www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Not "slavishly" but respectfully.

Your conclusions about "Orthodox speculation" when it opposes your own opinions hardly qualifies as respectful.

This Forum sets an example of respect for Catholic AND Orthodox perspectives.

That is not my opinion.

That is the way it is.

Just ask the Administrator.

Alex

Dear Mary,

We may disagree and we may be respectful. I, for one, question whether your disagreement with mainstream Orthodox theology has been respectful.

Alex

Mary,

One other thing, the energies flow out of God eternally, but this simply concerns the fact that God is more than His essence, and so it does not mean that the energies flow out into a "thing." The linguistic expression in connection with this mystery (like all linguistic expressions) cannot fully convey the divine reality.

God bless,
Todd

Saint Gregory the Theologian on this same point and these three distinctions gives us his own definition of each of these names. They are subtle philosophical meanings, however, these distinctions are very important.

He says that �essence� is that which is self-subsistent inside every single thing. It is that thing, which one can refer to uniquely, with regard to its own, unique existence. God�s essence can be understood in this sense, regarding His uniqueness. That is what is meant by �that which is self-subsistent in every single thing�.

He says that �energy� is �that which is perceivable in other things�; it is something that is understood and is found inside something else. One could also say that this thing that is observed �in others� (or, the �event� as we call it � as known in Hellenic Philosophy) leads us into the concept of �relationship� or association.

Despite all these things that refer to the persona or the hypostasis, which he calls �association�, he clearly distinguishes them from the essence and from the energy. The persona or the hypostasis is neither an essence, nor an energy. What is it then? In order to see what it is, we must see what it is NOT, with respect to the other two. We must see whether the essence is something self-existent and self-subsistent, in order to speak of the essence per se of a being. God is a divine essence. It is not compulsory, to relate the Divine essence �in our minds- with any other essence, in order for us to refer to the essence.

Since the persona is not an essence, it must therefore be something that cannot be understood as existing on is own; it is not self-subsistent. If it was self-subsistent, it would have been an essence. Thus, since it is not an essence, it cannot be understood on its own. We cannot isolate it. When you want to speak of a persona, you need to simultaneously refer to another being. You cannot refer to it alone. Whereas with the essence, you can refer to one, single essence, on its own. With a persona or a hypostasis, you cannot. On the other hand though, it is not an energy either. And why isn�t it an energy? Because it is not in communion with other beings, so that we can find it elsewhere. Let�s take a look at this mysterious fabrication.

On' the one hand, the persona cannot exist without any communion with other beings, without an association. On the other hand, that which is a persona cannot be found in another persona, whereas an energy can. And an energy can be common to both. Nature and essence are both common; however, the essence can also logically be defined on its own. This is what denotes the essence.

Thus, the persona �the hypostasis- denotes an identity, a being, which, albeit unable to exist on its own, cannot be perceived on its own, yet at the same time cannot be found elsewhere. While it cannot exist on its own, at the same time, it cannot be found elsewhere, except in its self. In other words, its self is so unique, so unprecedented, so much itself, that nobody else can be what it is. The Father cannot be the Son, or the Spirit. The Son cannot be the Father, or the Spirit. The terms: �Father�, �Son� and �Spirit� denote different hypostases or personae; they are so unique and unprecedented, that the paradox and most significant thing about them is that they cannot be found in those entities with which they have no association: they simply do not exist. Because, if the Father is not in a relationship with the Son, He ceases to exist. And even so, He still is not the Son.

That is the persona, i.e., it is the identity that is born of a relationship - of a communion with another entity - which results in non-communing, entities, in the sense that the one entity cannot be found within the other; neither can it be found, if not in any association with the other, because if that relationship is interrupted, then the existence of that persona is also interrupted. So, if the persona or the hypostasis is neither an essence nor an energy, then it must not be self-subsistent either; in other words, one cannot refer to the persona singly, without relating it to something else, nor refer to it as an energy, in the sense that it can be found inside something else.

For example, the energy of God. Let�s examine one of His energies: His power. His power as an energy can be found in all three Personae, and it is indeed found in all three Personae. It can also be found outside of God; it can act outside of God. This is called an �event�, i.e., that which we can also find outside of the essence (which essence possesses the energy), while the essence is distinguished from the energy, in that we cannot find it outside of the essence. We cannot find God�s essence inside creation. We can however find God�s energy inside creation. The energy is that which can be communed, even outside the essence. The essence cannot be communed; it denotes self-subsistence; it cannot be categorized outside itself, because it will cease to be the essence of that being.

So, can the persona be communed? Well, yes and no. The persona cannot exist, if there is no communion and relationship � in other words, if it doesn�t associate with other personae. One persona equals no persona. One essence, yes. And one energy, yes (when referring to its results). But one persona, one hypostasis, equals no persona. Hence, there needs to be a communion of more than one, in order to have personae.

But in this communion, each persona does have its so-called hypostatic features (its personal characteristics), which cannot be communed. The Father cannot impart His paternity to the Son, nor His features. These hypostatic features - of the �Father�, the Son� and the �Holy Spirit�, or, �non-birth�, �birth� and �procedure from� - none of them can be communed, or imparted. Why? Because each one of the Personae is a unique and singular identity. If it is substituted by something else, then it ceases to be that unique identity. That is why, in regard to this association, which denotes the hypostasis or the persona, the Fathers or the Cappadocians used the expression �selfsame�.

At first glance, this �selfsame� appears to conflict with association. If we are defining the persona with respect to an association, how can we define it as �selfsame� at the same time? And yet, the �selfsame� springs from an association. The notion of association is such that it creates a �selfsame�, a uniqueness, a sameness, something that is non-communable, which cannot be communed. Therefore, without communing with the other personae - without any association � this �selfsame� cannot exist. Thus, each persona of the Holy Trinity is unique, singular, irreplaceable, precisely because it is in an incessant communion and association with the other personae. Thus, if you sever that communion, you lose the hypostasis. Communion, therefore, is a prerequisite of the hypostasis. On the other hand, this communion creates particularity - selfsame beings - which, when communing with them, when imparting the characteristics of the one to the other, you lose them. These are the basic items, and this is the way that these terms are used in Patristic Theology.

If it were the case that there was a time when God was without "his energies," then God has undergone change.

But this was the Holy Spirit, for there was nothing else before the ages except Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I think that's the point. There is no "time" when God was without his energies.

If it were the case that there was a time when God was without "his energies," then God has undergone change. I cannot imagine that St. Gregory of Nyssa, or any other Eastern Father of the Church would teach that. Was there ever a time when God did not posses his love? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his truth? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his might? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his peace? Was there ever a time when God did not posses his mercy? No. Yet, in the Eastern Christian understanding, none of these things is God's essence, but they are indeed eternal, therefore they are God. They are (among many others) the uncreated energies of God. While this may not be a teaching universally accepted among Eastern Christians, its teaching is very ancient and very widely accepted. I really don't understand why it is that there are those here who have tried to suggest otherwise.
Ryan

Ghosty,

I must disagree. You are morphing the Augustinian model of absolute divine simplicty onto the Orthodox view. For the Cappadocians and Maximus the energies qua powers are genuinely distinct from the essence and not merely epistemically so. They are not attributes or predications that we make, where the distinction is in our mind and not in God.

You are working with a Platonic model where causes do not fully preserve themselves in their effects so that what is many is causally deficient from the simple One. This is a common model among the scholastics but is not what Maximus or Palamas have in mind. For the Cappadocians, none of the names of God denote the essence in any way, not even analogically, for the simple reason that for them God is not pure being or energia.

The divine energies are metaphysically distinct powers, some of which come to act, that is have a begining, so while God is dunamis, he is not pure act.

Further, the true doctrine teacheth that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker.