Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist..

Maybe reading this that is a sermon .... it will be more easily to comprehend

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Andrews-St-Gregory-Palamas-and-the-Prayer-of-Silence.php

I will go back and take a look at Balaam.. Remember Aquinas called God "actus purus" that is "pure action" so there is no dinstiction between energies and essence.. That is what I remember from my
Gregory the Palams class.. I think Balaam represents Aristotelian thinking and reasoning versus Platonic by St. Gregory Palamas.... Transendance for the RC is absolute... no wonder they then do not undestand "participation in the energies".. God is an energy ball... "actus purus". Instead of confusing you more it is wise to meet with your priest or seek out the RC sources as well the EO sources to try to do some reading on it..

MoNiCa4316 said:

does the EOC disagree with this? you see a distinction right?

Click to expand...

Yes.

God is unknowable in His essence. He communicates to us through His energies. We, through Theosis, become one with God through His energies. Not in essence.

This is nonsense to Catholics. Aquinas defined God as "Absolute Simplicity", which has no room for an Essence and Energies distinction.

Forgive me

MoNiCa4316 said:

thanks for your answer.

I just have a simple question.. what ARE energies. How do you define this. Or ..essence. What is it.. ?
I was told in this thread that energies are part of God too.. are they 'less' of God than His essence is..? I guess I don't really understand the whole distinction in the first place either.. (I agree that we don't know all of God and He reveals parts of Himself to us, but I kind of agree that God is "Absolute Simplicity", though that's just a guess and I don't know what the reality is for sure.)

Click to expand...

I believe the answer is similar to the persons of the Trinity (correct me please, friends!). The Energies of God is Him fully, and the only difference between the Essence and Energies is that they are not each other. The Essence of God is fully God, the only difference being it is not the Energies of God. The Energies of God are fully God, the only difference being that they are not the Essence of God.

And I have no idea how 'energies' or 'essence' fits in to all this... I don't really make that distinction at all.. God is God.. He reveals to us some things about Himself, others are hidden. We can still be united with Him without perfect understanding.

Click to expand...

You actually understand it perfectly - the terminology just isn't helping you out.

What God reveals - He does this through energy. The only hidden thing is the essential motivation.

Another way of looking at it - we know God loves us, and the many ways He loves us - we will never know why.

To go back to your original question, is Christ present at the eucharist in a different way than he is anywhere else?

Something to consider - God doesn't require the eucharist... we do. In other words, it isn't God who requires a special engagement time and location and circumstance to interfere with our lives. We are the ones who need to establish time to maintain that connection, because we are the ones who are responsible for breaking that connection so often.

So the presence and the specialness of God in the eucharist is what you bring to the table, not what God offers. If you need to physically have Christ present in the eucharist to feel like he is present in your life... well then perhaps your approach is like Thomas who needed to feel Christ's wounds in order to believe in the resurrection. Christ also blesses those who did not see and yet still believe.

On some level Christ reveals Himself in circumstances appropriate to where WE are - not to where He is or is not...

MoNiCa4316 said:

that makes me ask the question, why does such a distinction exist at all? why not simply say.. there's God, and He reveals to us what He wants?

ah that's why I'm not a theologian.. sorry.. I know it's a difficult topic.

Click to expand...

The distinction exists because it has been revealed to us as Truth. This did not come from intellectual ascent but from Divine revelation from God. Reading St. Gregory Palamas will help. I cannot say I fully understand either, for that would be to truly understand God.

No he means in general whatever God has given us examples are plenty... such as the 10 commandments, that God is love, his mercy etc. he has a Son, and he gave us the Paraklete for us after his Son was ascended to heaven... etc... All this is God's revelation to us what God wants us to know about Him...Now some other poster said and quite rightly that there are many things we do not know about God ...like why he created man? Also we do not fully comprehent his being... He is a spirit... We cannot answer we fully know Him he is way too "big" for us to comprrehent hope that helps

I hope this post redeems me from my earlier flub on this thread. (can I plead “temporary insanity” for the earlier fiasco?). I've divided it into four sections, or it would be too long. I had to begin with a lengthy section on essence and energies because the EO understanding of Eucharist involves this doctrine. I appreciate replies and corrections.


A-- GOD'S ESSENCE AND ENERGIES FOR HETERODOX


SIX WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT GOD


1-ATHEISM
Popular among the ignora—er, “enlightened” ones.
There is no god. That is, behind and at the root of reality, there's no thinking, caring intelligence with whom/which we can communicate.
The universe or universes have always existed in some form, without cause, or reason. The highest “intelligence”, if one can call it that, is simply the totality of natural laws.


2-DEISM
Popular with some ancient philosophers and many modern scientists.
There is a god (a little better). But He co-exists with eternal-- and therefore god-like-- matter (or whatever makes up matter). He uses this stuff to build universes.
Once He builds something, He doesn't interfere with it, but lets it run under natural laws which He determined at creation.


3-PANTHEISM
Popular in the east, and at the root of ancient western polytheism and some ancient philosophies.
God is everything. The lesser gods/ spirits/ angels/ demons and human souls emanate-- literally flow out-- of God. Matter, including our bodies, also emanates from God, at a lower level. Its like water as vapor (God), liquid (spirits), and ice (matter). So far, its like Deism with its eternal matter. But there's a difference.
Since the universe(s) is/are already God, He and the lesser spirits emanating from Him are always intervening in human affairs (at least this part is an improvement on Deism's aloof God).


4-NON-CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM
The root of Judaism and Islam.
God is a unique, intelligent being distinct from the universe (even better). We are NOT told what God is in Himself-- that is, in His essence. This seems to be left to private interpretation. In practice, some Jewish and Muslim theologians borrow from ancient philosophy at this point. Some Jews teach that God spends His time contemplating the eternal Torah (mosaic law).Some Muslims teach the same thing about the eternal Quran (the earthly Quran being just a copy)
God, we are told, creates, not by emanation or through pre-existent matter; but by a deliberate act of will, and from nothing (at least this part is good!).Again, we are NOT told what is meant by “God's will”.
He intervenes in the universe through miracles (also good).


5-NON-ORTHODOX TRINITY
The root of Western Christian theology
The rich, complex system of Christian theology was created in response to, and as a defense of truth against those who wished to bring ancient philosophical concepts and their own speculations into the faith. Some terms were borrowed from ancient philosophy, but they were enriched with new meanings and the underlying philosophical systems were rejected.
In the west, Christian theology was reinterpreted in three stages.

1. In the 5th century, St. Augustine let some philosophical concepts-- mostly Neo-Platonist-- and personal speculations creep into his theology. While he was very pious (his sanctity was accepted early), his theology was first ignored, then became a source of controversy for a few centuries.
2. In the 9th century, the Carolingian Franks, who ruled most of western Europe, adopted St. Augustine's theology in full.
3. In the 11th to 14th centuries, the west created Scholastic theology, which adopted Aristotelian terms.

This theology (which is more-or-less that of most western churches) goes something like this:


God
God is one, unique, intelligent being distinct from the universe (so far, so good)


Transcendence, Essence, Energy
When we talk about what God actually is, or what He is “made of” (I know. Bad choice of words. But you know what I mean), or what He truly is in Himself-- we are talking about His essence. Western theology teaches that God's essence is infinitely transcendent; beyond our experience, beyond creation, beyond anything imaginable (so far, still good).
However, following the neo-Platonism of St. Augustine, the west also teaches that we can have a tiny hint of God's essence; either through intuition, or through direct, ecstatic experience, as apparently happened with the saints and mystics. This is kind of like a distant mountain which you can't climb, but can view through binoculars.
When Aristotelian rationalism was thrown into the mix in the scholastic era, they began to teach that, having had this experience, we can use reason to expand on it and speculate, if only a little, about God's essence. Thus, it was taught that God's essence is simple-- in fact, simplicity itself. Also, it is taught that the essence is pure uncreated grace, will, activity, action, or energy. This is the “actus purus” of the scholastics. God's essence has also been called “love” (as in the biblical “God is love”) and existence.


The Trinity
God is one, but He's also three persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (so far, so good). But western theology then focuses on relations within the Trinity. The relation of the Father to the Son is that the Father causes the begetting of generation of the Son. The relation of Father and Son to the Spirit is That Father and Son together, “as a single source”, cause the Spirit to proceed (the famous filioque).


Immanence, Grace
The transcendent God is also immanent, that is, immediately present in creation. Well, not quite, according to western theology. The west teaches that we can know, somewhat, God's transcxendent essence. To also say that He acts immediately and directly in the world and in us would add up to something close to pantheism. Instead, the west teaches that His presence is mediated through another type of grace, which is a created substance distinct from God. Providence, sacraments, salvation, sanctification, Heaven, hell, and all other energies, or activities, of God within creation are actually created graces in western theology.




6-AGNOSTICISM, etc.
Popular with confused people.
The agnostic says, “we don't know, perhaps can never know, if there's a god or what his nature would be if he exists”. To be more logical, he would have to speak only for himself-- “I don't know. . . ,” instead of, “We don't know. . . .” If we follow the logic to its extreme, we end up in solipsism-- “All I know for sure are my own thoughts.” If we take away the 'my own' part (i.e. Erase personal identity) what's left is, “All I know are thoughts.” After that, its one short step to, “All is thought. Thought is everything.”-- and we're right back to pantheism. You can see how this can appeal to confused people. Existentialism is similar to agnosticism in that it rejects absolute, universal truth. For it, God is whatever the individual experiences Him to be, putting every world view, including atheism, on the same level.

B-- GOD'S ESSENCE AND ENERGIES FOR ORTHODOX


A COMMON ASSUMPTION


There is an assumption common to all the non-orthodox world views. Every non-orthodox world view assumes that we could acquire some information and knowledge about God's nature; that is, His essence. Even negative information, as in atheism and agnosticism, is still information.


ORTHODOXY


-GOD-


God is a unique, intelligent being separate from the creation.


-TRANSCENDENCE, ESSENCE-


In the “my-god-is-bigger-than-your-god” philosophical arms race of the early church, the holy fathers quickly came to an astonishing conclusion which forever sets orthodoxy apart from all other world views. God's essence is infinitely transcendent, and UTTERLY SEPARATE FROM, UNKNOWABLE, INCOMPREHENSIBLE AND INCONCEIVABLE TO ALL CREATED THINGS-- ALWAYS WAS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE SO!


IN fact, if you made a list of every single word, concept, description, etc.-- on any and every subject-- in every single language, both angelic and human (you might need an extra sheet of paper), including the most basic, "existence vs. non-existence", you could easily write above that list (I hope you left some space at the top) the following:


GOD, IN ESSENCE, IS NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ANY THING ON THIS LIST!


This, BTW, is called “apophatic” (“negative”) theology.


If you invented a “time-space machine” and used it to zip to-and-fro, from one end of the cosmos to the other, and from the beginning of time to its end, you would not be one step closer to touching, grabbing, feeling, being zapped by, hit by, clubbed by, seeing, gazing at, peering at, peeking at, perceiving, envisioning, intuiting, brainstorming, daydreaming, or otherwise hallucinating THE SLIGHTEST HINT of God's essence!


Even if you became the greatest saint (and God bless you in that endeavor) and, on your death, went to the highest heaven to stand beside the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist for the next million trillion zillion years, you would not be one step closer to touching, grabbing, feeling, being zapped by, hit by, clubbed by, seeing, gazing at, peering at, peeking at, perceiving, envisioning, intuiting, brainstorming, daydreaming, or otherwise hallucinating THE SLIGHTEST HINT of God's essence! And-- guess what?-- the Virgin, the Baptist-- in fact, all saints, all angels, all created things-- are in exactly the same situation. No created thing in Heaven or Earth ever has, or ever will, even come close to perceiving the transcendent, unknowable, hidden essence of God. All we will ever be able to say about it is,

“God's essence is NOT. . . .”

Click to expand...

For the last time-- GOD'S ESSENCE IS STRICTLY OFF LIMITS!


Whew!. . . now, that's what I call “unknowable”!


-TRINITY-


God is also Trinity, that is, three persons. But the EOC doesn't lump all descriptions of the three persons into the one category of relations. The western emphasis on the transcendent “energy-essence" of God together with the emphasis on “relations” within that essence obscures and confuses the doctrine of the three hypostases/persons in the Trinity. In fact, St. Photios the Great even went so far as to call the western doctrine of the Trinity, “a semi-sabellian monster” (referring to the ancient heretic Sabellios, who taught that God is one, and that the Trinity is merely a kind of illusion).


When I think of the RC doctrine of the Trinity, I can't help but get a mental picture of a giant ball of glowing-plasma-like Divine essence (a definite no-no!) which then divides into two giant balls of plasma. The two then create a spark between them-- which becomes yet a third giant plasma-ball! And I'm at a loss to say why this process can't just go on forever! Why can't an infinite number of Holy Spirits be produced this way? Or, why can't the Spirit get together with the other two persons to produce yet a fourth, and so on. . .


The EOC calls each of the terms used to describe the persons of the Trinity personal attributes, and teaches that each term means something different and specific.


Thus, the Father's personal attributes are that He is uncaused (i.e. He owes His existence to no-one), He begets the Son, and He causes to proceed the Holy Spirit.


The Son, has the following personal attributes: He is the “Image of the Father” and the “Logos (Word) of the Father”, He is begotten of the Father, and He receives the Holy Spirit from the Father.


The Holy Spirit has these personal attributes: He proceeds from the Father, and Rests in the Son.


What these attributes actually stand for, that is, the events themselves, are eternal mysteries; because they are embedded in God's hidden nature together with His essence. We take it on faith that each attribute means something unique and specific; so, we don't just stick them together in one vague category like “relations”.


-IMMANENCE, ENERGIES, GRACE-


Well, now I've done it. I made God so distant, hidden, and mysterious that He'd need a mighty long arm to reach out from His sublime essence and do anything good for us here on earth. But we know this does happen. God is immanent to us. After all, we have biblical theophanies, miracles, and the Church's mysteries. How can this be?


Turns out, God indeed has a mighty long arm (figuratively speaking). In fact, the “Hand of God” and the “Back parts of God” are biblical terms. These and other terms which refer to God's activities in the world-- positive terms such as divine existence, divine glory, grace, creation, providence, the grace of the mysteries, divine love (as in “God is love”), divine wisdom, justification, salvation, sanctification, and Heaven,--but also negative terms like divine wrath, divine judgment, and hell,-- are all understood in EO theology to refer to GOD HIMSELF REACHING DOWN from His hidden nature into our created world. They are also collectively called, God's eternal, uncreated, and divine will, activities, or ENERGIES.


The EO doctrine of divine energies is so fundamental, that it even enriches our understanding of the Trinity. You read above that the holy Spirit rests in the Son. In palamite theology, he also “shines forth” from the Son. That is, He projects His divine energies back to the Father, thus completing the circle of interpersonal communion within the Trinity. So, in a way, the Holy Spirit does proceed “from the Father and the Son”-- but only in His energies, not His essence. The cause of the Holy Spirit's person and essence is ONLY the Father. That's why we don't include the phrase “and the Son' (filioque) in the creed, where “proceeds”' refers to the ultimate cause of the Holy Spirit.


Its interesting that in the created world, things seem to happen in a “mirror image” to the way they happen in the divine realm. In the Trinity, the Father begets the Son, and sends to Him the Holy Spirit, who is then sent, through His energies, into the world. In the created world, we receive God's energies from the Holy Spirit, and this illumines us to perceive Christ Who is the Son (in His energies), and, of course, “he who has seen the Son has seen the Father.”

Salvation happens when we learn to cooperate with God's uncreated energies and to avoid the created actions/energies of: the Devil, the world, and our sinful thoughts and desires.

When we look at salvation from God's end (His energies entering our world), we call everything connected with it a sacrament/mystery. This includes the Eucharist. But it's not limited to "seven sacraments". Traditionally, everything that leads to salvation, including the process of salvation itself, is called a "mystery (I suppose one could also say "sacrament")" by the holy fathers.

When we look at it from our end (what we contribute), we call it "ascesis", Orthodox spirituality" or "the Orthodox way".

It has three stages. First, purification; when we repent and begin the struggle to purify our passions-- by praying, fasting, receiving the Eucharist, etc. (the stage most of us are in). Second, illumination; when we are illumined (literally, "enlightened") so that inner, spiritual prayer springs up from within us constantly-- even while we think and do other things-- and God is literally "always on our mind and in our heart" (the saints attain at least this stage). Third, theosis; when our "spiritual eyes" are opened and we see God's energies sustaining every particle of creation .


BTW, when the saints and angels “see God”, they actually see His energies, not His essence. Even their experience of God-as-Trinity happens through the divine energies.

In the rest of this post, all words in boldface refer to God's energies.


C-- WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE EUCHARIST?


Put simply, the epiclesis at the end of the prayer of consecration tells us what happens at consecration of communion.


In a way, every Orthodox mystery has an epiclesis, which tells us what God will do during this mystery. For example:

BAPTISM--

“Do Thou Thyself, o loving King, be present now also through the descent of Thy Holy Spirit and hallow this water.”

Click to expand...

MATRIMONY--

“Bless (+) this marriage and grant unto these Thy servants (Name) and (Name) a peaceful life, length of days, chastity, love for one another in a bond of peace, offspring long-lived. . . “

Click to expand...

So also, in the DL we have the following epiclesis:

COMMUNION (DL)--

“Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented. And MAKE this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ. . .And that which is in this cup (MAKE) the precious Blood of Thy Christ. . .CHANGING them by Thy Holy Spirit.”

Click to expand...

So, in the DL, the bread and wine are literally transformed into Christ's body and blood. Of course, His body and blood are forever united to His complete human nature (body, blood, soul) and His complete DIVINE NATURE-- BOTH THE DIVINE ENERGIES AND THE DIVINE ESSENCE.

D-- TWO QUESTIONS


(1) HOW DOES THE CHANGE HAPPEN?


The RCC, using Aristotelian terms, says “transubstantiation”. What this means, if I understand correctly, (perhaps someone can clarify the RC position) is the following (in Aristotelian terminology):


God himself-- that is, His essence (in the RC understanding)-- changes the SUBSTANCE—that is, ESSENCE-- of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul. And Divine nature of Christ.


The ACCIDENTS (appearances to our senses) of the bread and wine remain unchanged.


Here is the EOC understanding of how the change happens:

“If then the Word of God is quick and energising, and the Lord did all that He willed. . . can He not then make the bread His body and the wine and water His blood?. . . For just as God made all that He made by the energy of the Holy Spirit, so also now the energy of the Spirit performs those things that are supernatural and which it is NOT POSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND unless by faith alone.”

Click to expand...

-St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Ch. XIII. (link)


So, the Divine ENERGIES, and not the unknowable Divine essence, are what TRANSUBSTANTIATES/changes the SUBSTANCE/essence of bread and wine into Christ (human and Divine natures), while leaving the ACCIDENTS/appearances intact.

Note that the EOC can and has used the Aristotelian-Scholastic terms to describe the change at the consecration. However, it understands them as only one of several sets of terms that can be used to describe this event. And it doesn't teach that the terms, which-ever terms are used, "explain" the mystery. They only emphasize the FACT of the total transformation of bread and wine into Christ.

And the EOC continues to emphasize that, as with all of God's activities in the world, its only the Divine energies that are experienced by created things, never the utterly-separate-from-creatures and hidden Divine essence.


(2) WHAT DO WE RECEIVE WHEN WE TAKE COMMUNION?


I don't know the RC answer (again, someone could clarify).


The EO answer is: the human nature of Christ and His Divine energies-- but not The Divine essence.

JeremiahsBulldog said:

D-- TWO QUESTIONS


(1) HOW DOES THE CHANGE HAPPEN?


The RCC, using Aristotelian terms, says “transubstantiation”. What this means, if I understand correctly, (perhaps someone can clarify the RC position) is the following (in Aristotelian terminology):


God himself-- that is, His essence (in the RC understanding)-- changes the SUBSTANCE—that is, ESSENCE-- of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul. And Divine nature of Christ.


The ACCIDENTS (appearances to our senses) of the bread and wine remain unchanged.


Here is the EOC understanding of how the change happens:


-St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Ch. XIII. (link)


So, the Divine energies are what changes the bread and wine into Christ (human and Divine natures), while leaving the appearances intact.


(2) WHAT DO WE RECEIVE WHEN WE TAKE COMMUNION?


I don't know the RC answer (again, someone could clarify).


The EO answer is: the human nature of Christ and His Divine energies-- but not The Divine essence.

Click to expand...

The EOC's understanding has developed since the time of St. John Damascene:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm

The Synods of the Orthodox Church in the face of the Protestant beliefs seem to show this.

Of course one could say that the latter Synods deviated from Orthodoxy because they speculated too far....however I would think that the Orthodox Fathers of these latter Synods would be followed by St. John Damascene himself.

Very confusing IMO, forgive me........

Knightwolflord said:

The EOC's understanding has developed since the time of St. John Damascene:

Click to expand...

If by "developed understanding" you mean that the church may explain its dogmas in greater detail and using new terms as circumstances warrant, I agree.

If, however, you mean that the church receives new revelations of dogmas of which it was previously unaware or which it wouldn't believe at an earlier time, that's not true.

Once again, I thank you for this link:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm

Its very informative.

Knightwolflord said:

The Synods of the Orthodox Church in the face of the Protestant beliefs seem to show this.

Of course one could say that the latter Synods deviated from Orthodoxy because they speculated too far....however I would think that the Orthodox Fathers of these latter Synods would be followed by St. John Damascene himself.

Very confusing IMO, forgive me........

Click to expand...

The synods of the EOC are neither Protestant nor RC, but Orthodox.
The EO synods quoted in that website did not develop any new dogmas. They simply used newly-imported western terminology to describe what the EOC has always beleived-- that at the consecration, the bread and wine are totally changed into Christ.
Later EO synods, as again quoted in that website, simply chose to go back to an older terminology to describe exactly the same dogma.

Accordingly, I've gone back to my post in question, post #98(ckick number to link), and edited the part that read:

So, the Divine energies, are what changes the bread and wine into Christ (human and Divine natures), while leaving the appearances intact.

Click to expand...

Now, it reads:

So, the Divine ENERGIES, and not the unknowable Divine essence, are what TRANSUBSTANTIATES/changes the SUBSTANCE/essence of bread and wine into Christ (human and Divine natures), while leaving the ACCIDENTS/appearances intact.

Note that the EOC can and has used the Aristotelian-Scholastic terms to describe the change at the consecration. However, it understands them as only one of several sets of terms that can be used to describe this event. And it doesn't teach that the terms, which-ever terms are used, "explain" the mystery. They only emphasize the FACT of the total transformation of bread and wine into Christ.

And the EOC continues to emphasize that, as with all of God's activities in the world, its only the Divine energies that are experienced by created things, never the utterly-separate-from-creatures and hidden Divine essence.

Click to expand...

This last part is also mentioned by at least one source quoted in the website.