Patristic understanding of energy is that every essence or nature has energy, i.e. a dynamic activity of such nature. Thus, God's nature, which is uncreated, has uncreated energies that result in hat we call "God's activity." It is paramount to understand that nature and energy is not one and the same, that the energy of the soul differs from its essence, and that there is no essence that does not possess energy, and that the energy proceeds from the essence and not vice versa.
These are hardly speculations. Patristic "speculations" are full of Scriptural references and therefore cannot be accused of being outside of Apostolic teachings.
Jo, maybe you can explain just what is created grace, being that it is the dynamic expression of uncreated God?
I agree with all of that, and Thomistic theology states the same basic things, using different terms. What I question is whether it is part of Patristic Tradition to call God's energies "uncreated" and to say that when Christ abides in us, it is an Energy and not the Essence of God Himself. From what I am reading so far, it appears that the East today do not believe that God really comes to abide in man, but rather, this uncreated energy.
Jo, maybe you can explain just what is created grace, being that it is the dynamic expression of uncreated God?
Grace, as the Greek Fathers uniformly state (as far as I know) is a communication of the LIFE of Christ by the Spirit, who takes abode in our souls. John's Gospel is pretty clear on this, as is Paul's Corpus. In the West, there didn't seem to be an issue regarding this until Peter Lombard suggested, against the Greek Fathers, that charity was THE person of the Holy Spirit.
Out here in the wild West, this was a cause for a storm of protest. No one questioned that the Spirit came to man, but to say that the Spirit was literally the "forma informans animam, giving supernatural life to the soul wich is materia informata, provoked strong criticism. The Divine dwelling was admitted, but always on supposition that in some mysterious way, the Third Person was united to the soul through some CREATED forma of unique charecter... There were thus two gifts, the uncreated donum Dei and the created form which results from the presence and action of the Spirit in the justified soul. Romans 5:5 is a text often used to show the gift giving the gift, two separate things.
Now, why a created energy? St. Thomas argued, relying on the authority of ancient Fathers, that sanctifying grace must be created because of the universal norm of Providence, which implants in creatures forms and powers that are principles of action for the nature in question. Consequently, it would be unthinkable that on the supernatural plane, God would act in any other way. Thus, our key term of Catholicism, Sacramentalism. Visible signs pointing to invisible graces. Also, a parallel between the natural and supernatural world.
St. Thomas continues, saying that sanctifying grace CANNOT be a substance, but rather, an accident, an effect of the presence of God. "For what is substantially in God, becomes accidentally present in the soul which participates in the Divine goodness, as is evident with knowledge" Summa I-II, 110,2
It is capable of growth and decline in the manner of other spiritual accidents. It is a quality, since it makes the soul quantitatively different than it was or would be without such modification. As such, we say that Sanctifying (habitual) grace is created.
All of this is rather new to me, and I have not read through the Cappadocians (yet!) to see the Eastern point of view on all of this talk on energy. I see they discuss it, but it is not clear that they call it "uncreated". But the more I read on it, the more I am understanding that there is more than a subtle difference in how we understand how the supernatural comes to man.
Forgive me if I misunderstand all of this, this is a totally new way of looking at God that I have never conceived of before... I am certainly not trying to say one is wrong and the other is right. As Vatican 2 stated, I think we are more complimentary than contradictory. Thanks.
Regards