Eastern Orthodoxy teaches [the essence–energies distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence%E2%80%93energies_distinction) of God. Wikipedia quotes catholic-church.org's explanation: > The Ultimate Reality and Meaning of the Palamite theology consists of the distinction between God’s Essence and Energy. This is a way of expressing the idea that the transcendent God remains eternally hidden in His Essence, but at the same time that God also seeks to communicate and The Distinction between God’s Essence and Energy unite Himself with us personally through His Energy. This sounds very similar to how theologians since Athanasius have spoken of the difference between the ontological (or immanent) and the economic views of the Trinity. [R. C. Sproul explains](https://www.ligonier.org/blog/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity/) : > Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption. But while Catholics and Protestants generally accept the ontological/economic views of God, they regard the essence–energies distinction as problematic or even heretical. So what is the difference between these views, and why would many Western theologians consider the essence–energies distinction to be heresy?

The Orthodox YouTuber Jay Dyer has peaked my interest by asserting that the Catholic view of God's essence as absolutely simple is heretical. And that the Catholic view of God's essence in relation to his energies negates theosis in the here and now and reserves it for Heaven. Funny enough, another YouTuber called VaticanCatholic , who is mostly Catholic in his theology except that he's a sedevacantist schismatic, affirmed that the Orthodox view of God leads to polytheism because of the Orthodox distinction between God's essence and energies being too minor. **My Question** is really how the Catholic and Orthodox view of God, **both in his transcendance and in his interactions with what is external to him,** are different from one another; and potentially what kind of consequences those differences may have provoked in each respective church tradition, that is, practices and doctrines. **And lastly,** I would like to know whether Mainline Protestants, those of the Reformation like Calvinists and Lutherans, would agree more with the Catholic view of God or the Orthodox view of God; ontologically speaking of course. **Keeping in mind that both Catholics and Orthodox, and even many Protestants hold to the peculiar doctrine of theosis :** > “He came to this world and became a man in order to spread to other > men the kind of life He has – by what I call ‘good infection.’ Every > Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming > a Christian is simply nothing else” > > [...] > > “The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command > to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can > obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were ‘gods’ and He > is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent > Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into > a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all > through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now > imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God > perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless > power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts > very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant > what He said.” > > [...] > > “turning you permanently into a different sort of thing; into a new > little Christ, a being which, in its own way, has the same kind of > life as God; which shares in His power, joy, knowledge and eternity” > > **☩ CS Lewis, Mere Christianity** > **[PROTESTANT, ANGLICAN]**​ > > Commentary on Ephesians (3:20) The human mind and will could never > imagine, understand or ask that God become man, and that man become > God and a sharer in the divine nature. But he has done this in us by > his power, and it was accomplished in the Incarnation of his Son. > > Commentary on John (15:9) The Son did not love the disciples in either > of these ways. For he did not love them to the point of their being > gods by nature, nor to the point that they would be united to God so > as to form one person with him. But he did love them up to a similar > point: he loved them to the extent that they would be gods by their > participation in grace--"I say, 'You are gods'" (Ps 82:6). > > > Summa Theologiae (I-II, q. 112, a. 1) Nothing can act beyond its > species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. > Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, > since it is nothing short of a partaking of the divine nature, which > exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any > creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone > should deify, bestowing a partaking of the divine nature by a > participated likeness as it is impossible that anything save fire > should enkindle. > > **☩ St. Thomas Aquinas the Angelic Doctor, Summa and diverse commentaries** > **[CATHOLIC]** > > “When God revealed himself, he united himself with our mortal nature > in order to deify humanity through this close relation with deity. > Since this is so, through his flesh, constituted by bread and wine, he > implants himself in all believers.” > > **☩ St. Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration** > **[ORTHODOX/CATHOLIC]**