www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Created Grace

Can some one please explain what the Byzantine Catholic position is of 'created Grace'? Is it the same as the Roman Catholic position? If not, how does it differ? And how does it correspond to the Orthodox position? Thanks Bob

I have heard of the Western theology of "created grace" but don't know if that is an actual theology of the Western Church. Maybe one of our Latin contributors (Vincent or Ed?) could provide a summary of the Western theology (I think it is probably based upon St. Augustine). It is not a theology known to Byzantine Catholics.

For Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox (I don't see a difference), the theology of Divine Grace is linked to the understanding of original sin. For us, it is the means of restoration of what was lost through Adam and Eve, something freely given by God. One way to look at is that man is created in the image of God, but must grow into His likeness. Man needs God to attain this likeness, but God can only give us what we accept from him (through our free will).

I like what Diadochus (5th century) had to say about grace:

Grace hides its presence within the baptized, waiting or the soul's desire; when the whole man turns himself wholly to the Lord, then in an unutterable experience it reveals its presence in the heart.... If man begins to advance by observing the commandments and unwearingly involking th eLord Jesus, then the fire of divine grace diffuses itself even to the exterior senses of the heart. [As quoted in Meyendorff's "St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality", p31] .

Grace is immersed in our presence and, as we grow in Christ, slowly diffuses itself changing us, both physically and spiritually.

This is possibly the start of an excellent thread. My words provide just a few ideas on the things that come to my mind and are no means exhaustive. Hopefully, they can serve as a foundation for discussion.

Thank you, Robert!

Dear all,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is an issue I have never understood. Why on earth should this be something that divides us? If God gives us SOMETHING that is created grace. If God gives us HIMSELF it is obviously uncreated. Do Orthodox believe God never gives us things? Do Roman Catholics believe God's salvation is not primarily the gift of Himself??

No doubt in my mind the various traditions emphasize these two realities in different ways. But where on earth, can there possibly a substantial difference in faith?

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

Dear Robert, Moose, and Bro. Maximos,
The notion of "created grace" is very much misunderstood by many. Those who attack the notion think of it as some sort of created "stuff" which God inserts into us. This is not the thinking of the best of western theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas (though such thinking is hinted at in some post-tridentine theological manuals). Rather, created grace refers to the effect of God's self-communication within us. In other words, Roman Catholic theology maintains that when uncreated grace, i.e., God Himself, is communicated to us, He has the effect of transforming us into His own likeness. This grace of transformation is called "created" because it is an effect of God's communication of Himself to us.
The idea of created grace was developed by theologians in answer to the following question:

How does man become truly a partaker in the divine nature without becoming God?

That man is truly a partaker in the divine nature means that he really and truly is transformed in his inner being. That man does not become God in the process means that his holiness is not identical with God's holiness.

It must be remembered also that the idea of created grace is not a dogma of the western church but merely a theological opinion. What is not theological opinion is that grace truly elevates us to partake of the life of God without for all that making us equal to God in nature.

In Christ,

Ed

To all,
Just a bit of history on the notion of created grace. Here is what Father Louis Bouyer of blessed memory has to say:

"The soul, in turn, in accordance with the way in which St. Thomas thought of grace, is perfected and exceeds itself in God. In contradiction to Peter Lombard, St. Thomas did not accept the idea that grace is purely and simply the gift of the Holy Spirit, of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity as He is in Himself. It seemed to him that, in this case, man would indeed be the Temple of the Spirit, but not His living Temple, vivified by the presence of its Guest assimilating our life to His own life. The uncreated grace of the gift of the Spirit, therefore, according to Thomas, is extended in the soul itself by a created grace, that is, by a divine quality making the soul like to God, causing it to participate in His own life."

Note that for St. Thomas the doctrine of created grace is necessary to ensure the reality of man's participation in God's life. Without it, man would be a mere receptacle of the Holy Spirit. This would mean that man would not really and truly share in the life of the Holy Spirit. Man's good works would not be in any way his but only God's. There would be no synergy.

As regards the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas in its relation to that of St. Thomas, here is what Fr. Bouyer has to say:

"If we wish to indicate the points of contrast between St. Thomas and Palamas, we can pick them out easily. On the one hand, absolute simplicity of the divine essence, in which grace already allows us to participate and which we shall see without any intermediary in the eternity of the blessed. On the other hand, division, or at least real distinction, between the divine essence and the "energies," so that, in grace, the energies act directly within our whole being, while the essence itself, in this life and the next, remains impenetrable, inaccessible to us.
On the one hand, again, created grace, but one which assures our participation in the very essence of God. On the other, uncreated grace, but one which causes us to participate only in the energies radiating from the essence.
Although St. Gregory Palamas was as persuaded as was Thomas himself of the necessity for realistic thinking, and for a realism which should be critical and therefore nourished by Aristotle rather than by Plato --- though by an Aristotle rectified by the Bible and the tradition of the Fathers --- he was certainly a less rigorous philosopher. His concern was directly spiritual, and he wished to be a theologian only to defend the spirituality which seemed to him traditional, not to speculate for the sake of speculating. It is, therefore, an easy game to criticize, from a strictly philosophical point of view, the real distinction he made between the divine essence and the divine energies.
The fact remains that the same contradiction encountered here is at least latent in the Thomistic theological conception of a grace which is created even though it causes us to participate in the divine nature itself. For on the one hand as on the other, we run into the unheard-of paradox of biblical faith, the paradox that no Greek concept could include: of the transcendent God Who yet communicates Himself and Who really communicates Himself, without for all that absorbing His creature, much less being dissolved in it.
Furthermore, we must not be deceived by some of his expressions. While Gregory Palamas speaks of the divine essence as unpartakable, unknowable, this must be understood, as with the Cappadocians, in the sense of an adequate knowledge or of a participation which would make us divine persons. Conversely, the participation which St. Thomas envisages is only an analogical participation and the vision necessarily not comprehensive. Under one formulation as under the other, what is meant is a communication of the divine life which is authentic, and which becomes authentically our own, without implying any pantheistic immanence or any form of externalism."

Just an added point. Roman Catholic theologians who speak of man's partaking of the divine nature use the same analogies as used by the eastern Fathers (e.g., the iron in the fire, etc..) This clearly shows that they are speaking of the same reality even though they use different theologies to understand it.

In Christ,

Ed

Dear Ed,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for that wonderful contribution! Could you conclude we have here two different ways of saying the same thing, each necessary to complement the other?

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

I kind of like the St. Thomas Aquinas formulation. And now, using my famous/infamous 9th grade level of explanation, I would re-formulate:

God is the power company (grace).
At baptism, we are made temples of the Holy Spirit (houses).
At that time of baptism/christmation, the power company turns on the power lines of grace.
What we, in the Temple, connect to the power source is the result of our human choices, i.e., for good or for evil.

So, God is the source of grace; what we do with it is the result of human choices for good or evil.

Ne c'est pas?

[So, God is the source of grace; what we do with it is the result of human choices for good or evil.

Ne c'est pas?]

Most definitely! Finally in a language this poor sinner can understand.

Thanks,
Bob