Catholic against the 'heresy' of Palamism

[Adrian Martin]

In a certain Catholic Apologetics forum, a certain poster is allowed, willy-nilly, to bash Eastern Orthodox theology as heresy. This is despite the fact that this theology is ostensibly the same in the Eastern Catholic churches. Here are his "objections" against the energies-essence distinction. What do you make of it? I'm definitely interested in Fr. Dn. Steenberg's thoughts.


Even if the esssence energies disctinction did not creat two separate divine beings, it does create other problems. First, God is infinite. And infintity cannot be divided. I cannot say that I have two pieces that added up to infinity. Second, God is ulimited. Yet by creating the essence energies distinction you are limiting God. God's essence is limited by not being his energies and his energies is limited by not being his essence. Thus the unlimted God becomes limited. Third, the idea of God's "energies" is an arbitrary metaphysical concept found nowhere in revelation. Rather, it is more akin to the neo platonic idea that the "One" can never really interact with world directly and, thus, creates demiurges to create and manage the world. In the same way, hesychasts create the demiurge of God's "energies". Finally, the idea that we only experience God in his energies and not his essence seems to run counter to what the scriptures state. As we know the bible says that we are "partakers of the divine nature" and that "we shall she him as he is."

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, this quickly goes beyond the capabilities my poor little brain, but I think he contradicts himself right out of the gate, since he is basically destroying the Trinity which means he is no longer Catholic. If "infinity cannot be divided" then how can there be One God in Three Persons? He may not know it yet, but he has become a Moslem.

[Anthony]

(On second thoughts, not relevant)

[Rick H.]

While the author's first two points are like a two legged stool, I think his main objection is expressed in the following:




. . . the idea of God's "energies" is an arbitrary metaphysical concept found nowhere in revelation.



and as he continues:




Rather, it is more akin to the neo platonic idea that the "One" can never really interact with world directly and, thus, creates demiurges to create and manage the world. In the same way, hesychasts create the demiurge of God's "energies". Finally, the idea that we only experience God in his energies and not his essence seems to run counter to what the scriptures state. As we know the bible says that we are "partakers of the divine nature" and that "we shall she him as he is."



and while I am not sure that there is counterpoint to be found at all in the verse he quotes (2 Pet 1:4), I will admit that this and other verses have come to mind in the past as I have considered this subject at hand.

In Christ,
Rick

[Owen Jones]

To become partakers in the divine nature does not mean that we become God in His essence. The doctrine of deification means that we become more like God, to the extent that is possible while still in material bodies. Anything more is gnosticism.

The essence/energy issue is not an isolated issue, but connected with the rest of theology, including the distinction all of the Fathers make between created and Uncreated, intelligible reality and sensible reality. The premise behind all catholic theology is that God is unknowable in His essence. That does not mean that nothing can be known about God or of God. It means that what we know is very limited and based on what we see and perceive through what He has created. We do not know the what, who and why of God, which is intensely Biblical. We do not know why God created, let alone how, we do not know the reasons behind suffering (Job), we do not understand the mysteries of the Eucharist, we know that Christ had to suffer for our sins, but clearly this is a mystery beyond human comprehension. This essential unknowability is at the heart of all Orthodox theology, and from there we make a distinction between His Essence and His Energies.

[Adrian Martin]

Well, this quickly goes beyond the capabilities my poor little brain, but I think he contradicts himself right out of the gate, since he is basically destroying the Trinity which means he is no longer Catholic. If "infinity cannot be divided" then how can there be One God in Three Persons? He may not know it yet, but he has become a Moslem.

In fact, from my limited knowledge the first person to deny that there were uncreated energies in God was the Arian heretic Eunomius.


while I am not sure that there is counterpoint to be found at all in the verse he quotes (2 Pet 1:4), I will admit that this and other verses have come to mind in the past as I have considered this subject at hand.

To go off that tangent, what does it mean to "see Him as He is" as written in 1 John? The Catholics take that verse to mean the Beatific Vision (interpreting "as He is" as "in His Essence").

[Andrew]

Quotation:
Even if the esssence energies disctinction did not creat two separate divine beings, it does create other problems. First, God is infinite. And infintity cannot be divided. I cannot say that I have two pieces that added up to infinity. Second, God is ulimited. Yet by creating the essence energies distinction you are limiting God. God's essence is limited by not being his energies and his energies is limited by not being his essence. Thus the unlimted God becomes limited. Third, the idea of God's "energies" is an arbitrary metaphysical concept found nowhere in revelation. Rather, it is more akin to the neo platonic idea that the "One" can never really interact with world directly and, thus, creates demiurges to create and manage the world. In the same way, hesychasts create the demiurge of God's "energies". Finally, the idea that we only experience God in his energies and not his essence seems to run counter to what the scriptures state. As we know the bible says that we are "partakers of the divine nature" and that "we shall she him as he is."

He is using limited human logic against the actual experience of something beyond reason. It is like a man arguing against me seeing the Grand Canyon. The man can give a bunch of reasons for why the Grand Canyon cannot exist, but he still hasn't seen it himself, and is in the dark on this one. This is the Catholic objection to "Palamism." They have not seen God, and they bash those who have. They give psychological arguments against ontological reality. It is quite childish.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Adrian, Herman, Anthony and others,

The quotation you have provided, from a discussion elsewhere, calls to mind something about which I have more than once made reference here in the forum; namely, that few Orthodox people understand the idea of the essence / energy distinction, and hence present it inaccurately in the many conversations in which it is raised. As such, the comments which you quote, while quite inaccurate in terms of the actual conception of the distinction in the thought of Palamas and others, are nonetheless the kinds of reactions I can readily understand, since they criticise flaws that arise out of poor presentations of essence / energies, which are all too common.

As initial responses to contents of the text you've quoted:


Even if the esssence energies disctinction did not creat two separate divine beings, it does create other problems. First, God is infinite. And infintity cannot be divided. I cannot say that I have two pieces that added up to infinity.

The basic flaw with this criticism is that it attempts to understand essence and energies as two distinct, concrete realities - two pieces, portions, components, parts. The difficulty is not in the mathematics of infinity and division (which in any case are not quite right), but in the idea that the discussion to hand involves 'parts' that are somehow related. However, the concept of an essence / energies distinction in the thought of St Gregory Palamas, as well as others (and the distinction goes back at least to the time of the Cappadocians in the fourth century) is not about two parts in God, but of the accessibility of finite creation to the infinite. The distinction identifies the subject as transcendent God, and the subject as encountered God. The subject is always one and the same: God himself. What is distinct is this God as encountered, by limited and finite creation, and God in his transcendence, which cannot be limited or contained by the scope of any encounter, however pure or perfected. Who and what God is, always transcends the encounter of this God with his creatures; and yet, the encounter had by the creature with God is genuinely an encounter with God proper, and not God by mediation or representation. Man encounters God - directly. And yet, God remains transcendent, not limited by the encounter.

It is this that the distinction of essence and energy in Palamas conceives. God qua essentia is God, as subject, in the infinity of his being that always transcends creaturely access and experience; yet this same God, in energeia, is immediately experienced and encountered by creation.

In a thread on Eucharist (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3135), we recently discussed the concept of essence and energy in relation to the Eucharist (which is the chief example of this distinction). In a post in that thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38682&postcount=9), I wrote:


The basic reality behind the essence-energies distinction is that God's essence is, as the very reality of what and who God is in himself, utterly unknowable and un-experiencable by the created order; but this same God is, through the energies of his being, present directly in the created realm. This God is only ever known and encountered 'energetically', that is, in his energies -- but when one encounters God's energies, one thereby encounters directly him who is God by nature (essence). So the experience of God's energies is the direct experience of the essential God, but the essential God known in his energies.

It is when one attempts to understand the distinction between energies and essence as indicating separate 'parts' of God, that the whole distinction fails utterly. This is not its aim, or intention. It is, instead, a distinction that articulates how encounter with God is direct, unmediated, yet never limiting of God's nature through that experience.

Again, from your quoted text:


Second, God is ulimited. Yet by creating the essence energies distinction you are limiting God. God's essence is limited by not being his energies and his energies is limited by not being his essence. Thus the unlimted God becomes limited.

This is built of the first, incorrect, assumption; namely, that the essence and energies are 'parts' of God. It assumes that, as these are distinct parts, the one is not the other, and thus is separate from the other, and thus God is limited by this division and separation.

God is God - God by nature, that is, in essence. The God encountered by creation is this God-by-nature; but the encounter is never of the fullness of that nature, since the essence of God is eternal and transcendent. This God-by-nature is encountered, but encountered as God-in-energeia, the essential God met and experienced in active, living being. This is not an encounter with some part of God that is separate from his essence, but the essential God as he is encountered in and by creation: in the energies which are his uncreated presence and action in the cosmos. So we cannot say that creation never encounters God's essence: it does, but not qua essence. The essential God is encountered energetically, since this is the means by which creation has access to the uncreated.


Third, the idea of God's "energies" is an arbitrary metaphysical concept found nowhere in revelation. Rather, it is more akin to the neo platonic idea that the "One" can never really interact with world directly and, thus, creates demiurges to create and manage the world. In the same way, hesychasts create the demiurge of God's "energies".

This begins as a vague and arbitrary criticism. 'Found nowhere in revelation'? This presumes a certain canon of revelation - and I cannot have any idea which. The Orthodox Church certainly understands its patrimony (the lives and teachings of the fathers) as part of the living revelation of God - a revelation that is not simply constrained to a specific listing of texts. The Cappadocians, Palamas: all are part of 'revelation' as enshrined in the living experience of the Church in the Spirit.

But there are clear revelations of this distinction in many aspects of the Church's central life. The incarnation, and above all in every-day ecclesial experience, in the Eucharist. As our previous thread (to which I've provided a link above) hinted at, it is in the Eucharist that the essence / energies distinction becomes most obvious. And in fact, it is difficult to make sense of the Eucharist at all without it.

The second part of the comment, namely that the identification of energies creates a type of demiurge responsible for creation and 'management of the world', this - again - harks back to the basic conceptual flaw of the speaker: again and again, the essence / energies distinction is understood as indicating parts and components. All his/her criticisms seem grounded entirely in this.


Finally, the idea that we only experience God in his energies and not his essence seems to run counter to what the scriptures state. As we know the bible says that we are "partakers of the divine nature" and that "we shall she him as he is."

The scriptures also note that God cannot be seen, yet clearly indicate that he is seen. It is precisely this deeply scriptural paradox that is addressed in the distinction of essence and energy. Yes, humanity partakes of and experiences the divine nature, but it so partakes as creature, partaking of the infinite. And yet, as your speaker himself points out, the infinite is not divided, is not apportioned, is not shared. One partakes in the energies of that which remains always beyond the encounter and participation, yet who is nonetheless immediately, truly present in that encounter. This is how 'we know him as he is', for humanity encounters the true God truly, without mediation, in the fulness of his being, immediately present yet ever transcendent.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

NB: For further reading on the topic, there have been many conversations in this Community on essence and energies, and the distinction as encountered in Palamas. Using the forum's search feature (http://www.monachos.net/forum/search.php) on the terms 'essence energies' will yield some 53 threads that address the topic - and you'll see from their contents the wide variety of contexts in which the distinction has bearing, from creation to epistempology, from Eucharist to prayer, from 'original sin' and concupiscence to monasticism and hesychasm. Among these, the following threads may make good places to begin:

The Mystery of the Eucharist (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3135) - A thread on the Eucharist in which is relationship to the essence / energies distinction is explicitly addressed
Cappadocian and Reformed views on God's energies (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3711) - A discussion on the theme from a comparative context with Reformed, rather than RC, traditions, and which specifically addresses the question of 'Palamism'
Essence and energy (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1543)
Palamas and hesychasm (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2066)

[Father David Moser]

Could it be said then that the distinction of essence and energy is simply a functional one? That it is an attempt to describe God who is both known and unknown? Thus the essence of God is that which we cannot experience and the energies of God is that which we can. Is this too simple? ('cause it works for me - but then I'm pretty "simple" sometimes)

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Somehow I think the distinction is related to the manner of God's condescension.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

In recent posts above, Fathers David and Raphael wrote:


Could it be said then that the distinction of essence and energy is simply a functional one? That it is an attempt to describe God who is both known and unknown? Thus the essence of God is that which we cannot experience and the energies of God is that which we can. Is this too simple?


Somehow I think the distinction is related to the manner of God's condescension.

I think that certainly the matter of comprehending and encountering God who is visible and invisible, known and unknown, immediate yet transcendent, is very much at the centre of Palamas' discussion. This is also the immediate concern of the Cappadocians, who use the distinction to articulate the difference between how God is known and who he is (in contradistinction to Eunomius, who argued that how God is known is the 'who' of his being; thus knowing God as 'unoriginate' is taken to mean that God's being is defined as Unoriginateness). For the Cappadocians (esp. Gregory of Nyssa), one knows God directly in the hows of the encounter and knowledge; but God qua essence / being always transcends these precisions of encounter and knowledge. For interested readers, this is perhaps stated most succinctly in his Ad Ablabium - On that there are not three Gods.

But of course, this matter of distinguishing encounter and nature through energies and essence, immediately relates - as Fr Raphael has said - to the manner of God's condescension to creation. In other words, God makes himself known to and present in a creation that is finite and corruptible, so that he is fully known and actually encountered in the context of the created order, but not in a manner that limits his eternity. This has always been a classical challenge to theology: should a transcendent being (i.e. God) become truly immediate in the cosmos, this challenges his transcendence. The grounds for this lie precisely in the idea of the impossibility of division in God (ironically, the very concept that the speaker in Adrian's quotation used, though wrongly). An infinite and eternal God cannot be cut up into parts; therefore either all of God becomes immediate, which means he is no longer transcendent or eternal, having been conformed to the finite and temporal order; or none of God becomes immediate, preserving his transcendency yet utterly removing him from direct interaction with the cosmos.

The fathers see, in the distinction between essence and energy, an articulation of how the classical challenge proves inapplicable to the Christian God, who is at once ever transcendent yet immediately present in the cosmos. The incarnation of Christ is the ultimate overturning of this challenge, since Christ is truly human and fully God; and this incarnation reveals the authentic nature of divine encounter in all is aspects. God condescends to immediate encounter by his creation. The essence / energies distinction is how the Church has traditionally articulated the contours of that encounter within the revelation that the immediately-present God remains transcendent, eternal, and unlimited.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

This has always been a classical challenge to theology: should a transcendent being (i.e. God) become truly immediate in the cosmos, this challenges his transcendence. The grounds for this lie precisely in the idea of the impossibility of division in God (ironically, the very concept that the speaker in Adrian's quotation used, though wrongly). An infinite and eternal God cannot be cut up into parts; therefore either all of God becomes immediate, which means he is no longer transcendent or eternal, having been conformed to the finite and temporal order; or none of God becomes immediate, preserving his transcendency yet utterly removing him from direct interaction with the cosmos.

I have to admit that this dichotomy makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm not properly understanding "immediate" and "transcendent". I'm reading "transcendent" as referring to God's essential "extent", so to speak, while I read "immediate" as referring to a state of relationship with the non-transcendent world, not as a state of being.

Maybe I can make an analogy using the oceans (imagine we are in pre-submersible days). There is an area which is "immediate" to our perception and interaction - the surface - yet that does not divide the "immediate" waters from those in the depths which are not immediate to us. So I don't see how God being "immediate" in part to creation would necessitate His becoming either fully immediate, or dividing Himself.

What am I missing here?

In Christ,
Mike

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have to admit that this dichotomy makes no sense to me, but maybe I'm not properly understanding "immediate" and "transcendent". I'm reading "transcendent" as referring to God's essential "extent", so to speak, while I read "immediate" as referring to a state of relationship with the non-transcendent world, not as a state of being.

Maybe I can make an analogy using the oceans (imagine we are in pre-submersible days). There is an area which is "immediate" to our perception and interaction - the surface - yet that does not divide the "immediate" waters from those in the depths which are not immediate to us. So I don't see how God being "immediate" in part to creation would necessitate His becoming either fully immediate, or dividing Himself.

What am I missing here?

In Christ,
Mike

All Christians have as part of their foundational confession of Faith that God is both transcendent & imminent. But yet not all understand in the same way the manner in which God's transcendence allows for His imminence and vice versa.

Thus the essence/energy controversy of St Gregory Palamas does not mean western Roman Catholics of the time denied either the transcendence or imminence of God as fundamental truths of the Christian faith. They certainly did. But the point was how for those who attacked St Gregory, God's transcendence and imminence were seen in a particular way which tried to protect His transcendence by -in our terms- considerably modifying the manner of God's imminence or condescension.

In your terms I suppose it could be said that both what lies above and what lies below the surface were seen in very different terms.

This brings to mind that the manner of God's imminence is a direct reflection or aspect of His transcendence. That is, as has been explained, God's transcendence and imminence are not parts of God. Nor are they modes of being as if He would be more or less God according to circumstance.

Rather God is always transcendent- ie inaccessible & unknowable- even while being imminent- ie accessible & knowable.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Stickles]

... for those who attacked St Gregory, God's transcendence and imminence were seen in a particular way which tried to protect His transcendence by -in our terms- considerably modifying the manner of God's imminence or condescension.

In your terms I suppose it could be said that both what lies above and what lies below the surface were seen in very different terms.

This brings to mind that the manner of God's imminence is a direct reflection or aspect of His transcendence. That is, as has been explained, God's transcendence and imminence are not parts of God. Nor are they modes of being as if He would be more or less God according to circumstance.

Thanks - I think that helps me see the difference between how I was seeing things versus the other POVs.

In Christ,
Mike

[Owen Jones]

We are getting the terminology wrong here. The obverse of transcendent is immanent. Imminent refers to something that is about to happen in time. The definition of immanent is as follows.

This is a classic question, not limited to Christian thought. It is an issue for Moses (see Dt. 30). For Judaism, the immanence of God is found in the land of Israel, and in the inner sanctuary of the Temple. The Upanishads begins with an extended meditation on the relations/paradox between transcendent and immanent.

Heresy evolves when we are incapable of holding the paradox in balance through faith, and one veers dogamtically toward one extreme or the other.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·ma·nent /ˈɪmənənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-uh-nuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
2. Philosophy. (of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject and having no effect outside of it. Compare transeunt.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) indwelling the universe, time, etc. Compare transcendent (def. 3).

[M.C. Steenberg]

I suppose one also needs to keep in mind that the technical terminology of 'essence' and 'energy' becomes detailed and technical, precisely to preserve a healthy articulation of a simple affair: man beholds God. It is this simplest of realities that is the hardest to define, to comprehend - which is why it stands at the heart of so long a litany of heresies over the centuries. Preserving this simple act, the full reality of this simple act, in the verbal expression of theology is the very point and nature of the terms.

INXC, Dcn Matthew