[quote="PluniaZ, post:49, topic:446149"]
People seem to be taking for granted that the Eastern Catholic churches believe in the following statements:
"That supremely Divine light is neither a created thing, nor the essence of God, but is rather uncreated and natural grace, illumination, and energy which everlastingly and inseparably proceeds from the very essence of God."
"There is an unconfused union of God's essence and energy, so is there also an undivided distinction between them, for, among other things, essence is cause while energy is effect, essence suffers no participation, while energy is communicable."
But no one has provided any evidence to this effect, other than a claim that Byzantine churches did not have to renounce these statements as part of their reunion with Rome. But if the Eastern Catholic churches have never professed these statements in an official statement of belief, then one can hardly claim that it is Eastern Catholic doctrine.
In any event, the real focus is on the merit of the statements in and of themselves, which no one seems willing to discuss. I won't belabor the point any further. But if someone else comes across this thread and would like to discuss the support for these statements based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, I will happily continue the conversation. But perhaps the Philosophy forum would be a better place.
And you have not explained what it is you think those statements actually mean.
What do the following terms (in your mind) mean when reading these statements (in context)?
In philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that God is the "unmoved mover" and the "first cause"
Science & philosophy also teaches us that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
When God causes something to happen, He is using energy, just like when do when we cause something to happen. The only difference between God causing something to happen vs humans causing something to happen is that God is doing it in a supernatural way while we humans can only do it naturally.
When I'm reading these quotes, they very much appear to be referring to what we would call "God's Grace," "God's love," and perhaps even the "beatific vision."
Eastern Theology is much more mystical and less academic vs Western Theology. So it's more important to understand what they mean and less about what they say.
Furthermore, even if this a legit example of Neoplatonism, doing is simple wikipedia search for "Neoplatonism" shows that the influences it had in Eastern Orthodoxy were more philosophical and secular via theological. Plus, wikipedia even says it pretty much died out in the 15th century there.
Point it, whether they practiced or subscribed to a heresy in the past is irrelevant because the Church does not consider them to be heretical, simply schismatic.