Is the Essence/Energy Distinction Merely Conceptual?
The Palamite Synods and Their Respective Tomos Answer Negative
In these below selections form the Normal Russell translations we finally have clarity on an issue Roman Catholics, Thomists and ecumenists have sought to push. Using their standard tactics of deception and out of context citations and quote-mines, it turns out the very position they argue for is explicated by their representative, as well as a couple key arguments in the previous Tomos. This means the Palamite view is not reconcilable with the Thomistic and/or Roman Catholic dogmatic positions (4th Lateran Council’s Lombard view), which means the Roman Catholic acceptance of Uniate theology, which claims to follow Palamas is a giant self-own.
It’s time to put to rest the nonsense that the Palamite Synods can be reconciled to Thomism via making the essence-energy distinction something “purely conceptual.” This also means all the Thomistic terminological baggage should also be included here as expressing the same idea and all equally false: solely or wholly “virtual,” “mental,” “conceptual,” etc.
The final Palamite Synod’s Tomos of 1368 explicitly cites and condemns the position of Prochoros Kydones the Thomist monastic who says the essence / energy distinction is merely conceptual and not in reality. Note that his quoted arguments are all the tired arguments we always hear from RCs. Consider also this condemnation of the position later on as blasphemous shows the Uniates to be a huge self-own as well as showing the ecumenists are liars. The quotation that begins “With regard to beings…” is from Prochoros restating common Thomistic argumentation and the position is condemned, including the Prochoros usage of God’s essence as Pure Act with no potentia:
In fact, if the distinctions here are only conceptual, then why not argue the distinction between begetting and the energy of creating is also merely conceptual? If there is no real distinction between essence and energy, then begetting (which is of the Father’s nature) is, in reality, identical to the creative power, thus making the Son a creature or creation an eternally begotten Neoplatonic emanation. Both are heretical and silence the Thomists and Pseuds who attempt to play words games and ignore the actual conclusions of their position.
Beyond that, what do we participate in if the essence-energy distinction is only conceptually distinct? This stupid position undercuts the majority of the actual argumentation of the several Tomos presentations, since it would mean we only participate in theosis in a created reality or what - a conceptual grace? If the energy is not really distinct, then we aren’t participating in real uncreated reality, but in a creature or the divine ousia. It’s not a mere academic question of scholastic speculations, but as the Tomos of 1351 makes clear is central to the status of the grace we partake of. The Tomos leaves no ambiguity of the uncreated reality we partake of that is not the divine essence below. This also means those pushing the errors of the Thomist Prochoros are condemned, not just by the argumentation of St Gregory Palamas, but the Palamite synods received by the entire Orthodox world.
Intellectually honest people can recognize when two positions are mutually exclusive and clearly the mutual condemnations of both the Palamite and Roman Catholic answers throughout this period show the positions are irreconcilable. Those continuing to push their pseudo reconciliation fall under the condemnation of the final Tomos of Prochoros and his word-for-word Thomistic arguments. Ecumenism is built on diluting and ignoring these very different positions or inventing pseudspeak to make the difference disappear or through word magic appear to not exist at all. Clearly, that is deceptive.