Tbh though, I wish I had a text PDF of this. The energy-essence distinction is everywhere--all over the letter

I have another spot in the council though too

And now, what is the fragment there that is supposedly rejected by catholicism?

That is just talking about how Christ is fully God and fully human

The energy-essence distinction is right in there

"activities" is "energeias"

you can call it however you want

?

I can call it what it is

And nothing else

I will only call it the energy-essence distinction because that is what it is

No more, no less.

It says that Christ does things according to divine nature, and according to huan nature

Did you not read the parts about energy and activities and their distinction?

That is the context, that all activities, no matter form what nature, come form Christ

It's an opposition to nestorians

Nestorians?

Do you know anything about the sixth council?

he even cites "the foul effluence of Nestorius" right in the text you gave me

Because itis a christological profession

Yeah, but he overall section is against Monothelitists. That's the point of the chapter

Sure, it's against Nestorians too, but generally speaking against Monothelitists

Give 11 a thorough read. He's so clear about the energy-essence distinction

I don't really see anything special in that text, and truly nothing that goes against anything in catholicism. God has two natures , and even though Christ's activities may belong to one or other nature, they are both of Christ

"The difference of the essence is always understood from the difference of the activities."

That is what I already have summarised

That's literally the energy-essence distinction

Which you so firmly argue against

Oh yes, is it some dogma of cahtolicism, for example, that Christ has no activities?

Because that is what would go against that

More properly, I mean that when you read the whole letter, it is clear that he is basing his entire argument against the Monothelitists on the grounds of the energy-essence distinction

And the fact that it is affirmed at Constantinople III means it is dogmatic

I have a question for everyone

What do you think of Theozoology?

I think you are trying too hard to see what isn't there

The text just mentions how even though Christ has two natures, with activities that are characteristic of both, it can't be said that there are two Christs, or that some activities don't belong to Christ

That is why, aftter the very sentence you quoted, it says

etc etc

I'm not attempting to say there are two christs

I'm trying to show you that the energy-essence distinction is all throughout the letter