www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Man becomes uncreated and eternal by participating in the divine energy, and not by participating in the incomprehensible and incommunicable divine essence; and so, there is no danger of pantheism.

This particular issue (i.e., theosis) reveals why the West's failure to make a real distinction between essence and energy in God is so problematic. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Todd:
I agree with you that in theosis, man participates in God's energies, and not in the divine essence. However, how can we ever be uncreated? How does this change the fact that God created us in time? I know that in some of your previous postings you've used teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa. While I have great respect for Gregory of Nyssa, the fact that he is recognized as a saint (and I think rightly so) does not necessitate our acceptance of everything he says. Please help me understand how it is that creatures ever become uncreated.
Ryan

OMG! I get it! It is almost like the Western approach is the flipside of the Eastern! Correct me if I am wrong, Todd, but when man is infused with grace, instead of the grace taking on the characteristics of a created being (Man), man is raised to the uncreated level of God. In other words, it is not the grace that is changed by man, but man that is changed by grace. That makes perfect sense.

Ryan,

Man is uncreated at the level of engery. It is an energetic uncreation.

Through Kenosis, man empties himself of, well, his own self. For our energies, this means as we, who live the life of virtue are uncreated at the level of energy. As we empty, God fills.

With Theosis, our created energies are uncreated energies. Why? God fills them with Him. We are uncreated at the level of energies.

Hope this helps. ICXC NIKA

Ryan,

Man becomes uncreated, because he really -- and not in some nominal or volitional manner -- participates in all of God's energies. Now, St. Maximos the Confessor (in the Ambigua) and St. Gregory Palamas (in The Triads) explain how it is that man becomes "unoriginate and uncreated by grace" [St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, page 98; see also St. Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua, PG XCI, 1144C], and what they teach is that man becomes uncreated in energy -- but not in essence -- because as St. Maximos said, through the gift of theosis "there is in all respects one and the same energy of God and of those worthy of Him." [St. Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua, PG XCI, 1076C] Now, in the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the divine energy brings about an existential -- but not an essential -- change in man, but this change is real, that is, it is ontological and not merely volitional as in Western theology. Thus, for St. Gregory of Nyssa -- like St. Maximos and St. Gregory Palamas -- man becomes eternal in that his existence stretches (epektasis) on into infinity; and in addition to this, man participates in all of the other divine energies (i.e., uncreatedness, infinity, life, glory, etc.), and so all three of these Fathers teach that man becomes eternal and uncreated by grace (i.e., energy).

God bless,
Todd

Yes, you've got it.

Man is changed because he participates in God's uncreated energies and takes on divine characteristics; in other words, man is deified by grace.

<does a little gig>

No, this is the Western position as well. Man does not change Grace in any way, there are no changes in Grace at all. Man takes on the Divine Life, Divine characteristics, and this is Grace. Created Grace specifically refers to this change in man by Grace, and since a new man is made, it is called "created". Hence Thomas Aquinas statement about man being created with reference to Grace. This is actually the lynchpin of the Catholic argument against Lutheran theology, as Martin Luther did not believe that a man is changed by Grace, but that Grace simply represents a disposition of favor on the part of God. Without Grace raising us to a participation in Divinity, none of the rest of Catholic theology, Latin or not, can stand.

Contrary to Apotheun's claims, the Latin teachings have never held that the change is merely volitional or nominal; that would be Lutherans. The very basis of our split on this matter is that Latins hold that there is an ontological change in the person with Grace. If the Latins did not hold this, there wouldn't have been a split with Luther on this subject.

The Council of Trent deals directly with the matter in Session 6:

and We are given a direct participation in God's Charity, His Love, not nominally nor volitionally, but in an actual, ontological change in being. These qualities of God are poured into us and inhere in us; we are literally made anew. The Council even anathemizes those who do not hold that God's Love, his Divine energy to use an Eastern term, is poured forth into us, inheres in us, and changes us. We are being accused of what our own Council explicitely anathemized.

If the Latin tradition did not believe there was an ontological change, then there would not be such a stark contrast in its treatment of those who are Baptized, whether Catholic or not, and those who are not Baptized. This contrast can be seen in everything from general theology to marital Canon Law. If there was any belief that Grace was nominal or volitional, this could not be the case.

Yes, and this is perfectly acceptable and reasonable, and does not contradict the Latin tradition at all. The only issue is that energies/operations are qualities by definition, and don't subsist in and of themselves, seperate from that which bears them. Something has to be "doing" or "being" the energy/operation.

Our Love is uncreated by definition, because we Love with God's Love; in this sense we can be said to be uncreated on the level of our energy. Our possession of this Love must be created, however, as the individual possessing is created.

The objection to humans being "uncreated" on the grounds of it being pantheistic has nothing to do with the participation in the Divine Life. Humans absolutely can and do possess the Divine Life, share in it, act it out in the world, and to deny this is anathema according to Trent. The objection stems from the idea that a human person possessing the energy can be "uncreated", and that the having of the Divine Energy is "uncreated". This takes things away from participation, real and true as it is, and into the realm of cooption; for a creature to "have" the true Divine Energies in an uncreated, eternal fashion, they would have to possess the Divine Nature itself and not just be partakers in it. In short, they would literally have to cease being a creature altogether, in every single way, which logically results in pantheism.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Your quotations from the Council of Trent are quite nice, and they do show that the Tridentine Fathers taught that a change occurs in man, but the question remains: is this change a created change or an uncreated change? And more to the point, is grace created or uncreated?

Now, I have already shown -- earlier in this thread -- that the Council of Trent holds that man is not made just by the justice whereby God Himself is just, but by a created justice (See the Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, chapter 7). Now, it is precisely this teaching of the Council of Trent (i.e., that man is made just by a gift of created justice) that is rejected by the Eastern Church. The East holds that man is made just by the very justice of God, that is, by the justice whereby God Himself is just, or to put it in Eastern terms, man is made just by the gift of the uncreated energy of God's own justice.

Finally, it should be noted that the teaching of the West on "created" grace arose in the Scholastic period, and that prior to that time it was unheard of, because even St. Augustine and Peter Lombard held that grace is only uncreated.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is clear that both sides (East and West) assert that there is a real change in man when he receives the grace of God, but the two sides differ on the nature of that change, because for the East the change is an uncreated change, that is, it is a real participation by man in the uncreated energy of God, which makes man himself -- at the level of energy -- uncreated and eternal; while for the West it is a "created habitus" or a "created relationship" that changes man's being, and which somehow gives him a share in the uncreated life of God, even though it is mediated through a "created relationship."

I'm reading this thread and try to make synthesis for myself.. but if I'm wrong somewhere please correct me.

Todd said: "because for the East the change is an uncreated change, that is, it is a real participation by man in the uncreated energy of God, which makes man himself -- at the level of energy -- uncreated and eternal"

in term of the person, that previously not a participant and now is made participant of the uncreated energy, isn't it what the Latin said "uncreated grace?

From the point of man, the person was not a participant and now is a participant, something different is established, something new is received. The participation is made/established.

While God himself is not created, but if a mortal man participates in grace, something new is happening to the person. His spiritual life advancing, his habit become healtier, relationship with other persons and God is moving forward.

From the point of man, this is something established. What the person don't have, now the person have.
Is this what the Latin means by "created"?

This is because God is Just by Nature, and humans by participation. It is impossible to say that we are Just as God is Just, because God is not "made Just", while we are. This does not speak to the nature of Justice itself at all. In fact, it does not at all refer to any kind of "created Justice" in the sense of Justice being a creature, but rather speaks only of the "Justice of God":

You can see here that Justification is directly identified with the infusion of the Divine operations of Faith, Hope, and Charity; there is no seperating them. Since the Charity is the very Charity of God, likewise is the Justice the very Justice of God, albeit inhereing in us by participation and not by our own natures. That is the only distinction that can be made, and it's a completely reasonable one.

Even if I Love with God's Love, I can not Love as God Loves, because God Loves from His very Nature, and I Love only by participation in that Nature.

The classic example is of fire and iron. The iron can be heated in the fire, becoming hot with the very same heat as the fire, but the iron will never be hot as the fire is hot, because it possesses the nature of iron and not of fire, even while it shares in the same property of heat, and indeed the very same heat. In fact, the heat is not a "creature" seperate from the fire; it is coteriminal with the fire, and if the fire was eternal the heat would be too. The state of being hot in the iron, however, would be made seperately from the state of being hot in the fire, as it would only occur when the iron was placed in the fire and therefore would not be coterminal with the fire even though it is the same heat.

The state of being hot is made in the iron, but the heat is not. The only way the iron could be hot as the fire is hot would be for the iron to cease being iron all together, and entirely become the fire. The iron can become as hot as the fire, sharing entirely in its heat, glowing and igniting, operating exactly as fire when touched to a flammable material such as paper, but it would never cease being iron participating in the natural heat of fire.

All of this is merely to clarify and illustrate the Latin position, and explain how the term "created" can be applied to something eternal like Love. We can say that we share in the eternal, uncreated operations of God, but we can not say that we possess those operations in the same manner that God possesses them. This is a logical impossibility if we are creatures. Whether one uses the term "created", or "participating" is irrelevant. The only way to possess it in the same way would be for the Divine operations to come from our own nature, but we know this is false because it is in Baptism and not conception that we are born as sons of God.

This is why St. Thomas Aquinas stresses that Grace is said to be created insofar as man is created with reference to it, and not insofar as Grace is created with reference to man. If we are born anew in Christ, then our state of Grace is born at the same time, otherwise we could not be called new creatures in Christ, which is the language of Scripture.

I'm suprised you don't see the inherent contradiction in this assertion. God is without change, and change is the creation of a new state in something. There can be no "uncreated change", because change automatically presumes the end of one state and the beginning another, and uncreated means without beginning.

Peace and God bless!

Precisely, 110% correct. What the man has (the Divine Life) is uncreated by definition, that he has it is created by necessity because man himself is a creature, and he is not even born with the Divine Life already infusing him. This is the very foundation of Sacramental theology in the Latin mind.

It's like how in the Eucharist we receive and become one with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. His Divinity is obviously eternal, but our bringing it into ourselves is not; a moment ago I did not have it, and now I do. We are nourished by Christ's Life, His Divinity, and we live with it and by it and in it, but our state of living in it is "made" at the moment of reception of the Eucharist, even though what we receive and live is entirely outside the confines of time.

Peace and God bless!

The "new" thing in man is the uncreated grace itself; and so, it cannot be thought of, nor can it be called, created, because it is God Himself in the redeemed man.

Now, one thing is clear from this discussion of grace: East and West utterly disagree on the nature of grace; and moreover, if Ghosty is representing the actual Latin viewpoint, the two position are irreconcilable.

I am compelled to reiterate what I have said many times already: grace is God; and so, theosis (i.e., the relationship of man to God in deification, which is given to those worthy of it) cannot be created, because as the Fathers insist, it is an eternal and uncreated reality.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The incarnation of the Son of God provides an analogy to the reception of grace in those who are redeemed, because the incarnation is "new" in that it occurs in time. Nevertheless, in the incarnation it is the eternal and uncreated person of the Logos who enters creation, and He -- of course -- remains uncreated in doing this. To hold otherwise is to fall into the heresy of Arianism. That being said, to argue that there is such a thing as "created" grace is to accept a quasi-Arian position, because the Arians thought that there had to be a created thing (i.e., a created Logos) between God and man in order for communion with God to be restored.

Ghosty,

We are at an impasse, because for an Eastern Christian there can be no such thing as "created" grace, and even the idea itself is repugnant to Christian sensibilities. Now, I say this because to assert that there is such a thing as "created" grace, is the equivalent of saying that there is a "created" God. Furthermore, I must admit that whenever I have discussions with you, I lose all hope that there can ever be a restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The innovations of the West over the course of the second millennium (including the doctrine of "created" grace) form a nearly impenetrable barrier to true ecumenism.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Ghosty, your reading of the Tridentine Decree on Justification is not support by the actual text, which says: "[T]he single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just . . .," because this indicates that we do not receive God's own justice, but something else. While the East holds that man participates in God's very own justice (i.e., the uncreated energy of justice), or to speak in a more Western way, man is made just by receiving the justice "by which He Himself is just," and that is why the redeemed become partakers of the divine nature (2nd Peter 1:4).

I don't see how your reading of Trent can possibly hold up in the face of Trent refering to justification as the outpouring of God's Charity into the hearts of men.

Never once does it say "created Justice", but rather refers to the justice as an infusion made into man, going back to what I've said this whole time. God is not justified by infusion, but by nature from all eternity, and so our being justified is fundamentally different from His being just by nature. In this way alone can the justice be said to be different, as we are by participation and infusion what God is by way of the Divine Nature Itself. This is not refering to the energy of justice, however, but rather the state of justification and the possession of Divine qualities in general, such as Charity, Hope, and Faith.

Since Trent is dealing with something entirely different from the infusion of the energy of Justice, yours is a moot point. What it is dealing with are the energy of Charity and the indwelling of the Trinity, which is called justification because the infusion proceeds from the distributive justice of God (God, being Just, shares with His adopted children the Divine inheritance). It's a completely different ball of wax from what you are describing.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghosty,

Well, I like Dominicans - the "Domini Cani" or "Hounds of the Lord!"

I like St Dominic and the Rosary devotion, the Dominican Tertiary St Louis de Montfort, St Martin de Porres, Fra Girolamo Savonarola, Meister Eckhart and Bartolome de las Casas!

I like this thread.

They say that it is sometimes a toss up whether people prefer chocoloate or sex more .

This thread is definitely better than chocolate though!

When you're talking to Todd next, could you ask him to get around to answering my post?

Thanks!

Alex