Transubstantation?

[ialmisry]

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.

That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?

Yes, somewhere I posted the renunciation.  I have to admit, as a Lutheran, I didn't believe what I was renouncing in the first place.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.

And I fail how to see how the doctrine of Transubstantiation is more philosophical than the next explanation.

because you insist on it.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I fail to see how the doctrine of Transubstantion is any more complicated than the Orthodox teaching on the matter. Substance means the thing itself. Accidents means what it looks like/acts like. Your own Church teaches that the thing itself is the Body and Blood of Christ, and yet looks and acts like bread and wine. So I still fail to see a substantial difference (you'll have to excuse me for using the complex word "substantial" here".

The issue really isn't about complexity, it is about making such complex, intellectual understanding as required belief.  The true doctrine of the faith is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  As long as you believe in that, it should not matter if you subscribe to a philosophical way of explaining it or not.

Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.

Only in comparison to the Nestorian and Eutychian complications of a prosoponic Christiology and monophysite Christology.

Believing Christ is both human and divine, consubstantial with His Father and with His mother, is enough. That was too simple for Nestorius and Eutyches, and they had to "explain" things.  Hence the Councils.

 

[choy]

Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.

Where in Chalcedon (the canons) did it say that I must believe it exactly how it is stated?  As ialmisry said, it can be simplified and still acceptable.

 

[Papist]

Why did the ecumenical councils make it dogma, required for belief, that Christ has two natures, one human, and one divine, united in one person, but still distinct? According to your logic, it should be enought that we believe that Christ is both human and divine. But the Church did not think that that was enough. Instead, the Church favored the more complicated, philosophical doctrine of Chalcedon.

Where in Chalcedon (the canons) did it say that I must believe it exactly how it is stated?  As ialmisry said, it can be simplified and still acceptable.

and so can transubstantiation. But the point is, in both cases the Church(es) insist on philosophical definitions. So what? Who cares? What is the big deal. I can see you arguing that it should not be insisted upon. I get it. But then the Church insists on stuff. And just as the Church had insist on the philosophical definition at Chalcedon to counter the Nestorians and such, so too did it have to insist on a philosophical definition at Trent to counter the protestants.
Look, I honestly don't care if you agree with my faith on this point. But I think it's silly to argue that there is a substantial difference between the East and the West on this matter. We have much bigger, much more real, differences like the Immaculate Concetion, the Filioque, and the Papacy. If you all want to beat a dead staw horse (yes, I'm mixing metaphors) have at. We all need something to do with our free time.  

 

[Papist]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like.

Energies aren't accidents.

 

[Benjamin the Red]

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.

That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.

 

[Papist]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like.

Energies aren't accidents.

Never said they were.  ;D

 

[Papist]

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.

That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that Lutherans professed the idea of consubstantiation.

 

[Benjamin the Red]

I would say that both Transubstantion and Consubstantion are completely Orthodox beliefs concerning the Real Presence. The RCC would anathematize me for saying so.

Transubstantion is an acceptable belief, not the acceptable belief.

That's an interesting view. Was this view widely held before the 20th century?

Also, it is my understanding that in certain jurisdictions, converts from Lutheranism are expected to verbally renounce the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation before they are received into Orthodoxy. Have you heard anything about this?

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Lutherans don't technically hold to Consubstantion, per se. Some will actually yell at you if you say they do. Lutherans teach "Sacramental Union", which claims that Christ is present "with, in and under" the bread and wine, whereas Consubstantion simply claims that bread, wine, Body and Blood are all present. That is, the body is truly body, but also bread, and the blood truly blood, but also wine. This, being opposed to Transubstantion, which says it ISN'T bread and wine at all anymore, but only Body and Blood...it only looks like bread and wine. But, you know that one.

I could see why Sacramental Union would need to be repudiated. Consubstantion, however, seems Orthodox to me.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that Lutherans professed the idea of consubstantiation.

I believe it's a common impression. I held it myself until a Lutheran made sure I knew that wasn't true, then went off to research it myself! ;D

 

[elijahmaria]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

 

[choy]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

 

[elijahmaria]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

 

[Papist]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

Maria, you are awesome! 

 

[Apotheoun]

Orthodox - like Roman Catholics - believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, while simply refusing to speak about this mystery of faith using Aristotelian metaphysical categories. 

Nevertheless, as far as the doctrine of the Eucharist is concerned, East and West share a common faith in Christ's real presence, and that is what should be emphasized in ecumenical discourse.

 

[elijahmaria]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

Maria, you are awesome! 

:angel:

 

[Benjamin the Red]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.

 

[elijahmaria]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually...

 

[podkarpatska]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

I would rather be transformed by the renewing of my mind and swim in the Mystery of God...then to garble it with thick-headed pagan philosophy contrary to the Faith.

The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Before we address your "other note", we understand that energies are eternal, just as much God as the essence, and not "created." Either you're not representing your faith properly, or you all are really bad at naming things. So, elaborate.

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually...

"Intellectually" ! Eees outrage! 

 

[ialmisry]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...

M.

Maria, you are awesome! 

:angel:

As we say in Egypt, the pot has found its ladle.

 

[ialmisry]

Had the fathers been as blindly submerged as you appear to want to be, they would never have been able to make the subtle and fine distinctions necessary to separate falsehood from truth, heresy from orthodoxy.

The Fathers only had to do that because of heretics hell bent (literally) in making up subtle and fine distinctions and ending up mixing falsehood with Truth and confusing heresy for Orthodoxy.  Answering a fool in his folly is dangerous work, as Origen found out.

In your last comment, you sound like the phyletists who think THEIR language is the only one capable of naming things accurately, spiritually, mystically, theologically. liturgically and <gasp>...intellectually...

You can call a spade a spade, in any language.

 

[ialmisry]

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

Most Orthodox will deny that.

Denying is fine.  Demonstrating why the denial is accurate will drag you into that murky intellectual world of philosophical thinking.

Only if you follow the fool down the rabbit hole.

So...you either join the ranks of those who can teach the faith or you continue to hang out with those who can only bally-hoo! it...M.

or you refuse to cast pearls....

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Demand that they meet their burden of proof in their accusation.

As for the Scholastic terminology, the fact that they call the uncreated created renders it oxymoronic, and maybe not even oxi-.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like.

Energies aren't accidents.

Never said they were.  ;D

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[J Michael]

Here we go...again ;D

 

[ialmisry]

Here we go...again ;D

Does a change occur in the corn there to become pop?  Or does it just remain corn.

 

[J Michael]

Here we go...again ;D

Does a change occur in the corn there to become pop?  Or does it just remain corn.

LOL!

The pop is an accident.  Unless, of course, it's on purpose. 

 

[Papist]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

A substance is a thing. Accidents are what a thing looks like/acts like.

Energies aren't accidents.

Never said they were.  ;D

Then why did you bring it up?

Just to point out that we both, Latin and Byzantine, use greek philosophical terminology to explain our faith.

 

[Papist]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

Demand that they meet their burden of proof in their accusation.

As for the Scholastic terminology, the fact that they call the uncreated created renders it oxymoronic, and maybe not even oxi-.

In the Summa theologiae, St. Thomas makes it clear that only the Divine can deify. So when he speaks of "created grace," he must be speaking of the state of being in God's grace, and not the nature of sanctifying grace itself.

 

[bergschlawiner]

Orthodox - like Roman Catholics - believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, while simply refusing to speak about this mystery of faith using Aristotelian metaphysical categories. 

Nevertheless, as far as the doctrine of the Eucharist is concerned, East and West share a common faith in Christ's real presence, and that is what should be emphasized in ecumenical discourse.

What an excellent response!  Free of all the symantics that are meaningless to the simple believers who grew up with this firm belief.  Thanks.

 

[Frederic]

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Protestants like to quote this passage from pope Gelasius I's Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium:

« Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

Certe sacramenta, quæ sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. »

I would like to have the entire text, but I do not know where to find it. It is said to be in the supplements of the Migne edition, but the library where I can find the Migne volumes do not have the supplements. The reference is: Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: éditions Garnier Frères, 1964).

The debate is heated between Roman Catholics and Protestants because the text, being a tractatus, looks like an ex cathedra statement.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

 

[ialmisry]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

No.  The divine energies are co-eternal.

 

[akimori makoto]

I believe some of the Church Fathers hold to some form of Consubstantion. I'll see if I can find some sources for you.

Protestants like to quote this passage from pope Gelasius I's Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium:

« Surely the sacrament we take of the Lord´s body and blood is a divine thing, on account of which, and by the same we are made partakers of the divine nature; and yet the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And certainly the image and similitude of Christ´s body and blood are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.

Certe sacramenta, quæ sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ; et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. »

I would like to have the entire text, but I do not know where to find it. It is said to be in the supplements of the Migne edition, but the library where I can find the Migne volumes do not have the supplements. The reference is: Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina, Tractatus de duabus naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14, PL Supplementum III, Part 2:733 (Paris: éditions Garnier Frères, 1964).

The debate is heated between Roman Catholics and Protestants because the text, being a tractatus, looks like an ex cathedra statement.

Even though the quote doesn't make a case for transubstantiation or a transubstantiation-like understanding of the holy mystery, it certainly does not assist the memorialists, amongst whom we must fairly count so many protestants.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

No.  The divine energies are co-eternal.

Surely you should know that the term prior in philosophy does not always have temporal implications.

 

[Apotheoun]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

After post-Schism intellectual romps of Thomas Aquinas and his almost mathematical approach to theology, many Latin fathers began to ask in the mechanical sense, "If the Eucharist is truly and substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, why does it look, taste, and feel as ordinary Bread and Wine?"

Transubstantiation is an almost scientific explanation of what Lutheran's later called the Real Presence to simplify the debate.  In Orthodox we simply let it remain a Mystery, which only God can Himself explain in the experiential sense.  The Latins, they have always have a bit more on a intellectual bone to pick, which in my opinion is in part how we got the Leo's Tome situation in the first place all those centuries ago. Latin fathers develops algorithms of sorts to define how this process works.  How can the Bread and Wine become the Flesh and Blood and yet remain Bread and Wine? At an atomic level, does the Eucharist remain chemically bread and wine? Why does it not turn into the same chemistry as human flesh and blood to which we are all quite familiar? The Latin Fathers had these same kinds of discussions previously about the ideas of the Holy Trinity sharing the same Essence.  The problem is that simply put, these matters are beyond any kind of scientific explanation.  Yes the Offering becomes the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in a living and glorious manner,  however we can't understand why it remains in the appearance of ordinary Bread and Wine.  Why can we spill the Communion? Why can we scoff the Communion? Why can we eat it as ordinary breakfast? Why does it taste like Bread and Wine, and not salty and metallic like blood?  These are questions better not asked in the Orthodox approach. 

The Latin answer to the question is the complex theology of the Transubstantiation, the Orthodox approach became the Energies/Essence distinction of Palamas theology which is equally complicated but in the opposite direction.  One is hyper-intellectual, the other is hyper-spiritual.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

 

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I don't mind catching fame on OC.net but could y'all kindly stop repeating my quote so much in y'all's further discussion please? It is a tangent from what I was talking about and its been like a dozen times repeated now.. olice:

stay blessed,
habte selassie

 

[Cavaradossi]

I defy anyone to define essence and energies accurately without employing scholastic/ philosophical/ intellectual constructs.  If you manage not to use such constructs then you have described essence and energies and not defined them.

M.

The infinite defies definition.

Essence is God as He knows Himself, energies how creation knows Him.

I see.  The same thing as the west means by "created grace"...

On another note:  Palamas has often been accused of totally separating the essence from the energies.  How, besides saying that is not true, can one defend against this idea.

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are prior to the other. Perhaps prior was the wrong choice of words, but there seems to be a definite relationship between essence and energy, insofar as energy is the natural movement of essence (or however St. John of Damascus phrased that).

 

[Apotheoun]

I was always under the impression that essence is prior to energy.

I would say that hypostasis has a priority over, but is not logically prior to, essence and energy.  Hypostasis, essence, and energy are all co-eternal and pre-eternal.

In the sense of logical priority, I would think that none of these are logically prior to the other.

There can be no essence without energy.  The two terms are coordinate.  I would give priority to hypostasis (subsistence), for to do anything else risks falling into pagan essentialism.