Uncreated grace...?

[Ignatius21]

So, who can explain the deal with the disagreement over uncreated vs. created grace? Obviously it's a huge split in theology between East and West, and it's something I've never heard mentioned except by Orthodox. I haven't met a Protestant or Catholic yet, on a local level anyway, who understands it, or doesn't just kind of brush it aside as an unproductive exercise in philosophy. I just read an article explaining why union between East and West (Rome) is impossible so long as Rome insists on "created grace" because "uncreated grace" itself is the very basis for union between the Church and Christ, and among all the members of the Church. The best I can come up with is this...please correct me if I'm wrong:

The East sees "grace" as the presence of God himself. Because God is uncreated, his grace (which is one of his "energies"???) is also uncreated. So when a human being encounters grace, he/she encounters the divine Trinity itself--not in its essense, but in its "working" or its energies. So whenever a member of the Body communes through the sacraments, he/she receives a direct encounter with the divine, which (given faithfulness and willing cooperation and repentance on the part of the recipient) actually "deifies" the person. After all, we can't encounter God and come away unchanged.

The West sees "grace" as something created by God as a sort of intermediary between God and Man. It isn't a "creature" in a human sense, but it isn't strictly divine because it was created (so presumably there was a time when grace was not?). So when a member communes through the sacraments, he/she encounters not God, but a sort of substance that flows from God to him via the hierarchy of the Church. Over time and especially in the middle ages, this grace became increasingly associated with merit, i.e. indulgences, treasuries of merit, etc. where amounts of merit are given to counter-balance temporal punishment, etc.

Is that close? If so, the fundamental difference would indeed be huge. In one, you can actually commune with the divine in an immediate and transformational way. In the other, there's always a sort of wall between you and the divine. And, since grace is a substance, it makes more sense why the Church could be seen as the agency that stores and dispenses it--so the Pope could withhold sanctifying grace from entire populations by excommunicating kings, and the like. I digress.

Anyway, the article I read is here: http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2010/06/function-of-unity-of-church-and.html It links to the full speech at another site...not an easy read but an interesting one. Some key passages are:

Without the distinction of an ontological nature between the uncreated essence and the uncreated energies of the Triune God, the unity of the Church itself remains in practice essentially incomprehensible, but also theologically unsubstantial - as much as on an institutional as on experiential-charismatic level. The above distinction, which is a result of the charismatic and empirical nature of Orthodox theology, comprises the spiritual "key" of understanding the nature of the unity of the Church. For this reason, this distinction will be a necessary presupposition in the treatment of our topic; penetrating it and conceptually determining our so-called points.

...

the heterodox - Roman-Catholics and Protestants - who in no way comprise Churches but religious communities with an ecclesiastical name, having changed the Apostolic faith of the Church in the Triune God through the Filioque and basically not making the distinction between the uncreated essence and uncreated energy in God, set forth an impossible unity (of an ontological and charismatic nature) with the Triune God and with us in Christ.

...

The Roman-Catholics themselves assure us with their dogmatic teaching about created grace, that they are empirically devoid of the experience in the Holy Spirit of the Church and of the theanthropic nature of its unity in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the existing presuppositions it is completely theologically unwise and pointless for unity of an ecclesiastical nature to be attempted with them.

...

Then this unity does not actually include the Triune God, since the Roman-Catholics, with whom they are trying to unite, continue to dogmatically deny the uncreated nature of divine grace, which being divine ontologically bridges the chasm between the uncreated Triune God and created man. Thus, holy communion between the uncreated God and created man is basically done away with.

Thoughts? Not trying to debate issues of ecumenism, but rather to understand this distinction between created/uncreated grace, its significance, and why only the East seems to consider it important.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks for the link !!!

These might help, too:
This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis: Dr. John Romanides on "The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch"

sample :

Following the Augustinian tradition of the West, Barlaam took it for granted and passionately argued that the glory of God revealed in this life to the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles was a created glory, and that in each separate case of revelation this glory came into existence and passed out of existence, being of only a short duration. Having been theologically formed by such works as Augustine's De Trinitate, [ 28 ] the Calabrian knew quite well that it was not the uncreated Divinity itself which was revealed in the Old and New Testaments, but temporarily-existing creatures which symbolized divinity, and thereby elevated the minds of those who were the objects of revelation to various levels of the comprehension of ultimate truth. Only later in his life did St. Augustine make what became the classical Latin exception of an ecstatic vision of the divine essence in this life in the cases of Moses and St. Paul.

from here:
NOTES ON THE PALAMITE CONTROVERSY and RELATED TOPICS Part-1
link page fro more (as iirc, Romanides deals with this in other essays)
THE ROMANS Ancient, Medieval and Modern

Sorry for my failure to be concise !
And I don't know that this will help ...

 

[GreekGrl]

I asked a Roman catholic friend of mine who is a Roman Catholic Apologist. he said "created grace" is a protastant thing and not a Roman Catholic expression. But maybe you should post this question over in OBOB for more RC input regarding what they believe.

 

[Sphinx777]

Grace in Christian theology is the spontaneous, unmerited gift of the divine favour in the salvation of sinners. It is understood by Christians to be the "free gift" of an uncaused and overflowing love─totally undeserved mercy. Christian orthodoxy has taught that the initiative in the relationship of grace between God and an individual is always on the side of God. Once God has reached out in this “first grace,” however, each person has the option to accept it or reject it, and a responsibility for the continuance of the relationship.

Two Hebrew words for "grace"─chen and chesed─are used in the Hebrew Bible. A prime example of grace and mercy in the Old Testament appears in Psalm 85, a prayer for restoration, for forgiveness, for the grace and mercy of God to bring about new life following the Exile. In the New Testament "grace" is the usual English translation for the Greek charis which occurs about 150 times in the New Testament. Around two-thirds of these are found in the writings that are attributed to Paul of Tarsus. The fundamental meaning in the New Testament and in subsequent theological usage is that contained in the Letter of Paul to Titus: “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people” (2:11), and in Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God's gift." Christian theologians have developed and clarified the biblical concept of grace since the time of the early church.

The concept of grace has been called "the watershed that divides Roman Catholicism from Protestantism, Calvinism from Arminianism, modern liberalism from conservatism." The Catholic Church holds that grace is bestowed in a particular way through [sacraments], while Protestantism almost universally does not. Calvinists emphasize "the utter helplessness of man apart from grace." Arminians understand the Grace of God to be cooperating with one's abilities and will. According to Christian theologian Charles C. Ryrie, Modern Liberalism "gives an exaggerated place to the abilities of man to decide his own fate and to effect his own salvation entirely apart from God’s grace." He writes that conservatism holds that God’s grace is necessary for salvation.

 

[Barky]

The main issue at stake here is Theosis. Catholics don't see salvation the way the Orthodox do. In Orthodoxy, we are to become one with God. This is Theosis. In Theosis we are one with God save identity with God. We become one with God by participating in the Energies of God. God is unknowable in is Essence, and participates with us in His Energies. Grace is one of these Energies. Through Grace, we participate in the Godhead (though Grace has always been, since God has always been) ontologically, this not an analogy or way of talking, it is a true ontological state.

Grace for the Catholics is a created thing, not of God. It is, like you say, an intermediary, but it is not God. With this, there is no way to make sense of union with God. For the Catholics the gulf between God and man is too great for union. Heaven becomes an infinite reflection on the divine without ontological union.

So, what's at stake, in essence, is union with God. Theosis has no place in Catholic theology because there is no essence/energies distinction. If grace is created, it is not of God, it is something different from God. With Grace being an uncreated energy of God, Theosis is possible.

 

[narnia59]

Not an expert, but here are some thoughts from the Catholic perspective:

1) Theosis -- while Catholics do not use that term in general, salvation is seen in terms of "partaking of the divine nature", and I am not sure from a theological perspective there is a difference between that and theosis.

2) Grace -- Catholics do not say grace is "created" but rather differentiate between created grace and uncreated grace. Uncreated grace is the life of God Himself (which I believe aligns with the Orthodox view). Hence the catechism says things like:


1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:


Another source explains it this way (although I'm not sure very well):

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.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sanctifying Grace


Another Catholic poster I found who seemed to have researched fairly thoroughly explained it more succinctly like this:

In Latin theology, when Grace is called created it doesn't refer to the substance of Grace, but the instance of Grace. So the Grace is the Divine Life Itself, but our share in it has a beginning in time, and in that sense it is called created. When it is called uncreated it refers to acts of Grace that have no beginning in time, like God's foresight and plan of Gifts.

So I think it would be incorrect to view that the Orthodox believe in uncreated grace and the Catholics in created grace. Catholics rather distinguish between created and uncreated grace, as noted in the sources above.

 

[Barky]

partaking of the divine nature takes on a different interpretation in Catholicism than it does in Orthodoxy. There is no way in which God and man are united in the ontological sense that Theosis exemplifies.

 

[Ignatius21]

From John Hardon's "Modern Catholic Dictionary":

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.

This is given as a definition of uncreated grace. His definition of "beatific vision is":

The intuitive knowledge of God which produces heavenly beatitude. As defined by the Church, the souls of the just "see the divine essence by an intuitive vision and face to face, so that the divine essence is known immediately, showing itself plainly, clearly and openly, and not immediately through any creature" (Denzinger 1000-2). Moreover, the souls of the saints "clearly behold God, one and triune, as He is" (Denzinger 1304-6). It is called vision in the mind by analogy with bodily sight, which is the most comprehensive of human sense faculties; it is called beatific because it produces happiness in the will and the whole being. As a result of this immediate vision of God, the blessed share in the divine happiness, where the beatitude of the Trinity is (humanly speaking) the consequence of God's perfect knowledge of his infinite goodness. The beatific vision is also enjoyed by the angels, and was possessed by Christ in his human nature even while he was in his mortal life on earth.

It seems that there is still some degree of rationalism (and I use that term loosely) in this "vision" of God, existing as it does in the mind of the creature. I've heard it explained elsewhere as "immediate contemplation" or something similar.

As to the matter of the first definition, it seems like he's saying that the "grace" that actually gives us a share in God's life is something uncreated, but that it is conferred upon us through created means? Created channels? Not sure what to make of the language of these graces having a beginning in time, as it immediately calls into question God's relationship to time vs. our relationship to time. Some people (Catholics and Orthodox alike) seem to think that maybe both sides are saying the same things in different language, but it seems more substantial than that.

It's extremely confusing! I don't know...seems like the sort of thing that one would accept after concluding that either Rome or Orthodoxy actually has the authority to define such things, rather than understanding the issue and then choosing Rome or Orthodoxy based on that.

 

[Ignatius21]

I asked a Roman catholic friend of mine who is a Roman Catholic Apologist. he said "created grace" is a protastant thing and not a Roman Catholic expression. But maybe you should post this question over in OBOB for more RC input regarding what they believe.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I've read a ton of Protestant theology and honestly I've never seen such an issue even addressed. The very fact that Protestants don't seem to have taken issue with Rome's definition of "created" or "uncreated" would imply that they share a common basic understanding.

They do, of course, take issue with Rome's understanding of Grace as being something that can be conferred upon a creature, or mediated through sacraments, so I would have to think that they'd take issue with Orthodoxy at that point, too. The oft-repeated definition of "grace" among Protestants is "God's unmerited favor." So Mary's being called "full of grace" means (and is always translated as) "Highly favored one." So it seems that grace, rather than being an "energy" or emanation of God himself, is rather an attitude of God, or how he "sees us." From that vantage point, the idea of grace being sacramental in any way becomes meaningless, and this is the case with all Protestantism that I'm aware of. Even those like the Reformed who have a high view (for Protestants!) of the sacraments, calling them "means of grace," still see nothing actually being transferred. Rather, when we "receive grace in the sacrament," it's more like we're subjectively experiencing God's underserved favor by which he reminds us, using physical means, that he's really saved us and included us in his covenant, which should produce feelings of gratitude and love based on our mental understanding of how much he loves us.

Still not what I'd call "union" with God in any ontological sense.

 

[Thekla]

I find the quotes you posted a bit confusing as well ... here's another try at a link that might inform a bit:
ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY a brief introduction 1-2-3

The Orthodox understanding can be found in (for example) St. Gregory of Nyssa, St Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory Palamas; perhaps someone here can direct you to more specifics (though Palamas on Barlaam may help).

This Orthodox understanding is expressed in Hesychasm - not always iirc called that early on. Hesychasm was - at least I have read - one issue that was disliked by the CC during the period of what is called the "Frankocratia" in the east. In a sense, this may point to a pre-existing "rift" in the understanding of the matter.

 

[Kristos]

So, who can explain the deal with the disagreement over uncreated vs. created grace? Obviously it's a huge split in theology between East and West, and it's something I've never heard mentioned except by Orthodox. I haven't met a Protestant or Catholic yet, on a local level anyway, who understands it, or doesn't just kind of brush it aside as an unproductive exercise in philosophy. I just read an article explaining why union between East and West (Rome) is impossible so long as Rome insists on "created grace" because "uncreated grace" itself is the very basis for union between the Church and Christ, and among all the members of the Church. The best I can come up with is this...please correct me if I'm wrong:

The East sees "grace" as the presence of God himself. Because God is uncreated, his grace (which is one of his "energies"???) is also uncreated. So when a human being encounters grace, he/she encounters the divine Trinity itself--not in its essense, but in its "working" or its energies. So whenever a member of the Body communes through the sacraments, he/she receives a direct encounter with the divine, which (given faithfulness and willing cooperation and repentance on the part of the recipient) actually "deifies" the person. After all, we can't encounter God and come away unchanged.

The West sees "grace" as something created by God as a sort of intermediary between God and Man. It isn't a "creature" in a human sense, but it isn't strictly divine because it was created (so presumably there was a time when grace was not?). So when a member communes through the sacraments, he/she encounters not God, but a sort of substance that flows from God to him via the hierarchy of the Church. Over time and especially in the middle ages, this grace became increasingly associated with merit, i.e. indulgences, treasuries of merit, etc. where amounts of merit are given to counter-balance temporal punishment, etc.

Is that close? If so, the fundamental difference would indeed be huge. In one, you can actually commune with the divine in an immediate and transformational way. In the other, there's always a sort of wall between you and the divine. And, since grace is a substance, it makes more sense why the Church could be seen as the agency that stores and dispenses it--so the Pope could withhold sanctifying grace from entire populations by excommunicating kings, and the like. I digress.

Anyway, the article I read is here: http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2010/06/function-of-unity-of-church-and.html It links to the full speech at another site...not an easy read but an interesting one. Some key passages are:



Thoughts? Not trying to debate issues of ecumenism, but rather to understand this distinction between created/uncreated grace, its significance, and why only the East seems to consider it important.

I think you pretty much got it. It is a huge split, and we (the east) see it as a big deal, and even celebrate as the 2nd triumph of Orthodoxy every year on the the Sunday of St Gregory Palamas. From what I remember, the West never did accept the councils that held up Palamas and condemned Barlaam and was a point of contention at Florence. I don't know enough about Protestant theology to comment on that with much detail, but it does seem to me that they are closer to Rome on this issue than the East.

 

[Thekla]

This may be really off the mark, but maybe to look at the difference too perhaps illustrated by a different understanding of a word, "theory". Thewrew means I look at, behold, am spectator to, etc.; thewria/ looking at, beholding, presence at, examination etc. In the New Testament, this would be echoed in the statement "what we have seen" (John) and a like statement by Peter (re: the beholding of Christ as He is, in His glory, at the Transfiguration) and other reported experiences.

But theory in the west has a different meaning:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained : Darwin's theory of evolution.
• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based : a theory of education | music theory.
• an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action : my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged.

I am pretty clueless on the meaning of "merits" in the CC, and I have also run into the concept of "merits" in Jewish teachings; I only mention this as in my understanding there seems to be a connection between "merits" and "created grace". I may be wrong, but I have the sense that the one having excess merits can likewise "dispense them". In my reading in EO elders etc., the "grace", the presence of the Holy Spirit "overflows" or "outflows" the person who is "spiritbearing" - if that makes sense. By being Christ-like, one inadvertently (in a sense) sanctifies what is also external to one ... and this sense is echoed in the blessing of the waters by Christ's presence in the Jordan at His baptism. Likewise this is demonstrated in the accounts re: especially "holy" monks, elders, Saints. One experiences a sort of beauty and calm, a presence of God around them, a simplicity, a "nakedness". As Christ teaches (somewhere ... sorry) that "the measure will be filled to overflowing".
And in turn in this manner, by being in the presence of those who "overflow the Holy Spirit" - to some extent, though not like theosis exactly, one becomes also one who "beholds, observes" - a witness - to some extent.
This is also one of the needs for us to "gather"; those who are less mature or struggling can experience the Holy Spirit in a way from those among them who (though likely unknown to us) are more Christ- like. Of course, on must have the disposition to 'receive' whatever God gives.

I know, this is really meandering, sorry !

 

[Thekla]

I also wanted to add that the understanding of "theoria" is present in the OT as well - Moses is an obvious example. Note that before 'beholding' the burning bush, he had fasted and was 'solitary'. In a similar vein, both Elias and Moses - who appeared with Christ when he was transfigured (or if you will, revealed) were both recorded as 'fasters'.

 

[MKJ]

As to the matter of the first definition, it seems like he's saying that the "grace" that actually gives us a share in God's life is something uncreated, but that it is conferred upon us through created means? Created channels? Not sure what to make of the language of these graces having a beginning in time, as it immediately calls into question God's relationship to time vs. our relationship to time. Some people (Catholics and Orthodox alike) seem to think that maybe both sides are saying the same things in different language, but it seems more substantial than that.

It sounds to me like what they are calling created grace would only be so from our point of view, not from God's. So although all grace from God's perspective would be uncreated, if it became actualized within me at a particular point in time - at my birth, or last week, say - it would be concidered to be creted for me at that particular time because it didn't exist for me before then.

It reminds me of the way that it is said that human souls do not pre-exist their bodies. So we might say the soul is created at the time the person is conceived, that the whole person is created at that moment, though from God's perspective outside of time I've always been there. But if that is what it means, it is a different way of using the word than I am used to, which is more similar to "contingent" or "not self-existant".

 

[Lukaris]

I think most of the church fathers say that this uncreated grace/energy is revealed by the Lord in His tranfiguration on Mt. Tabor as His uncreated light shone forth allowing us to participate in the uncreated energies of God Himself. Moses also experienced this in the Old Testament. All Christians know the full presence of the Father (or should I say, the Trinity?) would overwhelm us but as the Lord Jesus Christ says that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. So is this not an example of us being able to participate in grace completing its definition alongside unmerited favor? Hope this is properly Orthodox & sensibly stated.

 

[Ignatius21]

I think most of the church fathers say that this uncreated grace/energy is revealed by the Lord in His tranfiguration on Mt. Tabor as His uncreated light shone forth allowing us to participate in the uncreated energies of God Himself. Moses also experienced this in the Old Testament. All Christians know the full presence of the Father (or should I say, the Trinity?) would overwhelm us but as the Lord Jesus Christ says that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. So is this not an example of us being able to participate in grace completing its definition alongside unmerited favor? Hope this is properly Orthodox & sensibly stated.

I dunno if it's properly Orthodox but it's sensibly stated!

Moses encountered the direct and immediate presence of God in the burning bush, where the physical world was "energized" so as to convey the presence of God to a human being in a way that would not destroy him. Moses quite obviously came away very changed (just watch the movie! ) with his face shining, and all. So this seems like a lot of philosophical speculation, to ask questions like whether this energy that Moses encountered was "created" or "uncreated." It was uncreated in that it was an emanation of God himself and as such, had no beginning. Yet the light that shone from Moses' face was "created" in Moses at some point in time, yet it was the uncreated energy of God that shone from his face, right? I can see how it could be easy to say the same thing in different words and end up in a fight over it.

But over so many centuries of East and West adamantly rejecting each other's theologies of grace, down to the current time when the Orthodox will say that Rome's fundamental error is this matter of created vs. uncreated grace...well, it seems that if it's all just been a big misunderstanding, it would have been resolved a long time ago. So the difference, whatever exactly it is, must be awfully profound to have had such an effect.

 

[Lukaris]

I dunno if it's properly Orthodox but it's sensibly stated!

Moses encountered the direct and immediate presence of God in the burning bush, where the physical world was "energized" so as to convey the presence of God to a human being in a way that would not destroy him. Moses quite obviously came away very changed (just watch the movie! ) with his face shining, and all. So this seems like a lot of philosophical speculation, to ask questions like whether this energy that Moses encountered was "created" or "uncreated." It was uncreated in that it was an emanation of God himself and as such, had no beginning. Yet the light that shone from Moses' face was "created" in Moses at some point in time, yet it was the uncreated energy of God that shone from his face, right? I can see how it could be easy to say the same thing in different words and end up in a fight over it.

But over so many centuries of East and West adamantly rejecting each other's theologies of grace, down to the current time when the Orthodox will say that Rome's fundamental error is this matter of created vs. uncreated grace...well, it seems that if it's all just been a big misunderstanding, it would have been resolved a long time ago. So the difference, whatever exactly it is, must be awfully profound to have had such an effect.

The light that shone on Moses was uncreated. St. Gregory Palamas, "What do the words "and was transfigured" mean? Chrysostm the theologian said that the Lord graciously willed to open up a little of His divinity, & revealed God within Him to the initiated disciples. "AS He prayed," says Luke, "the fashion of His countenance was altered"(Luke 9:29), & as matthew writes, "His face did shine like the sun" (Matthew 17:2)....Those who behold God in divine contemplation need no other light....That is why Moses' countenace was glorified when he spoke with God. (Exodus 34:29)." On the Transfiguration I (From the Saving Work of Christ, sermons by St. Gregory Palamas, Mt Tabor publishing isbn: 978-0-9774983-5-2). I obviously parced my quotation fro St. Gregory but hope I captured its basic point. Well my break time at work is over but may check n yet.

 

[Ignatius21]

OK, so if the West (following Augustine, most seem to say) followed the path of "created grace" and the East followed the path of "uncreated grace," both from very early in history and long before the schism, then it seems that it is possible for both to exist (?) within a united church? The article that prompted my questions was adamant that this very issue is the reason why RC/EO cannot reunite so long as the RC continues to see grace as created, as this is the source of the filioque and Papal supremacy and the like. So is it just the developments since the schism that stand in the way of union, or is it the deeper issue stretching back through time? It makes me wonder. Long before the schism it seems the theologies (and politics) of East and West were way different, yet the schism wasn't formal.

It seems from dictionaries and the like that the Catholics say grace is "created" relative to man, in time, but the graces that come to men are themselves uncreated, and I obviously don't know what I"m talking about, but I guess I still don't see how it's more than a semantic difference???

And I really have to wonder whether Protestant understandings of grace are closer to Rome or to Orthodoxy--maybe neither? Seeing it simply as "unmerited favor" seems to make it almost entirely impersonal. Created/uncreated almost doesn't seem to matter. It's more like an uncreated "attitude" of God. Hmm.

 

[Barky]

OK, so if the West (following Augustine, most seem to say) followed the path of "created grace" and the East followed the path of "uncreated grace," both from very early in history and long before the schism, then it seems that it is possible for both to exist (?) within a united church? The article that prompted my questions was adamant that this very issue is the reason why RC/EO cannot reunite so long as the RC continues to see grace as created, as this is the source of the filioque and Papal supremacy and the like. So is it just the developments since the schism that stand in the way of union, or is it the deeper issue stretching back through time? It makes me wonder. Long before the schism it seems the theologies (and politics) of East and West were way different, yet the schism wasn't formal.

It seems from dictionaries and the like that the Catholics say grace is "created" relative to man, in time, but the graces that come to men are themselves uncreated, and I obviously don't know what I"m talking about, but I guess I still don't see how it's more than a semantic difference???

And I really have to wonder whether Protestant understandings of grace are closer to Rome or to Orthodoxy--maybe neither? Seeing it simply as "unmerited favor" seems to make it almost entirely impersonal. Created/uncreated almost doesn't seem to matter. It's more like an uncreated "attitude" of God. Hmm.

you see the differences in the lives of the churches. The Orthodox life is strongly different than the Catholic.

 

[Lukaris]

OK, so if the West (following Augustine, most seem to say) followed the path of "created grace" and the East followed the path of "uncreated grace," both from very early in history and long before the schism, then it seems that it is possible for both to exist (?) within a united church? The article that prompted my questions was adamant that this very issue is the reason why RC/EO cannot reunite so long as the RC continues to see grace as created, as this is the source of the filioque and Papal supremacy and the like. So is it just the developments since the schism that stand in the way of union, or is it the deeper issue stretching back through time? It makes me wonder. Long before the schism it seems the theologies (and politics) of East and West were way different, yet the schism wasn't formal.

It seems from dictionaries and the like that the Catholics say grace is "created" relative to man, in time, but the graces that come to men are themselves uncreated, and I obviously don't know what I"m talking about, but I guess I still don't see how it's more than a semantic difference???

And I really have to wonder whether Protestant understandings of grace are closer to Rome or to Orthodoxy--maybe neither? Seeing it simply as "unmerited favor" seems to make it almost entirely impersonal. Created/uncreated almost doesn't seem to matter. It's more like an uncreated "attitude" of God. Hmm.

One thing to remember is that though differences existed between east & west, it was usually the west that tried to force its perspectives on the east which would have resulted in the destruction of Orthodoxy as the east understood the Gospel. Had the heavy handedness not occurred culminating in schism perhaps we would be discussing theological perspectives rather than what often became heresy. For ex., the filioque, we could never accept that but it existed in the west for centuries prior to 1054 but then the west tried to enforce this as sole doctrine. The concepts of created vs. uncreated grace perhaps might have taken a similar route but again the west tried to undermine the eastern understanding & that was in the 14th c. A western monk named Barlam tried to dispute and overturn our doctrine of grace & St. Gregory Palamas barely preserved our understanding of the uncreated light of the transfiguration of the Lord Jesus Christ on Mt. Tabor. So even if Barlam had some similar theology to St.Augustine of Hippo, the elements of Augustines theology that did not agree with the east just failed to resonate but ill will did not permeate whereas Barlam was trying to subvert our relationship to the Trinity in our prayer from the level of monastic to layperson. Of course, this is not to issue any blanket condemnation towards Western theology but to affirm our faith (of course I am just a layperson so I must be cautious also).