Jo, why do you keep going back to the Trinity? The distinction between Divine Essence and uncreated Divine Energies says nothing about the "relationship" between the Father and the Son. Did you read the link I posted to Yanaras?
" That's a paradoy of Thomistic theology, first of all."
Jo, you will note that I said that Barlaam claimed to have the backing of Thomist theology; I didn't say that at all. I think that's wrong/
"He says that God's existence is so different from other existences that we can say that God doesn't exist. God exists but God doesn't exist..." This is a purely Cappadocian statement, real hesychastism. "I believe in God; God does not "exist"." +Thomas is right. ""For he is thy being, and in Him thou art what thou art, not only by cause and by being, but also He is in thee both thy cause and thy being...evermore saving this difference between thee and Him, that He is they Being and thou not His."" Then this: " Bury all essences beneath of Cloud of Forgetting so as to be aware only of existence." These are very different, even opposite positions, the latter being vaguely Orthodox in the sense that the Divine Essence is unknowable per se, but the existence of the Divine Essence is knowable through the uncreated Divine Energies (The Light of Mount Tabor for example). This of course is not to say that the human reality of the Logos is not knowable.
Kolo, this is a new area for me. Something that you take for granted and claim as the heart of your theology is "Greek" to me...give me a chance! From my uneducated view of uncreated energy, it sounds like another diety/dieties is present at creation - the Transcendant Trinity and their uncreated demiurges or demi-gods. I can't help but think back to the people whom St. Irenaeus combated, although I am likely holding an incorrect view that you will have to correct me on!
Jo, you will note that I said that Barlaam claimed to have the backing of Thomist theology; I didn't say that at all. I think that's wrong
Which is what I pointed out, as well. I believe that just as St. Thomas was later corrupted by the Schoolmen that followed and inevitably led to Nominism, perhaps St. Simeon the Theologian was corrupted by the Hesychastics several hundred years later - who fixated on posture and such, not far removed from Oriental meditation processes.
I have been doing some reading on the Hesychasm Controversy, as well as trying to figure out the distinction that Orthodox make in separating Divine Essence from Divine Energy. I agree, as does the West, that there is a difference between the two, the former being God Himself, the latter being His action, or His Accident present in the soul. Scriptures clearly tell us that the Spirit pours out charity, thus, we can presume that the Spirit AND grace are present in the soul who Abides in Christ.
Where I personally think you run into problems is the interpretation by St. Palamas in his defense of the Hesychasmics is his taking the Church Fathers to make them claim that they had all along believed in uncreated energies in the same way that Palamas later defended. I'll have to read up more on the Cappadocians.
It just strikes me as odd, that an uncreated energy is NOT God. According to St. Thomas, sanctifying grace must be created because of the universal norm of Providence, which implants in creatures forms and powers that are principles of action for natures in question. Consequently, it would be unthinkable that on the supernatural plane, God would act in any other way.
From my limited reading of the Fathers, I see two gifts, the first being the uncreated (the Blessed Trinity ITSELF) and the other is a created gift, which is the effect produced in the soul by the Holy Spirit to whom sanctification is especially attributed.
A question for you, then. Since man cannot come into contact with this Divine Essence, requiring the mediation of Divine uncreated energy (such as the burning bush or the Transfiguration), what exactly would the Incarnation be considered? Essence or Energy?
Again, I see this whole thing as speculation, since it is unclear to me that St. Palamas correctly interpreted what the Fathers taught.
Thanks for your patience - clearly, I am still learning, as this is not a proposal put forth by the West or Western Fathers.
Regards
Patristic understanding of energy is that every essence or nature has energy, i.e. a dynamic activity of such nature. Thus, God's nature, which is uncreated, has uncreated energies that result in hat we call "God's activity." It is paramount to understand that nature and energy is not one and the same, that the energy of the soul differs from its essence, and that there is no essence that does not possess energy, and that the energy proceeds from the essence and not vice versa.
These are hardly speculations. Patristic "speculations" are full of Scriptural references and therefore cannot be accused of being outside of Apostolic teachings.
Jo, maybe you can explain just what is created grace, being that it is the dynamic expression of uncreated God?