online-libre.pdf

8/10/2019 online-libre.pdf

1/12

Does Maximus Doctrine of TheosisCollapse without Gregory PalamasDoctrine of Divine Energies?

Emma C J Brown, University of Edinburgh

Within the last twenty years there has been much debate over the development of the doctrine of the

divine energies and the tracing of the concept through the works of the Byzantine and Early

Church Fathers!"n particular# attention has been given to $t %a&imus the Confessor as a forerunner

of 'alamite theology and the e&tent to which a distinction already e&ists between (ods essence and

energies within his thought )here is a tendency within this area of study# *outh believes# to assume

a terminological homogeneity between the 'alamite and Confessor that did not e&ist+)hus# a more

valid ,uestion would seem to be# regardless of how precise the essence-energies divide is within $t

%a&imus thought# how necessary is it for that divide to e&ist in order for his theology to be

consistent

"n this in,uiry " will illustrate %a&imus theology of final rest and theosis# demonstrate the

relevance of (regory 'alamas doctrine of divine energies# and then# in a synthesis of the two# ask

whether %a&imus doctrine of theosiscan e&ist without (regorys distinction between essence and

energies )he purpose of such an in,uiry is to ascertain how necessary the development of the

doctrine of the divine energies is and .udge its merit upon that fact# rather than assuming its value

on the basis of how far its roots can be traced back through the (reek Fathers

/ccording to $t %a&imus the Confessor# all creatures move towards (od )his is a natural desire of

all creatures# since they have their origin in (od 0)hrough himself#1 (od 0draws into one what is

divided# and abolishes war between beings# and binds everything into peaceful friendship and

undivided harmony12/ll creatures come from (od and will return to 3im# but do not lose their

personal identity4 5espite coming to rest in (od# a distinction still remains between (od and 3is

creation6

! / )orrance# 'recedents for 'alamas Essence7Energies )heology in the Cappadocian Fathers Vigiliae Christianae82# ! 9+::; 5 Bradshaw# The Concept of the Divine Energies', wwwukyedu-?dbradsh @accessed++:2+:!2A> ) )ollefsen# The Christocentric Cosmology of St Maximus the Confessor. 9&ford6 &ford niversity'ress# +::D Farrell#Free Choice in St Maximus the Confessor. 9'ennsulvania6 $t )ikhons $eminary'ress# !;D; *ossky# The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. 9Cambridge6 ames Clarke G Co *td#!;H=


2/12

"t belongs to creatures to be moved toward that end which is without beginning# and to come to rest

in the perfect end that is without end# and to e&perience that which is without definition# but not to "e

such or to "ecome such in essence For whatever comes into being and is created is certainly not

absoluteH

)he human person in particular is tasked to draw together creation for (od after the way of Christ6

the human person unites the created nature with the uncreated through love 9 the wonder of (ods

love for us human beingsK


3/12

9H$I$&9 @$8J< and be considered a portion of 3im 9H8K%- @$8J (od is participable> both (od and each creature remain Lho

they are )o .eopardise these facts would be to imply pantheism# or atheism We are human> we are

(od by grace> but we are not (od in (ods essence

)his parado& really seems to be where %a&imus stops /n acceptance of the parado& as it

stands might be preferable# but it leaves some ,uestions dangerously unanswered 3ow can we be

(od and not (od[ What is the difference between the deified human and (od[ "s (od really stilltranscendent and unknowable[ What are we participating in[ /re we many mini7gods e&isting on

the outskirts of (od[ 3ow is this still monotheistic[ "f we really do participate in (od# has (od

become mutable to incorporate us[

)he polytheistic ,uestion especially looks like one that can not be left unanswered# and

whilst undoubtedly we can report that %a&imus would not concur that this introduces polytheism# it

remains that as it stands# %a&imus doctrine of theosis could be read to construe this possibility

Whilst these ,uestions were not raised during %a&imus time# they came to be of great importance

during the life (regory 'alamas 3is work was composed precisely to answer these ,uestions in

relation to theosisand the human e&perience of (od 'alamas argues for a distinction in (od

between 3is essence and his energies

'rior to (regory 'alamas# energeiahad a mi&ed meaning in Byzantine theology "n the work

of %a&imus# energeia is used fairly interchangeably with the words unamis and inesis,Nand

denotes movement# operation# and activity (od acts and operates in different ways# but still has one

operation and is one operator )his one operation is separate from and necessary to (od in his

essence# but does not constitute a second bit of (od (ods energy is the manifestation and activity

of his unknowable nature "n very basic terms# these energies# these different operations of (od#

are all that we know about 3im )hey are known to us by participation# but not in essence6

Even more are divine things recognised by participation only# since no one knows what they are in

their ground of being and principle of e&istence> for our part# we are certainly far from knowing these

; /s seen earlier in %a&imus#Mystagogia,p!D8

2


4/12

things!:

(ods goodness# simplicity# immutability and other attributes are all activities that are never

divorced from (od# but neither are they descriptions of 3is essence!!/s we will see later# this

means that (ods activities are still (od# but when inviting others to participate in them#

!+

theunknowability of (ods essence is not compromised

Following the reasoning of %a&imus in his argument for dyothelitsm and dyoergianism in

Christ# 'alamas writes that if (od has a nature# 3e must therefore have an activity# since every

nature is known by the things that it does in the world6

nly the essence of (od is uncreated and unoriginate# he @BarlaamA says# but every energy is

created What impietyK "t follows from this that (od has no natural and essential energies )his

amounts to openly denying the e&istence of (od \ for the saints clearly state# in conformity with $t

%a&imus# that no nature can e&ist or be known# unless it possess an essential energy 9HO$

=&9P*:$*7-&, 3%;+ Q+ 8>*&P58+ ->Q+ R9$%=$?-+ 9 8-95O#8$ 6


5/12

)hrough Christ we have come to know (od# and are able to see (od through grace 9for 'alamas#

most prominently through hesychast prayer and the purification of the passions 'alamas# /pology @Coisl. ;;#fol. !2A in %eyendorff# Stuy of Wregory

Ualamas.*awrence# ( 9trans


6/12

but for our entire concept of theodicy# prayer and real relation with (od

We can return now to %a&imus main principles of theosis6 (od is unknowable> (od is participable>

both (od and each creature remain Lho they are "n 'alamas doctrine of divine energies we can

see each of these principles are held in tension (ods unknowability is retained within the divine

essence# which is beyond all comprehension and human thought (od is participable in his activity

which he invites all of creation to .oin and enables through the gift of 3is grace We are never

assimilated to (ods hypostasesor to (ods essence# and in partaking of the divine energies who

we are as people is never forfeit "n so far as it offers a viable way for these otherwise tautological

statements to coe&ist# the doctrine of divine energies successfully clarifies and resolves the

difficulties within %a&imus doctrine of theosis

"s it true though that %a&imus doctrine of theosiscollapses without 'alamas doctrine ofdivine energies[ Without becoming embroiled in a debate about whether the essence-energies

distinction already e&ists in %a&imus# the ,uestion can be reformed to assess whether the

essence-energies distinction is indispensable to theosisas %a&imus frames it

/ccording to %antzaridis# without the essence-energiesdistinction# one would be left to

confess the following

"f one re.ects the distinction between essence and energy in (od# then one must either view even the

created world as an effulgence of the divine nature# and conse,uently as one in essence with (od#

or one must reduce the other two persons of the )rinity to the level of created beings# because in such

a case creation differs in no way from generation or procession+8

)he heart of the distinction as it is proposed here is to do with (ods act of creating %antzaridis

proposition is that (ods act of creating things other than 3imself is either all attributed to (ods

essence# so that (ods activity 9including creating< is contained within his essence and creation

itself is therefore no different from (od on a level of essence> or (ods activity is completely

separate from 3is essence# so that all of his activity 9including creating# but also including

procession and generation< happens outside of the nature of (od )he simplified e&tremes of the

dichotomy stand thus6 (ods activity is part of 3is essence> (ods activity is created Both of these

statements are very problematic for any Christian theology6 the former affirms pantheism# the latter

that there is no )rinity and that Christ and the 3oly $pirit are part of creation 9$ubordinationism


7/12

absolutely necessary to %a&imus doctrine of theosis

)here is however a way in which %a&imus doctrine of theosismight not collapse without a

formal distinction between essence and energies )his is after the manner of something " want to

call the %a&imian 'arado modelled on the theme of union and distinction as presented by

)rnen in his book by that name+=

"n a review of )rnens book# %cCosker suggested that

not infre,uently# %a&imus describes the entities which .oin in a differentiated unity as e&tremities

9for instance# !2;


8/12

that e&ists within the world "n theMystagogia# we can come to know spiritual things through

material# and material things through the spiritual>2+there is a balance and a completion because

there is one world Christ is not divided by having a human and divine nature because he is one

person )he $criptures are not split up into spiritual meaning and ink on a page because they form

one book But there is only one (od# and it is not us Even were we to consider the reliance of the

material on the spiritual# there is a degree of completion and unity in that relationship that is not

shared between (od and creation We do not complete (od and we do not balance (od )his is not

an instance of %a&imian 'arado& "f we can ever be called (od it is only through grace "t is in

our nature to be perfected by 3im# but it is not in 3is nature to be perfected by us )here mustbe a

clarification of this parado& that sets out how it is we can achieve theosis# whilst reflecting the

irreconcilable dichotomy of (od and not7(od> created and uncreated

)he only remaining way in which one might argue that %a&imus doctrine of theosisdoesnot collapse without (regory 'alamas doctrine of divine energies# is if the solution in the doctrine

of the divine energies itself were insufficient or defective

ne of the concerns often voiced as arising from the doctrine of divine energies is that they

imply pantheism )he primary way in which " foresee this problem arising is in the relationship we

are affirming between nature and activity 9physisand energeia


9/12

things# but realisations of ways in which it is possible for (od to act# through which we can truly

know 3im (od always possesses a capacity to act> the energeiaare the freely chosen

manifestations of that capacity We know (od through them# but we also know that the actor

3imself e&ists even if 3is essence remains undisclosed "t is not as if# on seeing an action# we

assume that there is no actor# or that in partaking in that action ourselves# we "ecomethe actor in itsentirety )hat said# whilst we acknowledge the distinction here between nature and energy# it is also

important to note that (od as 3e reveals 3imself to us is no less (od than 3is unknowable essence

"t is not as if we only see a surrogate# false or dim reflection of (ods essence \ contact with 3is

energies is still real contact with (od /s Bradshaw puts it

the relevant distinction is rather that between (od as he exists Lithin himself an is noLn only to

himself# and (od as he manifests himself to others )he former is the divine ousia# the latter the

divine energies "t is important to note that both are (od# but differently conceived6 (od as

unknowable and as knowable# as wholly beyond us and as within our reach

3ence we return to the parado& of %a&imus# save with clarified distinctions that fully enable us to

say (od is participable and (od is not participable without the dangers that %a&imus himself

would want to avoid

)he divine energies do what it was intended they do )hey clarify a parado& without

eliminating its e&tremes 9much after the fashion of %a&imus himself


10/12

is insufficient and resolving it to conclude that (ods energies are uncreated or part of his essence

implies either pantheism or $ubordinationism We may thus affirm that the essence-energies

distinction in its clarified rendition by (regory 'alamas is necessary in order to understand

%a&imus doctrine of theosis, and in so far as %a&imian cosmology is useful# so is the doctrine of

divine energies espoused by 'alamas /s such# without a distinction like that espoused in 'alamas

divine energies# %a&imus doctrine of theosiswould collapse

!:


11/12

Bibliography

'rimary $ources

Maximus the Confessor

English Translations7 /mbiguum = in %a&imus the Confessor# Bn the Cosmic Mystery of esus Christ.Blowers '%G Wilken# I* 9trans< Yew Zork6 $t ladimirs $eminary 'ress# +::2

7 /mbiguum 4! in *outh# /Maximus the Confessor.*ondon6 Ioutledge# !;;87 %ystagogia inMaximus the Confessor, Selecte !ritings.Berthold# ( 9trans< *ondon6 $'CJ#!;DH

7Disputation Lith Uyrrhus. Farrel# 9trans< 'ennsylvania6 $t )ikhons $eminary 'ress# !;;:

Wree Translations7 /mbiguum = in %igne# Uatrologia Wraeca9vol ;!


12/12

Yew Zork6 $t ladimirs $eminary 'ress# !;D4

%cCosker# ' Ieview of Ynion an Distinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor,by )rnen# %ZevieLs in Zeligion an Theology. !H# + 9+::D

online-libre.pdf

Documents

Transcript of online-libre.pdf