“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The Catholic Church has always held that we shall “see” God. There is, however, the controversy over what it means to “see God”.

First, let it be said that from a Catholic point of view, God is incomprehensible. We are finite and He is infinite. We shall never fully comprehend or understand God. However, the Scriptures do affirm that we shall “see” God. Saint Thomas Aquinas drew a sharp line between “seeing the divine essence” and “comprehending the divine essence” (STh I, q. 12, a. 1, 7). The former (seeing) does not entail the latter (comprehending).

Thomas’ distinction between seeing and comprehending has been contested, particularly by voices in the East inspired by Gregory Palamas. Palamas stated unequivocally that the blessed do not and will not see the divine essence, because God’s incomprehensibility excludes “seeing” the divine essence. Instead, the Palamites propose the concept of “divine energies”, which are described as a glorious light – the same light, they say, that was revealed at Christ’s Transfiguration. For Palamites, seeing God must only refer to seeing the “divine energies” since the “divine essence” is closed off to us as incomprehensible.

It would not be honest to cite every Patristic quotation referring to “theosis” or “energeia” as evidence for the Palamite position. It is important to recognize that the Palamite position began first as a defense of Hesychism and then later became codified in the terminology of divine energies. Usage of “energeia” (ἐνέργεια) in the Fathers does not necessarily mean that the Fathers employed the term with the fully loaded distinctions that some Palamites infer.

I will grant that there are some pretty hairy passages in the Fathers with respect to divine incomprehensibility and “seeing”. Thomas Aquinas is aware of them. Here are two “problem passages” that Thomas identifies.

For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on John 1:18, “No man hath seen God at any time,” says: “Not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?”

This turns out to be a rhetorical question since Saint John Chrysostom goes on to say that he is speaking of a mode of comprehension as regards the way in which the Persons of the Trinity know and see one another. Obviously, created agents do not comprehend or see in this way because we are created and finite, whereas the Divine Persons, are not.

A second problem passage:

Dionysius also says (Div. Nom. i), speaking of God: “Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him.”

Thomas appeals to the context of this statement in Divine Names. Prior to the statement above, the Areopagite says: “He is universally to all incomprehensible,” so that this statement does not refer to the blessed in particular. As Thomas states, this is a reference to the “vision of comprehension” which is in fact impossible.

The Light of Glory in Thomas Aquinas

Critics of Aquinas assume that he believes that the human intellect is capable of comprehending the divine essence. This is clearly false given the passages above. Instead, Thomas states that the blessed angels and humans are made “deiform” so that they can see the divine essence (see Summa Theologiae I, q. 12, a. 5). Thomas also repeatedly refers to this as the “light of glory” which is the means by which the blessed are elevated to this beatific vision.

Therefore it must be said that to see the essence of God, there is required some similitude in the visual faculty, namely, the light of glory strengthening the intellect to see God, which is spoken of in the Psalm 35:10, “In Thy light we shall see light.” The essence of God, however, cannot be seen by any created similitude representing the divine essence itself as it really is.

Some have said that Aquinas and Palamas may be reconciled, but I don’t see how we can reconcile Thomas’ conviction that “we see the divine essence with Palamas’ conviction that we don’t see the divine essence, only the energies. Certainly, both believe that we “see God”. In this sense, they can be reconciled.

The Council of Vienne in 1311-2 decreed that the blessed “see the divine essence”.

The Council of Vienne condemned eight propositions – one of which highlights the magisterial weight of the idea that we see God by the light of glory: “Fifthly, that any intellectual nature in itself is naturally blessed, and that the soul does not need the light of glory to elevate it to see God and enjoy him blissfully.”

The best magisterial source, though, is the constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 Benedictus Deus, which sets the record straight once and for all:

Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.

I would like to suggest this reconciliation between Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas:

1. The plurality of Palamite energies should more properly be called “infinite and unnumbered energies.” In this way, they are not a finite “set” of energies (eg, 35 million energies), but rather an infinitude. This way they are one and infinite, but not one and a multitude.
2. That “light of glory” that Thomas Aquinas speaks of is the Tabor light. It is the divine energy that makes the human soul “deiform” or “theo-form” so that the soul can “see” but never “comprehend” the divine essence. (This doesn’t work exactly because Thomas calls it the “created light of glory” – see below.)
3. When we say “see the divine essence” it may actually only be the light of glory or divine infinite energy/ies. It’s as if we say “I saw the sun today” but in reality, we did not see the actual substance of the sun.

The chief problem is that it seems that Thomas excludes “light of glory” from actually being God. He calls it created. But I would challenge Aquinas on this. How can something “created” make one “deiform”? A created light cannot make a soul deiform. That’s actually Pelagianism. Only God (not a creature) could make a human soul “deiform.”

The real point of debate here then (and if Aquinas is reconcilable) is whether the light of glory is created or uncreated. If uncreated, it seems to fit. However, Thomas Aquinas does say “created light of glory” at STh I, q. 12, a. 7:

Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory (lumen gloriae creatum) received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

If we could scratch out that Latin word “creatum” and replace it with “non creatum,” Thomas would be full out Palamite.