Energeia in the context of "Monoenergism"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Energeia in the context of "Monoenergism"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Energeia

In philosophy, potentiality and actuality are a pair of closely connected principles which Aristotle used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and On the Soul.

The concept of potentiality, in this context, generally refers to any "possibility" that a thing can be said to have. Aristotle did not consider all possibilities the same, and emphasized the importance of those that become real of their own accord when conditions are right and nothing stops them. Actuality, in contrast to potentiality, is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or fulfillment of a possibility, when a possibility becomes real in the fullest sense. Both these concepts therefore reflect Aristotle's belief that events in nature are not all natural in a true sense. As he saw it, many things happen accidentally, and therefore not according to the natural purposes of things.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Energeia in the context of Monoenergism

Monoenergism (Greek: μονοενεργητισμός) was a notion in early medieval Christian theology, representing the belief that Christ had only one "energy" (energeia). The teaching of one energy was propagated during the first half of the seventh century by Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople. Opposition to dyoenergism, its counterpart, would persist until Dyoenergism was espoused as Orthodoxy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council and monoenergism was rejected as heresy.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Energeia in the context of Monothelitism

Monothelitism, or monotheletism, is a theological doctrine in Christianity that was proposed in the 7th century, but was ultimately rejected by the sixth ecumenical council. It held Christ as having only one will and was thus contrary to dyothelitism, the Christological doctrine accepted by most Christian denominations, which holds Christ as having two wills (divine and human). Historically, monothelitism was closely related to monoenergism, a theological doctrine that holds Jesus Christ as having only one energy. Both doctrines were at the center of Christological disputes during the 7th century.

Monothelitism is from Greek: μονοθελητισμός, romanizedmonothelētismós, lit.'doctrine of one will'. Theological notions related to the oneness of Christ's will emerged as a result of some earlier Christological controversies that were related to monophysitism as formulated by Eutyches (d. 456) and miaphysitism as formulated by non-Chalcedonian followers of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). Since the notion of Christ's one nature implied the oneness of his will, ecclesiastical and political elites of the Eastern Roman Empire tried during the 7th century to promote monothelitism as a unifying doctrine that would reconcile divided Christian factions. In spite of strong imperial support, those attempts failed, and monothelitism was consequently rejected and denounced as heresy in 680–681 at the Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth ecumenical council.

↑ Return to Menu

Energeia in the context of Dyoenergism

Dyoenergism (from Greek δυοενεργητισμός "two energies") is a Christological doctrine that teaches the existence of two energies—divine and human—in the person of Jesus Christ. Specifically, dyoenergism correlates the distinctiveness of two energies with the existence of two distinct natures (divine and human) in the person of Jesus Christ, the position known as dyophysitism.

↑ Return to Menu

Energeia in the context of Energies of God

In Eastern Orthodox (Palamite) theology, there is a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God. It was formulated by Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) as part of his defense of the Athonite monastic practice of Hesychasm against the charge of heresy brought by the humanist scholar and theologian Barlaam of Calabria.

Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as a real distinction, and not just a conceptual distinction. Historically, Western Christian thought, since the time of the Great Schism, has tended to reject the essence–energies distinction as real in the case of God, characterizing the view as a heretical introduction of an unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism.

↑ Return to Menu