Are New Theories Reconciable?

EAR and Theological Application: Grace, Sacrament, and Divine Simplicity.

This is an excerpt from an over-arching paper that I’m working on compiling for the entirety of the implications of EAR Theory. If you’ve ever wondered how other theories fit into the Sacramental life and how it can even be possible this is for you!

III. Theological Application: Grace, Sacrament, and Divine Simplicity

1. Proving Latin Sacramentality Without Palamite Energies

Palamas’ Claim:

God’s essence is inaccessible; participation happens through uncreated but distinct divine energies.

EAR’s Rebuttal:

This introduces a (potential) metaphysical multiplicity within God.
Instead, all participation in grace is relational proximity to the Eternal Act, unveiled within flux.

The Eucharist is:
Not a temporal repetition
Not a created symbol
Not an energy flow

It is:

A localized collapse of the Eternal Act into relational form — the Logos offered under sacramental veil.

Reconciliation with Ott:

Ott calls grace “a created supernatural gift… really distinct from God.”

EAR affirms:

• Created in mode, not in source.

• The “createdness” of grace is due to its appearance within flux, not due to an ontological divide. This aligns with divine simplicity while preserving real participation.

Sacraments do not deliver grace.
Sacraments are grace: relational veils collapsed around the Eternal.

These are not denied but relocated — the minister is the temporal agent of unveiling, not a transmitter of divine flow.

Thomist?

The Thomists affirm divine simplicity and reject any real distinction within God. EAR’s definition of grace as relational proximity to the Eternal Act and your clarification that grace is created in mode, not source could be read as an elegant way to safeguard simplicity while accounting for real relational participation, which I think Thomist lack.

However, some Thomists may ask for clarification: if the Eucharist is a “collapse” of the Eternal Act, how is this different from modalism or mere phenomenology?

Ratzinger viewed the Eucharist as the intersection of heaven and earth, eternity and time. Your view that the Eucharist is not a repetition but a “localized collapse” aligns well with his thought.

Palamites?

From the Eastern Orthodox or Palamite perspective, my rejection of the essence–energies distinction in favor of divine simplicity might appear to be a metaphysical flattening. Palamas famously insisted on a real distinction—though not a separation—between God’s essence and His uncreated energies, which he believed was necessary to safeguard divine transcendence, enable true participation, and make theosis intelligible. Without such a distinction, they might argue, participation risks becoming merely epistemic or experiential—a matter of relational nearness rather than ontological sharing—and grace itself may be seen as either created or illusory. But from the framework of Eternal Act Relationism (EAR), I argue that real participation is not denied; rather, it is redefined. Participation becomes a relational collapse of the Eternal Act into flux—an unveiling of the infinite within the finite—preserving the mystery and efficacy of grace without multiplying divine realities or compromising divine simplicity.

Dogma?

It’s a real shame that some of these things are so dogmatized, ironically, more in the EAST than in the WEST. The East often prides itself on mystery and not dogmatizing things we cannot know or things that need to remain nuanced, but they were quite swift about Palamas. My intuition says it was a kneejerk reaction to over-emphasize their rejection of the Filioque.

What are your thoughts?