www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Reconciling theologies

How do we reconcile the Byzantine Catholic belief in the uncreated energies of God (and the essence-energies distinction) with the Latin Church's belief in created grace and absolute divine simplicity. I have been told as a Byzantine Catholic that our faith is the same as the Latin Church, and that any differences we appear to have are only in theological expression and not in substance. But created vs uncreated grace seems pretty substantive to me as this would lead to wildly different conclusions on who God is and how we relate to Him. I know there are plenty of threads already debating the EED so that is not what I am looking for here, but more specifically, how do we reconcile what we believe with what the west believes and not hold it in contradiction?

You don't have to reconcile them. Try not to let the differences bother you. At the end of the day, it's all speculative theology. Christ didn't call us to be theologians, He called us to be saints. Take the Eastern approach and chalk it up to mystery. God isn't going to judge us based on our understanding of theology when we die.

I know God doesn't expect us to all be theologians but what you said couldn't be true if you follow that logic to its conclusion. That would mean it genuinely doesn't matter what religion you belong to. You could be Methodist, Lutheran, Oneness Pentecostal, etc and you are still following Christ as best you know how (presumably) so that's all you need for salvation. That undermines the entire Church and is bordering on the heresy of ecumenism (which I know is not what you were advocating). For me, seeing a contradiction poses a problem. I don't see how saying to just ignore it and pretend it isn't there justifies it. That is the kind of thing that got me stuck in this cognitive dissonance to begin with.

EasternChristian19, I believe you and I are in similar situations right now. I am a Catholic heavily considering Orthodoxy, with many of the same questions as you. Many Orthodox apologists will assert that Eastern Catholics disprove Rome, as they claim that the difference of beliefs would constitute heterodoxy. This may be the case in the Orthodox Church, but is it really an issue for Catholics? Rome seems to be protected from the ecumenism you speak of by sticking to its dogmas, many of which are unique to them and thus keep the faithful from believing they could just as well be apart of another church. So the question becomes, if the contradictions in belief (i.e. EED vs. divine simplicity) are not contradictory to dogma, but only to other non-essential theological opinions, what is the problem?

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the Orthodox position. The Church has authority to teach, so why not offer doctrinal clarity by "choosing a side"?

Ultimately, I do not know who is right, but I hope I can figure it out someday!

You are confusing essential beliefs of the faith with speculative theological approaches and opinions. God did not divinely reveal how to conceptualize His being and essence; any thoughts in that space are the products of fallible saints and theologians. How exactly do you think an Eastern vs Western Christian relates to God on a fundamental level? There is essentially no difference for the average lay person. They partake of the sacraments, thank God and ask him for forgiveness, ask for the intercession of a saint every now and then. The everyday person isn't splitting hairs over God's essence and energies, nor should they be. Ironically, you are taking a very rational and legalistic approach to this topic, wanting concrete answers to questions that have multiple ways of being understood and experienced.

Also, you are confusing ecumenism with syncretism and indifference. Ecumenism is a heresy only to a modern Orthodox to make an excuse to shelter in place and refuse to put forth any effort at unity. It is a way for them to hole up in their little enclaves, criticizing everyone else while offering no solutions. Christ called His followers "to be one," and the Catholic Church has embarked on this call seriously. Outreach to other Churches, denominations and other faiths, trying to find common ground and understanding for eventual reconciliation, is exactly what Christ expects. Meanwhile, modern Orthodoxy takes a very polemical and immature stance on this very important issue. All the while, they continue to excommunicate each other over petty squabbles and can't even hold a functional council. In short, they are hardly an example of a mature entity with the ability to unify Christians the world over. They have, in all practicality, utterly failed in this regard.

I'm a Byzantine Catholic and I do and don't have such a belief. There's been a lot discussed about the topic on the forum. My last words on the subject are Re: Energy-essence distinction. See also the link in Re: Can one hold to the essence-energies distinction as a Catholic?.

I consider the Energies a (respected) theologoumenon.

It is more than a respected theolugemenon. It is a fact held by the Fathers and taught by Constantinople V (which was accepted by all Byzantine Catholic Churches as they were still in the Orthodox Church at the time). There is more evidence for the essence-energies distinction than there is for a heretical teaching like pastor aeturnus' papal supremacy.

You claim to want to be Eastern, yet ironically use very rigorous scholastic wording like "evidence" and "fact." You want to devour the "meat" of the East, so to speak, but it seems so far you've taken only tiny sips of milk. You have been obviously swayed by the online Orthobro rage chamber, and it is evident you need spiritual guidance from a (Catholic) priest, lest you wander off the pasture of God's one true Church.

... a local council of the 14th century. Is there any mention of the "divine energies" in the liturgy prior to Constantinople V? Presently?

Open to the West are you? You have more baggage weighing you down than essence-energy.

This is a legitimate and necessary question. Now well have Eastern Catholics articulated that as Eastern they are also Catholic. I recall, but will have to locate, the Orthodox theologian Aristotle Papanikolaou musing that in the theology of Zizioulas, energies become unnecessary. I'll let a filtered AI (Papanikolaou +energy+essence+person+Zizioulas) give an overview of what's out there:


Orthodox theologians, rightly, like to sound Orthodox but when I take Papanikolaou and Zizioulas at their word, the conclusion is that Energy is unnecessary: It's all in the theology of the Person. Certainly after Chalcedon, and even Constantinople I, Christian theology needs Person. What concept is required for "God's active, outward manifestation of His being" than the Incarnation, the Person of Jesus Christ, and then His body, the Church? When we pray to the Father "send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and these gifts lying before us" what more do we need to have than the Person of the Holy Spirit as the " outward manifestation of His [ajk: that is the One God the Father's] being? The West has it right: We only need Person to say Father, Son Holy Spirit and essence, ousia, to know we're speaking of one God. How do I know that? I affirm it every Divine Liturgy, the Creed tells me it's so.

The orthodox are every bit the one true church as catholicism. Rome even teaches as much. So polemics aren't going to help.

Christ is in our midst!!

Let's keep the discussion civil and within our forum rules against polemics.

Bob
Moderator

EasternChristian19, could you please share some sources showing that Rome teaches the Orthodox Churches (any specific communion?) are as much the true church as the Catholic Church? It is my understanding that the official teaching is that the Orthodox are close (valid Sacraments) but still disconnected from the full truth / church / body of Christ / etc. at least as far as they are not in Communion with Rome.

It's way more nuanced than that.

DOMINUS IESUS [vatican.va]


NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION «SISTER CHURCHES» [vatican.va]

It's in the rc code of canon law. Orthodox Christians who are properly disposed (and ideally have their bishops permission) are free to receive Holy Communion. The same code of canon law FORBIDS giving holy communion to schismatics. That is a direct contradiction "unless" the Orthodox Church is not schismatic. It would be better to give them the sspx language and say they are canonically irregular.