Uncreated grace...?

[Gwendolyn]

Fascinating thread.

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.

I don't think that is true. That is not what I have been taught at all.

 

[Ignatius21]

Fascinating thread.



I don't think that is true. That is not what I have been taught at all.

I guess this can also raise a question about differences between what is taught, and what is codified in documents.

I guess I'm coming at this from the angle of dogmatic pronouncements on both sides. Although you may be right in that Rome does not dogmatically define the matter differently from the Orthodox--I really have no idea, which is why I'm asking the questions!

 

[Macarius]

Barlaam was Eastern - a citizen of the Byzantine empire. He was "Western" only in two senses: 1) he was a humanist scholar - part of the old Grecco-Roman tradition that would begin transfering over to Italy again in the 14th c. AND 2) after being condemned by the East for his teachings he converted to Catholicism because they would accept him. He then resided in Italy and contributed to the beginnings of the Renaissance there.

They may not see it in their doctrines and teachings at the pulpit today, but the West accepted and affirmed Barlaam after he had been rejected by the Palamite councils on this exact issue.

To Barlaam, God's unknowability (an old philosophical issue important in the humanist tradition) was paramount. He was dismissive of the Athonite mystics (like Palamas) as being, essentially, unenlightened and backwards medievals. He was, in essence, a forerunner (and, distantly, an ancestor of) the Western "enlightenment." For Barlaam, the light and grace experienced by the Athonites could not be God. For the Orthodox, it had to be God.

This is critical, in particular, because of a difference of emphasis that existed at the time between East and West in regards to Soteriology. In the West, under the shadow of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, the juridical view of salvation (as a declaration of guilt / innocence) was supreme. The older "theosis" view, still present in Aquinas's opponents from the 12th - 13th c., was in decline in the West.

Grace is commonly used synonymously with mercy (or as a related term - like two sides of the same coin) in the penal-substitution view of the cross. As such, it is an act of God towards us: something God gives but which is, essentially, other than God - not God Himself. It is created, therefore, since only God is uncreated. God's grace becomes closely related to God's forgiveness - and this forgiveness is the central salvific event in the personal life of the believer. Though the possibility of further growth into the likeness of God is available, it is phrased differently from this event. In medieval catholicism it was phrased in terms of overcoming temporal penalties of sins and the gradual work of the sacraments in drawing the believer closer to God.

Within the Protestant framework, this process borrows the term "sanctification" as its label and is, in common theology, a secondary process - not critical to salvation, but rather resulting from authentic salvation (which is still centered on the moment of the believer accepting / entering into forgiveness). Here, then, God's grace is still something God gives to the believer, but which is external to God. I'm speaking of my own experience within Protestantism (of a rather academic, evangelical sort - so just one possible perspective of Protestantism). Grace, as I understood it, was an attitude of God towards us (like mercy) OR something God gave us as an aid, empowerment, or sign. It was external to God. Sanctification was not UNITY with God, but rather becoming more sinless and more knowledgeable of God - God's likeness.

The idea of ontological unity with God - of becoming 'god' (little g) - would have been blasphemous to me. I was shoked to encounter the use of the "partaking of the divine nature" line in 2 Peter as a proof-text for theosis when I was first exploring Orthodoxy. Yet, as I explored it, it began to make sense. If, when worshipping as a Protestant, I experienced God's grace was I not experiencing God's presence? If so, then God's grace must be God Himself, as nothing but God could be God's presence. If this is so, and indeed there is a means provided (the sacraments) by which we partake of God's grace, then we literally partake of God. We partake of the divine nature - we don't become it. And if that grace is NOT God, but is something external to Him, then we cannot have any REAL contact with God. We can encounter God, in the "created grace" view, only through things God does - only externally. We can OBSERVE God (in other words) but not ENCOUNTER God.

This is the difference, if you'll stick with me, between friends and spouses. Friends, I observe. My wife, I know. The unitive force of marriage is in the literal joining of the two into one. To quote St. Paul, I speak of Christ and the Church.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Barky]

Fascinating thread.



I don't think that is true. That is not what I have been taught at all.

Let me word it differently.

In Catholic theology, God and man are not ontologically united. Because there is no concept of the Energies, there is no way in which God can be united to man in the ontological sense. Catholic theology (stemming from Aquinas) has no room (because of the theology surrounding God) for the Essence/Energies distinction. There is a gulf between God and man in this way. One attains contemplation of the divine, that is the end for Catholic Theology. For the Orthodox, the end is true ontological union with God.

I think this is a more clear statement. I think the one I posted before is true, but it isn't as technical as it needs to be (for clarity's sake).

 

[Barky]

wow, forget what I said and just read Macarius' post above mine, it's much better.

 

[Qoheleth]

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???

Interesting perspective. And just to piggy back off of this thought...maybe the differences are philosophical in perspective not theological and therefore not heretical.

Just as some practices in Catholicism are not theologically wrong they are considered liturgically misguided (or unnecessary) in Orthodoxy. And I say this cautiously, the dispute that Orthodoxy has with the Coptic Church (Christ's two natures) may be understood as philosophical in application and not theologically heretical.

just thoughts...


Q

 

[Barky]

Interesting perspective. And just to piggy back off of this thought...maybe the differences are philosophical in perspective not theological and therefore not heretical.

Just as some practices in Catholicism are not theologically wrong they are considered liturgically misguided (or unnecessary) in Orthodoxy. And I say this cautiously, the dispute that Orthodoxy has with the Coptic Church (Christ's two natures) may be understood as philosophical in application and not theologically heretical.

just thoughts...


Q

I can assure you the problem is not semantics. The theology lined out here shapes the lives of the two Churches, the nature of Grace and its operation in the world. It is absolutely key to get this distinction clear if one is to see the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

I see the lives of the true churches reflected in these doctrines, much rides on it.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Let me word it differently.

In Catholic theology, God and man are not ontologically united. Because there is no concept of the Energies, there is no way in which God can be united to man in the ontological sense. Catholic theology (stemming from Aquinas) has no room (because of the theology surrounding God) for the Essence/Energies distinction. There is a gulf between God and man in this way. One attains contemplation of the divine, that is the end for Catholic Theology. For the Orthodox, the end is true ontological union with God.

I think this is a more clear statement. I think the one I posted before is true, but it isn't as technical as it needs to be (for clarity's sake).

Reading your post and Macarius' post above definitely clarified the issue for me.

I am still fascinated by this. You are indeed correct - we are not taught in the West that we truly can become ontologically just like God. We speak often of being in union with Him, that is, of experiencing some sort of spiritual union of the soul with God. I have not heard it said that we can become ontologically like God. I would tentatively wonder if this is truly as others have posted. I am not sure, as I have never directly asked a priest if we can share an essence with God. I will, though.

I was scouring my brain as I was on a long car ride yesterday and I did see that we, as Catholics, are indeed taught that grace is created. That is, grace is something that is given - God gives us grace. He confers grace. The intimation is that grace comes from God, and not that grace is part of God (ie His essence). This understanding is present in so much of our terminology even when the issue is not directly addressed. We say that we receive grace through the Sacraments. God gives us the grace (implication being that grace is a thing that He gives and not an extension of His essence).

Grace is portrayed as a gift that is given. Something external. And then I felt so excited at my own little discovery that I had to come here and post it, even though the more clever posters have already elucidated further...

 

[Qoheleth]

I can assure you the problem is not semantics. The theology lined out here shapes the lives of the two Churches, the nature of Grace and its operation in the world. It is absolutely key to get this distinction clear if one is to see the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox faiths.

I see the lives of the true churches reflected in these doctrines, much rides on it.

I did not suggest semantics. Also it is clear that Catholicism believes that participation in the life of the Trinity is absolutely essential... it is what we are created for...union (communion).

"Since it was the will of God's only begotten Son that human beings should share in his divinity, he assumed our nature in order that by becoming human he might make humans gods." (Catholic Book of Prayers)


Lets not forget that Theosis as understood and articulated in Orthodoxy is held intact by the Byzantine Catholic churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis#cite_note-9

Also, I believe that theosis/divinization was never definitively defined by an Ecumenical council.


Q

 

[Qoheleth]

Let me word it differently.

In Catholic theology, God and man are not ontologically united. Because there is no concept of the Energies, there is no way in which God can be united to man in the ontological sense. Catholic theology (stemming from Aquinas) has no room (because of the theology surrounding God) for the Essence/Energies distinction. There is a gulf between God and man in this way. One attains contemplation of the divine, that is the end for Catholic Theology. For the Orthodox, the end is true ontological union with God.

I think this is a more clear statement. I think the one I posted before is true, but it isn't as technical as it needs to be (for clarity's sake).

Reading your post and Macarius' post above definitely clarified the issue for me.

I am still fascinated by this. You are indeed correct - we are not taught in the West that we truly can become ontologically just like God. We speak often of being in union with Him, that is, of experiencing some sort of spiritual union of the soul with God.

And yet to be clear on the matter...

Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature. Also referred to as deification, divinization, or illumination, it is a concept derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God.

The human person does not merge with some sort of impersonal divine force, losing individual identity or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence. (Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church North America)


Q

 

[Macarius]

Reading your post and Macarius' post above definitely clarified the issue for me.

I am still fascinated by this. You are indeed correct - we are not taught in the West that we truly can become ontologically just like God. We speak often of being in union with Him, that is, of experiencing some sort of spiritual union of the soul with God. I have not heard it said that we can become ontologically like God. I would tentatively wonder if this is truly as others have posted. I am not sure, as I have never directly asked a priest if we can share an essence with God. I will, though.

I was scouring my brain as I was on a long car ride yesterday and I did see that we, as Catholics, are indeed taught that grace is created. That is, grace is something that is given - God gives us grace. He confers grace. The intimation is that grace comes from God, and not that grace is part of God (ie His essence). This understanding is present in so much of our terminology even when the issue is not directly addressed. We say that we receive grace through the Sacraments. God gives us the grace (implication being that grace is a thing that He gives and not an extension of His essence).

Grace is portrayed as a gift that is given. Something external. And then I felt so excited at my own little discovery that I had to come here and post it, even though the more clever posters have already elucidated further...

That's an excellent summary. If you wanted to get extra-special technical we could differentiate between essence and energy - and now this might actually make sense to do so (rather than seeming like semantics).

God's grace is God - but when you say we recieve God's essence or become alike to God in essence, that could be misleading. I think above you mean it correctly as you don't at all mean that we are subsumed into the Trinity or become co-eternal or possess the divine nature or any of those other heretical things. To avoid any possible misunderstanding of our meaning on theosis, Palamas differentiated God's essence (those above qualities that are really beyond access - God's transcendent, eternal infinitude) - and God's energies (God-active, God-present, God-accessible, God-imanent). These energies ARE GOD. That's the critical thing. We would say that we are ontologically infused by and joined to God's energies. That's the level of our ontological union. But in the end, we are still distinct entities (our personhood is not lost in the unity) and, in the end, God is still uniquely GOD (capitals intended). We don't become pre-eternal or go off and get our own planet to govern (though that would be wicked cool) or some such thing. Rather, it is precisely God's grace (God's energies) that we were meant to be a transparent conduit of to God's creation - we are all meant to be priests. As we are united to that grace, we literally become part of the process by which God is present in the world. This is the communal aspect of salvation - we rise together because as God's energies / grace (God) are present in you, so am I better able to see them and (thereby) better able to approach them in my own life. Your repentance keys off my own.

The converse is harrowing. In so much as I sin and cut myself off from this unity with God I literally SEVER God from the world (or rather, He respects our free will enough to allow that) and, as such, on a limited level, I cut you off from God. This is what we mean by the sense of being born into a world of sin (while still denying the strict doctrine of original sin).

So yes, we unite to God ontologically through (and in) God's energies, while still contemplating and worshipping God's unknowability through His essences. Completely immanent, completely other, we unite to God while spending eternity growing into His infinitude. Relationship with God is a journey into God, and as God is infinite, that journey is eternal. That's the dynamic aspect of heaven: creation drawing ever closer to God in love through God's priests (us) drawing into ever closer unity to God through love for God and one another. We are drawn, inevitably, by this into unity with one another as well. This is why we will be known by our love for one another and why, where two or three are gathered, there is Christ.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

And yet to be clear on the matter...

Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature. Also referred to as deification, divinization, or illumination, it is a concept derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God.

The human person does not merge with some sort of impersonal divine force, losing individual identity or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence. (Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church North America)


Q

That's where the Palamite essence / energy distinction comes into play. By ontological union I did not mean to communicate ontological equality, but rather a degree of union extending deeper (it was a word used for emphasis and to communicate that real, identity-altering change occured; that we become "gods").

Incidently, you are right to say that the idea of theosis is present in the West. Especially since the decline of Thomism in the end of the Tridentine church around Vatican II and the rise of New Theologies, the mystic voice of the church is recovering ground in the West. The ascetic voice also needs to make a comeback.

My comments were more directed at a percieved emphasis and "real teaching" - it may be in the theology, but it has been overshadowed for centuries by the scholastic-juridical view, which is also quite alive and well even as it competes for space with the other views (or, put more positively, cooperates with them in demonstrating the ultimate mystery of the cross).

The Byzantine churches are Eastern in character and theology - so yes, they would have preserved much of the theology outlined above. If I'm correct, though, they were expicitly forced to condemn the Palamite view of uncreated grace at Florence, though. I don't recall, though I recall it being an issue at the council. Do you have info confirming that they specifically affirm uncreated grace and the essence/energy distinction?

That would be welcome news, although I would still object to any assertion of God's grace as something created (so their tacit or explicit acceptance of the Thomistic view would be in error, in my less-than-humble opinion).

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Gwendolyn]

The converse is harrowing. In so much as I sin and cut myself off from this unity with God I literally SEVER God from the world (or rather, He respects our free will enough to allow that) and, as such, on a limited level, I cut you off from God. This is what we mean by the sense of being born into a world of sin (while still denying the strict doctrine of original sin).

We often say the same in Catholicism, but obviously the undergirding theology is quite different. There is a trend toward fierce individualism in the West. It is most obvious in protestantism. People assume that sin is strictly personal and doesn't affect anyone else at all. Catholicism still holds that sin wounds all of us, regardless of who commits it... quite similar to what you mentioned about being born into a world of sin. Sin and its effects pervade our world and all are affected by it, directly or indirectly.

 

[MariaRegina]

We often say the same in Catholicism, but obviously the undergirding theology is quite different. There is a trend toward fierce individualism in the West. It is most obvious in protestantism. People assume that sin is strictly personal and doesn't affect anyone else at all. Catholicism still holds that sin wounds all of us, regardless of who commits it... quite similar to what you mentioned about being born into a world of sin. Sin and its effects pervade our world and all are affected by it, directly or indirectly.

The Melkite Greek Catholics have had a strong influence in the development of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). I have not read the most recent edition, but I went to a Pan-Orthodox Christian retreat here in Los Angeles back at the turn of the century (around 2003) in which several priests mentioned that they were even surprised at how very Orthodox the CCC was. These Orthodox Priests (OCA, Greek, and Antiochian) encouraged us to buy a copy and read it.

When one Orthodox priest went so far as to recommend reading the Documents of Vatican II, that sparked quite a debate as you can imagine. Incidentally, Melkite Theologians participated heavily in the conciliar sessions of Vatican II and also worked behind the scenes.

However, the idea that the Divine Energies of God (uncreated grace) does transform us in the process of theosis, is believed by the Melkite Greek Catholics. They have several books written about theosis, and according to several Orthodox Priests, these books are quite Orthodox. We do not become like God in His Essence (or Divine Nature), but are transformed through His Divine Energies (Uncreated Grace). This is called theosis, and it is a mystery.

The Sacraments are the primary source of God's Uncreated Grace, but the word "sacrament" also includes any encounter with the Divine Energies whenever we pray, read the Bible, attend Holy Services, or engage in a spiritual conversation with another Christian. Thus, it is very important that we guard what we think, say, hear, write, and do, because we can share in opening the minds and hearts of people to God's Uncreated Energy, or we can turn people away by our sinful thoughts, words, and deeds.





BTW: I do not know what the situation is currently, but back in the early 1990s, Melkite seminarians were taking courses at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary. This led to the conversion of several seminarians into Orthodoxy. About this time, I also started attending inquiry classes in the local Greek Orthodox Church and began my journey East with my family.

 

[Barky]

And yet to be clear on the matter...

Theosis is the understanding that human beings can have real union with God, and so become like God to such a degree that we participate in the divine nature. Also referred to as deification, divinization, or illumination, it is a concept derived from the New Testament regarding the goal of our relationship with the Triune God.

The human person does not merge with some sort of impersonal divine force, losing individual identity or consciousness. Intrinsic divinity is never ascribed to humankind or any part of the creation, and no created thing is confused with the being of God. Most certainly, humans are not accorded ontological equality with God, nor are they considered to merge or co-mingle with the being of God as He is in His essence. (Antiochian Orthodox Christian Church North America)


Q

the key phrase there is "in His Essence". We do share ontological oneness with God, but not in Essence. We become one with Him in every way save identity of nature. the difference here is between becoming 'god' as St. Athanasius put it, and becoming God. We also become like God in Theosis but we also become one with Him, ontologically.

It is not a kind of moral triumph, that we act like God would (alone). It is real union.