www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology created grace

St. Gregory's "theology" does not need to be "canonized," because his "theology" (as you call it) is not new, it is simply the theology of the Eastern Fathers, and it is what the Eastern Churches have always believed.

May God bless you,
Todd

How long have you been an Eastern Christian, and which of the Eastern Fathers have you read? Now, I ask this because you evince a complete lack of knowledge about what the Eastern Fathers taught on this subject. I await your response to my question, and to the questions I asked in an earlier post.

God bless,
Todd

The views of Aquinas on the vision of God as a vision of the divine essence is rejected by the Eastern Fathers as the error of pantheism.

Thomas holds that the "light of glory" is a created reality (See the Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 5, Reply obj. 1), and this is rejected by the Eastern Fathers. In addition, St. Thomas restricts the vision of God, which he has already misunderstood with his Aristotelian essentialism, to an act of the intellect, but the Eastern Fathers hold that the vision of God (i.e., theosis) is an uncreated gift that is beyond the human intellect. Theosis involves the divinization of the whole man, body and soul, through and uncreated participation in God's own energies.

St. Thomas' teaching on divinization involve the reception by man of a "created similtude" of God (See the Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 2), and this position must not be confused with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, who hold, as St. Maximos said, theosis means that "there is in all respects one and the same energy of God and of those worthy of Him." [St. Maximos, Ambigua, PG XCI, 1076BC]

Finally, St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory Palamas, et al., taught, in opposition to Aquinas, that the divine essence is completely unknowable and imparticipable, and that the vision of God is a vision of the uncreated Light, that is, it is a vision of the uncreated energies. The theory of the vision of God espoused by Aquinas is based upon the faulty philosophical system of Aristotle, who reduced reality to essence.

God bless,
Todd

lm,

I am an Eastern Christian -- as you claim to be also -- and as an Eastern Christian I do not subscribe to the philosophical essentialism of the Schools. That being said, what I want you to do, is to show me from the writings of the Eastern Fathers that the vision of God is a vision of the divine essence.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is interesting to note that even Pope John Paul II accepted what you evidently find impossible to accept, because as he put it, ". . . the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit." [Pope John Paul II, Orientale Lumen, no. 6]

lm,

Your lack of familiarity with the Eastern doctrinal tradition is apparent in many of your comments, and most especially in this one, because man knows about the distinction between essence and energy, just as he knows that God is tri-hypostatic, because God has revealed Himself to man in this way. In other words, the divine essence is unknowable, but God reveals Himself in the economy of salvation through His uncreated energies as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is clear to me now, that the process of de-Latinization still has a long way to go in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Dear brother Todd,

I am not certain what type of Eastern Christian IM claims to be, but just FYI, the expressions he has used are VERY consistent with the theology of ORIENTAL Christianity. I have found that people who are born into Oriental Catholicism are more likely to regard themselves as "Eastern Catholic" rather than "Oriental Catholic." I translated from Oriental Orthodoxy, and therefore am more likely to identify myself as "Oriental Catholic."

If IM is actually an Oriental Christian, your questioning of his understanding of the issue of Essence and Energies is rather insulting. You may find that MANY Oriental Orthodox would react to the distinction of Essence and Energies with shock, as if the Chalcedonians (the Eastern portion at least) are "again" trying to assign a separation in the Godhead that does not exist. Of course, the Eastern Chalcedonians are not actually doing this. I believe that IM's statements are absolutely legitimate expressions of apostolic Christianity. Your own insistence on dogmatizing this distinction between Essence and Energies (indeed, the East as a whole - though I am certain there are Eastern Catholics who would not dogmatize the distinction as you have) is becoming a stumbling block to reunion.

Until an Ecumenical Council dogmatizes the distinction, I consider your particular viewpoint a theologoumenon. Thus, I believe Oriental Catholics who do not believe in the distinction and Eastern Catholics who believe in the distinction are brothers and sisters in Christ in full communion (I, for one, am an Oriental Catholic who has no problem with the distinction, but that is my personal belief that I will impose on no one else). If disunity occurs on this issue, just remember - don't blame the Catholic Church for it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

Actually, what you need to do is apprise yourself of the entire breadth of apostolic Christianity, for it does not consist only of East and West - there's also us Orientals who you may not be able to easily categorize as "Greek" or "Latin."

Blessings,
Marduk

BOTH sides agree that man cannot touch the essence of God, even in divinization/ sanctification. The East states simply that the creature cannot touch the Essence. The West states simply that the creature cannot become the Substance of God.

BOTH sides agree that there is something that divinizes/ sanctifies man. BOTH sides agree that this something is divine/is of God.

BOTH sides agree that this something, though divine/of God, is something DISTINCT from the Essence/Substance of God.

BOTH sides agree that this something that divinizes/sanctifies man is called GRACE.

The East describes this GRACE as "divine Energy." The West describes this GRACE as "uncreated" and "NOT the Essence/Substance of God."

The comparison should stop there. Any sensible person can see that there is no difference between the Eastern and Western understanding except by virtue of the language.

So, what is the problem with "created grace?" Absolutely nothing. As St. Thomas and Ghosty have asserted, the term does not refer at all to the nature of Grace. It is simply a TERM (highlighted to indicate the merely semantic nature of the issue) that implies the fact that before the onset of theosis/sanctification, Grace is essentially ABSENT from the creature, not that Grace itself has been created at any point in time. Why this is so difficult for Todd to understand really says more about him than about Western theology.

Certainly, Todd must be congratulated for his erudite and concise explanation of the Eastern understanding, but it is time for him to give up his straw man.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

You will notice in my posts that I do not attack people, but I do disagree with the ideas expressed in many posts, and sometimes I even disagree with the mode of expression used (i.e., the formulation of a statement) in order to convey a doctrine. So, if you are offended by my disagreement with the way in which some people present the doctrine of grace in this thread, I am sorry, but I cannot in good conscience do anything else but disagree with what I see as erroneous.

May God bless you,
Todd

God bless,
Todd

Marduk,

I find it interesting that certain people continue to assert the false notion that the Miaphysite Churches are crypto-Latins, because if they were in reality that close to the Latins, why are they not all in communion with the Roman Church. Moreover, it must never be forgotten that the Miaphysites reject the Tome of Leo, because they hold that it promotes the Nestorian heresy, which -- interestingly enough -- even Cardinal Grillmeier admits that there are Nestorian tendencies in the terminology used by Pope Leo, since he does tend to make the two natures subjects of separate action within Christ. Now, that being said, if the Latins were to take what the Miaphysites say as an accurate reflection of Pope Leo's teaching in the Tome, it follows of necessity that the whole Papal edifice built up by the group of ultra-montane bishops at Vatican I would collapse, because the doctrine of Papal infallibility is far less acceptable to the Oriental Churches (since they hold that Pope Leo is a heretic), than it is to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, bearing in mind the fact that both sides (i.e., Orthodox and Oriental) hold that the definition of Vatican I is in error. Nevertheless, the Roman Church must admit that at least the Eastern Orthodox do no proclaim Pope St. Leo to be a Nestorian heretic as the Miaphysite Churches do. So, yes, by all means let us not forget the non-Chalcedonian Churches and their absolute rejection of Papal infallibility, because they hold that Pope Leo was a Nestorian heretic.

Now, moving on to the doctrine of grace, are you actually claiming the bizarre notion that the Miaphysite Churches have a theory of "created" grace, because I have never heard that they do, nor have I seen any evidence of such a theory in the writings of Severus, or any other Miaphysite author. The distinction between essence and energy is common -- as Fr. Romanides explained at the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation (11-15 August 1964) -- to both sides, and when he made this claim none of the Oriental Orthodox representatives objected at all. I have seen the minutes of the meetings and they blissfully accepted the distinction of essence and energy without raising the least objection. Sadly, especially for the Roman Church, the agreement of the Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians at the Consultation as it concerns the distinction -- without a separation -- between essence and energy in God, did not extend to the Tome of Leo, because, at every turn, the non-Chalcedonian representatives went out of their way to attack Pope Leo and his Tome as heretical.

Here are some brief comments from the Consultation in response to a paper delivered by Fr. Meyendorff:

Now, after this statement by Oriental Orthodox Bishop Sarkissian, Fr. Florovsky makes a comment that contains a rather frank admission about the failings of Pope Leo's Tome, and here is what he said:

It is clear -- based upon these comments alone -- that the Oriental Churches are unlikely to accept communion with the Roman Church, at least as long as Pope Leo's Tome is held to be authoritative, and of course since the Roman Church declared the Pope to be infallible in 1870, it is unlikely that Rome will ever declare the Tome to be in error.

Now, as I already indicated briefly above, during a portion of the discussions Fr. Romanides spoke about the distinction between essence and energy in God, and the Oriental bishops and theologians accepted the comments without objection. Here is what Fr. Romanides said:

Thus, from the information that I have provided in my post, I doubt that your comments about how close the Latins and Orientals are to each other represents an accurate appraisal of the situation.

I will conclude by calling attention back to the real point of this thread, that is, to the doctrine of grace as an uncreated participation in God Himself, and so I ask you to provide your supporting evidence that proves that the Oriental Churches believe in a doctrine of "created" grace. Now, I must admit that I have never seen anything that says that they have ever believed in such a thing; and in fact, such a notion (i.e., that there can even be "created" grace) is foreign to the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, a man who is venerated by both the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches as the single most important hierarch in settling the Christological disputes of the 5th century.

God bless,
Todd

I should add that my last paragraph was just a hunch, but I do feel certain that Aquinas' "created grace" does not equal "grace which is created".

This seems to be a case where the most literal translation isn't the best one.


I must admit that I am a bit taken aback that Fr. Hardon says that sanctifying grace is "something created" -- especially since even Aquinas said that grace is not created -- but I need to do some research before I comment further on Father's statements.

God bless,
Peter.

Oh my...

I don't see Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Uncreated Energies...

God (I Am Who Am) may be unknowable because of the weakness of our intellects, because we are not Him.


Sounds like we are to made partakers of the divine nature according to OL. Aquinas' account of how that happens seems as consistent, if not more consistent, than St. Gregory's.

I don't share your analysis of the Fathers and I don't have time to review with you all the Eastern Fathers I have read over the last 25 years. Now I haven't read much of Eastern Orthodox theologians whom I understand can be very polemical when it comes to a discussion of these matters.

I merely point out again, I don't see the need or the arguments that Aquinas is as wrong as you maintain he is.

Now perhaps you have experienced the fullness of theosis. If you have I guess I can't argue with you. On the other hand I am not bound by private revelation.

As for Aristotle, I recall another quote from Scripture:

Aristotle did a pretty decent job for a pagan. For that I compliment him - certainly he did better than the pagans of today who because they refuse to acknowledge what they can know without the aid of grace are given over to their lusts. But certainly my Eastern Catholic grandparents (from the country who had at best, a 4th grade education) - were more enlightened than Aristotle.

So certainly, not having the faith, Aristotle's feast day is not on any Church calendar as is St. Gregory Palamas or St. Thomas Aquinas.

Good day.

Damascene (754?) ended the patristic age. So I don't know that the Fathers could have actually rejected the views of Thomas (1274?).

I expect, however, that they are now somehow communicating with each other in the divine vision!

lm

Well, I certainly do not see what you are saying present within that statement of Pope John Paul II.

It is a fact that is verifiable through their writings that the Cappadocian Fathers held that the divine essence is beyond any kind of knowledge, communication, or participation; and that God is known solely through His energies, the energies being the enhypostatic manifestation of the three divine hypostaseis.

Now with that said, I really need you to state unequivocally which texts of the Cappadocian Fathers, and other Eastern authors, you have read. Have you read the Contra Eunomium of St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa? Which of St. Basil's Letters have you read? Have you read On Not Three God's to Ablabius by St. Gregory of Nyssa? Have you read The Life of Moses by St. Gregory of Nyssa? Exactly which of St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations have you read? Have you read St. Gregory of Nyssa's Homilies on Ecclesiastes? Have you read St. Maximos' Centuries on Love and his Centuries on Theology? Have you read any of the Ambigua by St. Maximos? Have you read anything by St. Gregory Palamas, and if so what specific texts have you read? Which writings of St. John Damascene have you read?

God bless,
Todd

lm,

It is quite clear that we speak a completely different theological language, because you continue quote texts of scripture (and other authors) that speak of seeing God "face to face," etc., and then you think that this has proven your position. But of course it has not, because I apply all of the scriptural texts that deal with the vision of God to the manifestation of God as energy, not essence; and so, it appeas that we really have little or nothing in common theologically.

It may be best to cut our losses and simply admit that we disagree with each other, and that we are not likely to ever agree on these matters. As a matter of divine faith I hold to the distinctions of essence, energy, and hypostaseis in God, and, evidently, you do not.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Although I think that our discussion is at an end, I would still appreciate a response to the questions in my previous post.