created/uncreated grace

[Maryslittleflower]

Here's what my impression was..

14th Century: Gregory Palamas and Barlaam

Barlaam: argued that God’s Essence and Energies are distinct, so: we can’t have a direct experience of God.

Gregory Palamas: argued that they are distinct but both Divine, so we can experience God through His Energies, but not Essence.

Barlaam: said this would make two Gods.

Gregory Palamas: said Church Tradition teaches we can participate in God’s nature.

MEANWHILE... IN THE WEST..

This discussion never came up. Latin theologians wrote about it from a different angle:

LATIN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY:

- We CAN participate in God’s nature and directly experience Him. (so not like Barlaam is claimed to have said). However, this happens through created grace for us.

- God is one and simple.. Fr Garrigou Lagrange, O.P. wrote about the distinction of God’s essence and operations/attributes (Latin word for "energies") in this way:

"There is a minor virtual distinction between the divine attributes and God's essence, between the divine attributes, and likewise between the divine persons and the essence. St. Thomas uses simpler terminology, saying that God's essence is distinct from the attributes and the divine Persons "not really but logically." (41) He is speaking of the logical distinction that is founded on reality, which subsequently is commonly called virtual; and this calls for an explanation." The One God - A Commentary on the First Part of St Thomas' Theological Summa - R. Garrigou-Lagrange,O.P. - Complete book online

- explanation: there were several theories: a) nominalism: that there’s ONLY a mental distinction (not based on reality) b) Scotus’ idea: that there’s an actual and formal distinction.

- Fr Garrigou Lagrange critiques theory a) because it makes everything identical, and critiques theory b) because it goes against God’s absolute simplicity.

- He gives a THIRD theory which is the ACCEPTED one by Scholastic Theologians: idea of St Thomas Aquinas: c) there’s a minor virtual distinction founded on reality between God’s Essence and Attributes. It solves the problems with a) and b) in this way:

- "The virtual distinction is a distinction founded on reality, which means, contrary to Scotus' theory, that it is non-existent previous to the mind's consideration, and it does not destroy God's absolute simplicity. Against the nominalists and agnostics, however, it is said to be "founded on reality," since the different absolute perfections found in creatures are equivalently expressed in the eminence of the Deity."

- Divine Energy is like the operation of God’s Essence

- So how can we know God’s Essence? Beatific Vision: is the way souls experience God in Heaven. It’s a direct intellectual vision of Him. It happens in the following ways:

- "knowing is different from comprehending". We can know God without fully comprehending Him.

- We don’t become God in our nature by this union with Him.

- To summarize: we experience the action of the Divine Essence without fully comprehending it

DIFFICULTIES:

- The East had difficulties with the Latin view because:

- For Latins, there’s "partial sharing" in God’s Essence. We can participate in His Essence without changing OUR essence. (so: we remain human). But for the East, they don’t have this idea.. for them, sharing is sharing fully. So when the West said "we can participate in God’s essence", the East thought that Latin theologians believe in becoming God! (but they don’t).

- The reason the Latin theologians believe in "partial sharing" is because "essential properties" can be shared without the essence itself changing. In the East, "essence" is defined as "pure essence" without any properties, - in the East, "essential properties" are included in "energies" instead. But in the West, "essential properties" are included in the definition of "essence", which is more broad than in the East.

- Barlaam used the term "created Grace" to illustrate his view that we can’t participate in God’s uncreated nature at all. (I don’t know if this is what he meant though, for sure, it would take more research). Eastern Orthodox sometimes MIGHT say that Catholics believe the same as Barlaam.. Catholics DO use the term "created Grace" too, but we believe that there is uncreated grace:

- Grace itself is uncreated (aka God's love, which is not distinct from His Essence)

- But the instance of grace is created

- So that is called "created Grace".. but the meaning is different. It does not mean that grace ITSELF is created... but the occasion in which we experience it.

- In that way we DO believe that we can share in God’s nature, because He is truly there in His Essence, but we don't unite ourselves to Him in a substantial, rather in an accidental way (to prevent us from becoming God in actuality).


However, I'm still trying to find out if this is an accurate picture..

the question about Barlaam is if he was talking about the substance of grace being created (this is NOT what we believe), or if he was talking about the idea that our only way to experience grace is through created grace (which is what we believe). That is a big distinction. If he meant the latter, his view would be Catholic. If he meant the former, not really, because we believe we can truly be in contact with God because we believe His uncreated grace is not distinct from His Essence, and that the substance of grace is uncreated, even if our participation and instance of grace is created. I don't quite know what Barlaam meant and this summary is based on ONE historical interpretation. It could be incorrect on him.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

well, the problem here is that the earliest Fathers had our view. check out the writings against the Eunomeans. and just like when talking about God, distinguishing between Person and essence does not add to God, since it is only a distinction being made, and not a separation. same is true with the energy and essence distinction.

I think it's difficult to figure out all of this because of how language is used as well. For example, the Greek word for "proceeds" (in the Filioque) implies an ultimate origin of something. The Latin word is more general and can mean "flowing forth" too. We define "proceed" differently. I don't know if there is a difference in how we understand "distinction". The distinction between Persons in the West is based on their relations, which is where we get "persons" at all, if I understand correctly. They are distinctions of relations, not of substance. I don't know how the East understand what a distinction IS. When Orthodox talk about the Essence and Energies being distinct, Latins understand that as a formal distinction, which for us would be problematic, as if there are parts that compose something. Our whole point is that God doesn't have "parts", and the Divine Persons are not "parts".

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think I understand what you are trying to say... I guess for Catholics it's that - the uncreated (not distinct from God's Essence) can be experienced by us but in a created way... so it is truly God but our perception is created.

and for us, going back to St John's Gospel, it is experienced in an uncreated way. human eyes beheld the uncreated light as the uncreated light on Mt Tabor.

and Barlaam became bishop of Gerace under Rome.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think it's difficult to figure out all of this because of how language is used as well. For example, the Greek word for "proceeds" (in the Filioque) implies an ultimate origin of something. The Latin word is more general and can mean "flowing forth" too. We define "proceed" differently. I don't know if there is a difference in how we understand "distinction". The distinction between Persons in the West is based on their relations, which is where we get "persons" at all, if I understand correctly. They are distinctions of relations, not of substance. I don't know how the East understand what a distinction IS. When Orthodox talk about the Essence and Energies being distinct, Latins understand that as a formal distinction, which for us would be problematic, as if there are parts that compose something. Our whole point is that God doesn't have "parts", and the Divine Persons are not "parts".

well, it was never Latin terms that became problematic, but their understanding. because during these controversies, Palamas argued over and over that distinction between essence and energy is not based on "parts." and for us, going back to the Cappadocians, we cannot define what distinguishes the Three Persons, only to say they are distinct somehow.

 

[~Anastasia~]

well, the problem here is that the earliest Fathers had our view. check out the writings against the Eunomeans. and just like when talking about God, distinguishing between Person and essence does not add to God, since it is only a distinction being made, and not a separation. same is true with the energy and essence distinction.

I'm taking this in very small bites, but I see you say one thing I was almost sure of. We speak of Essence and Energies, but these are not "parts" that God is separated into. I don't think I have ever asked that precise question, but I would have been shocked if you'd said otherwise. Thank you.

ETA and in reading further, I see that's exactly what you affirm, via Palamas.

I was afraid he was over my head and gave not read him really.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

If Palamas didn't speak of it in terms of parts, that is good, and I was told on another forum that it seems like he's not officially condemned. The only way his views were opposed is because it sounded like he was speaking of God being composed of parts. I wouldn't say this means that Catholic theology is wrong in its points.

By the way, St John of the Cross seems to speak about union with God in a similar way as theosis but in a Latin context. For example, we don't believe that our union with God is simply an agreement of wills and nothing more, or that we don't actually know God, because any Catholic source like the Catechism talks about our sharing in God's life. It goes back to how we believe in infused not merely imputed grace as the Protestants do. If Barlaam said anything like that, that we don't know God truly, he didn't say the Catholic teaching in that way. However I don't know if he meant that or if that's how his opponents understood him. The issue with Gregory Palamas, Barlaam, what they meant and what the Catholic Church thinks of Palamas now, I leave that to the Church. The issue for us is simplicity of God.

But neither do we believe that because of created grace, we don't truly know God Himself. I am still trying to figure out how that fits together since theology is complicated, but I've read many times about us sharing in God's life which for us is not distinct from His Essence. By the way, we do believe in a "minor virtual distinction" between Essence and Energies. It is not just a symbolic distinction only in our minds without any reality. Fr Garrigou Lagrange talked about that I think. If Orthodox agree that there's no formal distinction, then our views wouldn't be so different perhaps, but the reason this hasn't happened is unknown to me. If you don't actually believe in a formal distinction, maybe this wasn't said because your theology is different and you don't speak of these varied types of distinctions. A lot of this could be the background ideas and understanding. I leave it to the Church to figure out hopefully in the future when the Schism would heal - possibly through a Council. I don't know enough about Gregory Palamas or official Catholic views of him today. My main point here is i think clarifying what we don't believe as Catholics.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and most of this is all well and good, but you still run into the problem of grace was never seen as created in any way until the Medieval West. so it is not enough to say created and uncreated grace, as grace is only uncreated. and as to an earlier point, we don't experience created after effects of the other uncreated, we experience the uncreated as well uncreated.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This came up in another topic and it was suggested a separate thread be started here..

I just thought to clarify the Catholic position about whether grace is created or not. I think this definition is pretty accurate:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ's humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God's own life. all three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

From what I understand, sometimes it's mentioned by people that Catholics believe in "created grace".. but I don't think it really means what is often assumed. We don't believe that the grace itself - the gift itself - is created, but the occasion, the act of the grace in the creature.

There's a long article here:
Grace: Chapter One

Here's a relevant excerpt:
MEANINGS OF THE WORD “GRACE”

The various meanings are indicated by St. Thomas (Ia Iae, q. 110, a. 1), but it is fitting that we say something of them at the beginning so that the connection may be apparent between the present question and the questions relating to God’s love for us.

First, there are of course three acceptations of this word “grace” even used in human affairs. For grace (χάρις) originally refers to something, which is not due or is freely bestowed; this meaning is very common in both profane and biblical writings. Hence even in purely human matters the term “grace” has a threefold application, as follows:

1. The love of benevolence conferring a gift, which is not due; for example, we say: This soldier has the grace of the king.

2. The gift itself freely bestowed; thus we say: I grant you this grace.

3. Gratitude for a benefit received; thus: I render you thanks for your benefits.1

Moreover, these three significations may be transferred to the supernatural order, whereupon the word grace applies to the following.

1. The love of benevolence on the part of God, conferring supernatural, life. This love of God is uncreated grace.

2. The supernatural gift of grace itself freely bestowed and ordained to eternal life; this is created grace, of which we are now treating, whether it is interior or exterior, such as the preaching of the gospel.

3. Our gratitude to God.

Between the human and the supernatural meanings of the word “grace” there lies a great difference which is principally based upon the fact that God’s love of benevolence for us, as stated in Ia, q. 20, a. 2, infuses and creates goodness in things, whereas the love of benevolence of one man for another presupposes something lovable in that other. But “God’s love for the creature is twofold, the common love whereby natural being is bestowed on created things, and the other special love by which God raises the rational creature above the state of nature unto a participation in the divine good. Thus grace is the effect of the love of God in us and signifies the supernatural gift freely granted by God to an intellectual creature ordained to eternal life (Ia IIae, q. 110, a. 1).

Thus the whole treatise on grace in the Summa theologica of St. Thomas depends upon the treatise on the love of God (Ia, q. 20), in which are expressed and explained two supreme principles which throw a light from above upon all the articles of the treatise on grace and virtually contain them.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is purgatory still a thing in the RCC? I thought they got rid of that...

Purgatory is a doctrine. Will not and cannot be gotten rid of. We do have a better understanding of what Purgatory is-it's a place of penance and purification before entering heaven. With a combination of prayer, penance and giving alms, you can lessen your culpability for the punishment attached to sin. But you can't buy your way out of purgatory by saying a bunch of hail marys, etc. Sort of like writing I'm Sorry 1000 times on a blackboard doesn't mean you're really sorry.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe I was thinking of "limbo"?

Limbo was a concept but never a dogma or doctrine. We don't believe innocent children go to limbo anymore. We believe they go to heaven.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I cant keep up with all their dogmatic inventions. Was limbo actual RCC dogma at some point?

Well, sorry, that wasn't dogmatic or doctrine. All of those are tied to Scripture.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Well, sorry, that wasn't dogmatic or doctrine. All of those are tied to Scripture.

Where?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Purgatory is a doctrine. Will not and cannot be gotten rid of. We do have a better understanding of what Purgatory is-it's a place of penance and purification before entering heaven. With a combination of prayer, penance and giving alms, you can lessen your culpability for the punishment attached to sin. But you can't buy your way out of purgatory by saying a bunch of hail marys, etc. Sort of like writing I'm Sorry 1000 times on a blackboard doesn't mean you're really sorry.

I don't believe it whatsoever. It sounds made up. Is there no last judgement in RCC doctrine?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

and most of this is all well and good, but you still run into the problem of grace was never seen as created in any way until the Medieval West. so it is not enough to say created and uncreated grace, as grace is only uncreated. and as to an earlier point, we don't experience created after effects of the other uncreated, we experience the uncreated as well uncreated.

If the idea of created grace wasn't present in the early Church, personally I don't see that as a problem because the early Church maybe didn't deal with questions like these, from this particular perspective. The Catholic Church still teaches that grace itself in its substance is uncreated. Maybe that's the only angle that the early Church saw it from. Later, when questions arose about how grace works in us, and instances of grace, and substance/accidents, theology became more complicated and the Catholic Church explained this particular point as created grace. That's just my guess..

 

[Maryslittleflower]

I don't believe it whatsoever. It sounds made up. Is there no last judgement in RCC doctrine?

There is a last Judgement, and that's not opposed to Purgatory in any way.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Here's something from Catholic Encyclopedia from the article on "Sanctifying Grace"

"The crowning point of justification is found in the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the perfection and the supreme adornment of the justified soul. Adequately considered, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of a twofold grace, the created accidental grace (gratia creata accidentalis) and the uncreated substantial grace (gratia increata substantialis). The former is the basis and the indispensable assumption for the latter; for where God Himself erects His throne, there must be found a fitting and becoming adornment. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the soul must not be confounded with God's presence in all created things, by virtue of the Divine attribute of Omnipresence. The personal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul rests so securely upon the teaching of Holy Writ and of the Fathers that to deny it would constitute a grave error. In fact, St. Paul (Romans 5:5) says: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us". In this passage the Apostle distinguishes clearly between the accidental grace of theological charity and the Person of the Giver. From this it follows that the Holy Spirit has been given to us, and dwells within us (Romans 8:11), so that we really become temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 3:16 sq.; 6:19). Among all the Fathers of the Church (excepting, perhaps, St. Augustine) it is the Greeks who are more especially noteworthy for their rapturous utterances touching the infusion of the Holy Ghost. Note the expressions: "The replenishing of the soul with balsamic odours", "a glow permeating the soul", "a gilding and refining of the soul". Against the Pneumatomachians they strive to prove the real Divinity of the Holy Spirit from His indwelling, maintaining that only God can establish Himself in the soul; surely no creature can inhabit any other creatures. But clear and undeniable as the fact of the indwelling is, equally difficult and perplexing is it in degree to explain the method and manner (modus) of this indwelling.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the idea of created grace wasn't present in the early Church, personally I don't see that as a problem because the early Church maybe didn't deal with questions like these, from this particular perspective. The Catholic Church still teaches that grace itself in its substance is uncreated. Maybe that's the only angle that the early Church saw it from. Later, when questions arose about how grace works in us, and instances of grace, and substance/accidents, theology became more complicated and the Catholic Church explained this particular point as created grace. That's just my guess..

while true, every time the Church has had to articulate something more clearly, they always went to the beginning. so there should be some early form of created grace.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

while true, every time the Church has had to articulate something more clearly, they always went to the beginning. so there should be some early form of created grace.

I guess what im saying is what if that's a theological idea that fits a specifically Western theological perspective? It seems like sometimes the East and the West come to a topic from very different angles. The East seems concerned with the ultimate eternal reality.. Both in this and in the Filioque, in my opinion. Some Eastern Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son but mostly they spoke of am ultimate cause, and the West was concerned with a different question, and looked at the relations between the Persons as defining them. The Filioque is a separate topic but it seems at times like there can be a different emphasis. Maybe the West was concerned with the substance and accident question and what happens when grace is received, while the East concentrated on a different point. I don't know perhaps the logic of created grace is found earlier but with different words maybe. For example, just the idea of an instance of grace being in time. The Thomists elaborated on that point. Just guessing again

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess what im saying is what if that's a theological idea that fits a specifically Western theological perspective? It seems like sometimes the East and the West come to a topic from very different angles. The East seems concerned with the ultimate eternal reality.. Both in this and in the Filioque, in my opinion. Some Eastern Fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit proceeding through the Son but mostly they spoke of am ultimate cause, and the West was concerned with a different question, and looked at the relations between the Persons as defining them. The Filioque is a separate topic but it seems at times like there can be a different emphasis. Maybe the West was concerned with the substance and accident question and what happens when grace is received, while the East concentrated on a different point. I don't know perhaps the logic of created grace is found earlier but with different words maybe. For example, just the idea of an instance of grace being in time. The Thomists elaborated on that point. Just guessing again

but the whole issue when Palamas debated Barlaam was the idea that grace could be uncreated. but even to your other point, we do not believe man communes through his created reaction to the uncreated, but with the uncreated as uncreated. this is not the same as a different Western approach to proper theology.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

but the whole issue when Palamas debated Barlaam was the idea that grace could be uncreated. but even to your other point, we do not believe man communes through his created reaction to the uncreated, but with the uncreated as uncreated. this is not the same as a different Western approach to proper theology.

From what i read it seems like Barlaam was told his view means we can't truly know God... If he said this, his view wasn't Catholic fully. If he didn't, he was misunderstood . . As we do teach we truly know God Himself, not just a creature (created grace).

Everything I've read from solid Catholic sources shows we do believe in the substance of grace being Uncreated.. . If Barlaam didn't agree with this he would disagree with Catholics too

But the issue of grace being only uncreated or created and uncreated... that is an ongoing debate today

How do we receive the Uncreated in an uncreated way? I'm having trouble understanding that...