your lack of willingness to seriously investigate Catholic theology. Read Gregory the Great. Read Augustine. Read Victorinus. Read Isidore of Seville. What Catholics teach now is identical to what they taught. Either seriously engage their works and have intelligible conversations or simply don’t bother commenting. This channel is far past the low hanging fruit. Nobody here will take what you wrote seriously.
-Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinas i said that the energies in orthodoxy are divine Uncreated actually God himself ,and in the catholic belief seen as something created
@@MountAthosandAquinas Tell me are the energies of God when operated in tbe creation deity or something created. How catholic see the ? In orthodox at any time allways the energies of God are seen as Deity uncreated actually God himself . You did not address the energies issue i mentioned , but in general wrote about the divinity of God .
You cant confuse mouth athos with Aquinas. Both cant be correct one is the other not.clear up your position dont show confusion...
This channel has two missions: first, to get those who love Aquinas (like myself) to be less dogmatic about his words and more open to imitate his spirit. Second: to get extreme Orthodox who mischaracterize the Eastern Fathers and Palamas to reconsider their position based off scholarly presentation.
Peace,
Irenaeus
@@MountAthosandAquinasSounds like “when all else fails, use a sledgehammer or force the square peg into the round hole” to me. Of course, you just have formless wood pulp, in the end. The post-Carolingian paradigm put into practice “Doublethink” a millennium before Orwell coined the word for it.
@@eldermillennial8330 Your welcome to stick around for the last video on the EED series which will be released Ascension Thursday or Pentecost. After watching that you can express your thoughts as to rather a or not I’ve created a formless pulp.
Irenaeus