Replies

Although this doesn't directly relate to our discussion on Energy/Essence, I think it might help to clarify why I am confused... At the Chalcedon, Leo presented his Tome, declared as orthodox by the Bishops. In it, he wrote "each form [nature in the incarnate Logos] does the acts that belong to it, in communion with the other". As you may recall, orthodoxy was fighting the concept of one nature within the Hypostatic Union of Jesus Christ. In the end, the Council declared that the Incarnation had 2 natures after the union. As Leo writes above, it is the NATURE that does the acting.

The Nature, rather than the single Hypostatis (Person) of the Logos is the subject of the verb "to act". This clearly bears on our subject matter that we have been discussing. It is the NATURE, not the PERSON that is acting.

Furthermore, in subsequent questions that followed Chalcedon, the question came up "Does Jesus Christ have two wills"? Monotheletism (one will in Christ) said "the will does not pertain to the nature, but to the hypostasis". Against this, orthodoxy, as I stated above, declared that the "will pertains to the NATURE, not the PERSON."

Thus, when we look at Christ, "we confess two natural wills and two natural actions, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion". The christology of St. Leo I, cannonized at Chalcedon, required that each nature have its own will and its own action. With this in mind, I find I am hard pressed to agree on the concept that the PERSON is the source of action and that we do not come into contact with the nature (ousia) of God when He wills to act. Thus, the idea of "divine energy" - that a Person is acting "independently" of His nature (because "man and God's essence cannot touch") seems to refute the Counciliar decisions of Chalcedon and Constantinople that declare that it is the nature that acts, not the person.

Regards

Thus, the idea of "divine energy" - that a Person is acting "independently" of His nature (because "man and God's essence cannot touch") seems to refute the Counciliar decisions of Chalcedon and Constantinople that declare that it is the nature that acts, not the person

Now you are beginning to confuse me, jo, although your points are well taken.

Jo, I have already quoted you (#7260) St. Basil's statement (4th century) that clearly shows the Church distinguished between knowing God's energies and knowing God's essence. I am re-posting it for you:

"We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near His essence." (Basil, Letter 234)

St. Gregory of Nazianzos, also a Cappadocian Father in "good standing" in the Catholic Church, fully envelops the understanding expressed by St. Gregory Palamas, when he says that the "energy is the dynamic and essential activity of the nature." Thus one cannot separate energy from its nature, but the two are not one and the same. Rather it is the energy that proceeds from the nature, and not the other way around. The hypostases differ relative to each other but not to the nature, namely being divine.

St. Gregogory of Naizenzos specifically calls God's energy uncreated.To the best of my knowledge, St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory the Theologian also agreed. The nature makes itself known and accomplishes things by its energy or energies. What we see is a product but not the nature of the Creator.