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

Although living at different times, the Eastern Fathers (i.e., those who lived during the first millennium) condemned any kind of vision of the divine essence, either in this life or the next, and in doing this they condemned the error of Aquinas by anticipating his views. Now, as a side note, Eastern Christians, as I am sure that you are already aware, hold that the patristic age has never ended. Moreover, the Church is by her very nature "patristic," because she is the Church of the Fathers.

The modern cut off date for the Fathers only arose after the Reformation; and in fact, it had its origin among Protestants.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - I wish you well as you continue your spiritual journey through life. Now, just a friendly suggestion, but highly recommend that you read the texts I have mentioned throughout this thread, because as an Eastern Christian you would benefit greatly, both spiritually and in your doctrinal formation.

The reason that Fr. Hardon holds, along with other Thomists (men like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Cardinal Journet, et. al.), that sanctifying grace is a created reality in the soul, is because the entire Thomistic theory of grace is based upon the causal metaphysics of Aristotle; and so, whenever St. Thomas speaks of God "causing" grace to exist in the soul, he means that it is something distinct from God (as Fr. Hardon explained) and created in order to unite man to the Trinity. Now the created nature of grace was made quite clear by St. Thomas in part three of the Summa when he said -- in reference to the finite reality of grace in Christ's human soul -- that, "Grace is something created in the soul," and -- of course -- for St. Thomas this proves that grace is a finite reality in Christ's soul, and by extension in the souls of all men. [Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 7, Art. 11]

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - You may want to look into the debates on the nature of grace between Karl Rahner and the Thomists of his day, because Fr. Rahner (like Germain Grisez, a Catholic moral theologian) was uncomfortable with the theory of "created" grace. Germain Grisez explains his difficulties in connection with "created" grace in his book entitled, "The Way of the Lord Jesus," so you may want to check out what he has to say too.

I have to say thanks to all who have particiapted in this thread (espeically Apoth). It has been for me both spiritually enriching and informative. I am glad to see it!

Thank God for it.

In which Council was that error condemned?

Was Aquinas a Father of the Church in your estimation or did the Western Fathers just die out?

Is the Holy Father a Father of the Church in your estimation -- one whose views throughout the ages we owe some deference to? Say for e.g. John Paul II in Fides et Ratio:

Or Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris:

That must sound blasphemous to you. I think there is much truth there and I am willing to look for it.

While I can appreciate your love for the Fathers, I cringe each time you condemn Thomas in order to say you love the Fathers. I don't know of any recent Holy Fathers who have done that. I am willing to attempt to do both - honor (and read) the Fathers and Aquinas. I find great comfort being in Peter's camp - as an orthodox Catholic.

But then this discussion reminds me a bit of when they accused Clarence Thomas of not really being an African American because he didn't share the same views as other African Americans.

And I still think you are equivocating on energies etc. If man becomes God by being united to the energies, but the energies aren't God then has man become god? No - he's become the energies. Now if the energies are God, then essence and energies are one. But then you have said they both are and aren't God. So I think you see the problem.

On the other hand, with Aquinas, theosis is real because one really is united to God Himself although one does not fully comprehend Him because that would require infinite being which creatures are not.

Both Gregory and Thomas recognize the problem but solve it in different ways. I find Thomas' judgement better and it fits better with the rest of reality and yes with what most of the Fathers said.

As to my Eastern Catholicity, I have officially been one for 7 years but my inclinations have been that way for nearly 22 years. Grandparents from both sides of my family immigrated from Slovakia and my mother's family was and some still are Greek Catholics and we have retained many of the ethnic customs of my ancestors. My Father's family was Roman and so I was baptized in the Roman Church. I love the rich liturgical life of my Church. But I don't think I have to, nor I am bound to agree with Gregory Palamas' position to be orthodox, but I still honor him as a Saint.

The polemic against Thomas is I think unjust and certainly it is not in the true spirit of ecumenism. But most of all, I think he's feared because his judgement is so sound.

Whenever I read your posts I must admit that I am truly saddened, because like all Roman Catholics you seem to think that the doctrines of the faith must be decreed by an ecumenical council for them to be binding, but -- of course -- there have only been seven Ecumenical Councils; and so, the vast majority of what Christians believe to be divine revealed has never been decreed (e.g., the doctrine of theosis, that fact that Mary participates in the mediation of grace to mankind, etc.), and nor is it likely to ever be set forth in a horos.

Thus, as I said before, I do not see any possibility of our coming to an agreement on the issue of grace, because I hold that grace is God's own uncreated life and glory, that is, it is God as energy; and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as "created" grace.

May God bless you,
Todd

This will be the last time that I say this to you, because I grow tired of repeating myself: the uncreated energies are God as He manifests Himself to man. In other words, God is more than the divine essence, He is also the uncreated divine energies, which are truly distinct from the divine essence but without the implication of a diastema, and He is also really a triad of divine hypostaseis. All three of these distinctions are real, and not merely virtual, because to deny the reality of them is to fall into the heresy of Sabellian modalism.

Finally, the fact that you seem to be incapable of understanding the doctrine of the Eastern Fathers, is -- of course -- frustrating to me, because we are both members of the Ruthenian Church; and so, our theology is supposed to be Eastern. It is conversations like this one, that show me why the Ruthenian Church is dying, because the process of de-Latinization is clearly being frustrated by members of the Church who know little or nothing about the Eastern doctrinal tradition. So, while you may be a "liturgical" Easterner, I feel compelled to say that your theology does not conform to the teachings of the Cappadocian Fathers or any of the other Eastern Fathers of the first or second millennium. I repeat my earlier suggestion, which I made for your spiritual and doctrinal growth, that you start reading the Eastern Fathers.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - You may also benefit from reading Fr. George Maloney's (S.J.) book entitled "A Theology of Uncreated Energies."

P.P.S - I have never said that the divine essence and the divine energies are not God; instead, I have said that they are both God, while at the same time they are distinct from each other, but without a separation. Eastern theology does not accept the dialectical approach of the Scholastic philosophers of the West, but of course I am sure that you already know that, since you are -- after all -- an Eastern Christian.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

We're not dying because of Latinizations - we're dying because we're unorthodox!

I have always been a bit of a non-conformist -- with Chesterton, I call it the romance of orthodoxy!


Pax vobiscum,

lm


PS - While I continue to read the Fathers, let me encourage you to continue to read Aquinas and yes even Aristotle - a Greek you know! Now there's a non-conformist idea - Byzantines reading an ancient Greek philosopher.

PPS - Is Fr. Maloney, SJ orthodox?

Dear brother Todd,

Thank you for clarifying your position. I do not mind at all that you disagree with something you see as erroneous. What I have a disagreement with is your assessment that to view God as simple is distinctly "Latin." By doing so, you are, perhaps inadvertantly, failing to recognize the existence of a portion of apostolic Christianity that you cannot easily categorize as "Greek" or "Latin." That is insulting because you thus imply that we Orientals don't even exist or at least do not have a right to express ourselves in our own way. I know that is not your intention, but it can easily be construed in that way.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

This post is full of erroneous assumptions. First of all, don't call us Orientals "crypto-Latins." It is not bad to be a Latin, but given your misinterpretations of the Latin doctrines - and concurrent insistence on your own misinterpretations despite correction - it is safe to assume that you are not using "crypto-Latin" in a very nice way.

Second, show me where I ever stated that the Oriental Churches believe in "created grace," much less "created grace" as YOU have misinterpreted the Latin teaching. From there, our discussion can proceed.

Third, your assumption that just because there are things with which Orientals agree on with the West, and disagree on with the East, somehow dictates that she must be in full communion with the West is pure sensationalist rhetoric. I am confident that you will reassess your mistaken rationale. Consequently, perhaps you will also see that your appeal to the disagreement on the Tome of Leo is a straw man. It is simply a fact that there are some beliefs we share with the West that we do not share with the East and some beliefs we share withe the East that we do not share with the West. This does not dictate that the Oriental Orthodox Church is in communion with the West, any more than it dictates that she is in communion with the East, n'est pas?

Fourth, if you will grant the favor, believe me when I say that the hierarchy of the Oriental Orthodox Church is fully apprised of the distinction of essence and energies. But I also ask that you believe me when I say that there are many Oriental Orthodox who are simply unaware of that distinction. This certainly does not mean, as you have wrongly assumed, that such Orientals are aware or even accept the idea of "created grace" (MUCH LESS "created grace" according to YOUR understanding) It simply means that many Oriental Orthodox are very content with the idea that God is simple. But whatever else you may believe from me, believe this - the Oriental Orthodox do not go so far as do condemn any of her members for holding a belief which is more akin to the Latin understanding than the Greek understanding in regard to this issue. This non-dogmatic approach to this issue is, you must admit, a perspective that the Oriental Orthodox shares with the Westerns which she DOES NOT share with the Easterns.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Todd,

Far be it from me to speak for IM, but let me add this comment for consideration:

There is a difference between asking what may be believed, on the one hand, and asking what may be condemned, on the other. IM only asked a question with respect to the latter point. Does the fact that one party believes something that another party does not believe dictate one way or the other that the belief is condemnable? No it does not. We must necessarily look to an Ecumenical Council for such a determination, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't call this cautionary attitude merely "Roman Catholic," for in fact it is nothing more nor less than patristic. I would hope the Eastern portion of Christianity does not take it upon themselves to render judgments on other portions of Christianity without the benefit of an Ecumenical Council. That would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy, given the constant fears and complaints against unilateral actions by the bishop of Rome.

Blessings,
Marduk

First of all let me say that any citation of Summa III as regards the grace of Christ must be refered back to the original definition of "created grace" supplied by St. Thomas Aquinas in I-II, Q.110, A.2 as I cited much earlier in this thread. He is speaking here of the accidental grace, the state of grace, which is limited by the bounds of its subject (in this case the humanity of Christ). If the human nature of Christ was infinite (in all things everywhere), then the state of grace would be infinite, but since it is finite (His physical body had real boundaries, so you could say "that is His hand, but Peter's hand is not") the state of grace is likewise finite, as it applies only to His human nature.

Since the state of a created thing can only apply to that particular created thing (my state of motion is not the state of motion of the world around me, but only of my body), and a creature is finite in nature, that state of the creature is likewise finite.

This in no way implies limit on the substance of Grace, which is God (the Divine Life) and infinite. It just means that my having Grace does not mean that the whole universe has Grace, since the "having" is limited by the bounds of the "haver". Again you are confusing states, or accidents, with substances, and thus making St. Thomas Aquinas out to be saying something he would utterly condemn.

As others have pointed out, St. Thomas is refering to certain things as "grace" that would not be refered to as such elsewhere, or possibly wouldn't be addressed at all. This is simply because he's utilizing a metaphysical language that is different from that of the Fathers, who tended towards Platonist language as opposed to Aristotilean language. The Fathers were not Platonists, and St. Thomas was not an Aristotilean, however, but all were rather men trying to put Divine Mysteries into contemporary language.

That the Fathers did not use the language of "states" and "subjects", or "accidents" and "substance" does not mean that such language is incompatible with their intentions. Such modification of language has always happened in different cultures (leading to such notorius splits as that of Chalcedon, for example), and are often far more radical than what we're discussing here. I have spoken with priests who worked with certain Native tribes in the Canadian Arctic that had no language structure that could accommodate traditional Christian expressions, and so notions like "impregnated with God" have to be used in order to convey the meanings of Grace and Divine Sonship. Such realities are part and parcel with translations that go beyond language barriers, expanding to fill whole cultural constructs. This is why, I believe, the Apostles were Gifted with Tongues in the first place.

As for the issue of Oriental Churches, I would just raise one point (though I don't intend to further this sidetrack beyond this point): some Oriental Christians ARE in Communion with the Church of Rome (as Mardukm is proof). This is not to say that they are "more Roman than Eastern", as the Oriental Churches have their own unique theological approach and Patrimony. After all, the Oriental Catholics are just as much in union with the Byzantines as with the Latins. This is a reality that we as Catholics are quite fortunate to experience, and we should not denigrate this relationship as a matter of "Latinization" on anyone's part.

Peace and God bless!

The statement below is from the reply to the 3rd objection in II-I Question 110, art.2 "Of the Grace of God as Regards its Essence:"

It seems that is something East and West can agree on.

Dear lm,

I don't see how, friend.

I think Todd's point is very well articulated.

Grace is the gift of God Himself to us. It is God Himself.

Just as we would be burned by participating directly in the sun, so too we cannot participate directly in God.

Just as we are warmed by the sun's rays, so too we are "partakers of the Divinity" through God's uncreated energies.

That seems to be a point of contention between East and West.

There's no way the East will surrender its position.

And no amount of massaging the Thomist position would, as far as I can see, make it palatable to the East.

Alex

I think the how is because by "It," "ie, Grace," we are a new creation - we become like God. As I see it for Thomas, however, there is no "it," ie no meduim which God created to put in man - It is God Himself. From His side, "It" is uncreated - from ours "it" is created.

St. Gregory Palamas wants to posit an "It," which is in some sense, God and "not God." I think He and Thomas see the same problem, "How can mere mortals become immortal without becoming the Imoortal One. We know becoming immortal is our end, because the Immortal one became man.

What I find fascinating in Thomas' account, when final theosis occurs, we know not only Him but He is the form by which we know Him. [Since I don't have the text in front of me, I don't know if this is exactly how he puts it but it is close ] A proper understanding of what Thomas' is saying would require many distinctions eg, matter, form and privation etc. Nonenthless, we do not fully know or comprehend Him, ie, we don't become His Essence, because He is Infinite Being.

Look at the analogy of the bat and the sun that Thomas uses in I Q12 Art. 1 where Thomas asks, "Whether anyone can see the essence of God?" He writes:

Thomas is not saying that God is "knowable,"
because he, Thomas, knows Him, but because He IS. To us, creatures, this will seem like darkness, like "unknowability." For unless we are infinite we cannot comprehend Him - which must seem like a sort of darkness or "beyond Being." Somehow, even in theosis, that chasm still remains. Hence, St. Gregory sees the need for Energies that are God but are not His Essence.

Perhaps it is good to recall that St. Thomas on his death bed (at the time while he was ill he was writing a commentary on the Canticle of Canticles - which I find very cool and paradoxical - one the of the greatest minds in the West writing a commentary on the mostly "fleshy" book of the Bible) had a vision. After that vision, but before he died, he would not take up his pen any longer. He said, "All I have written is but straw."

In the last analysis, what St. Thomas "saw" or what he experienced, far exceeded what he had written about I AM.

In the Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas taught, I cited it in an earlier post, that all sensible knowledge must cease for this vision or theosis to take place - he said it could occur only in death or ecstacy. That does seem similar to what holy monks are seeking - that quietude where God reigns supreme.

Now much of what Thomas has written has been very, very helpful to me over the years and many others and I think the Church would do well to pay more attention to Him [even some of his Eastern "enemies" quoted him extensively to combat the Muslims] to stop much of the nonsense which plagues modern society.

Finally, however, the kind of "knowledge" that we are looking for is not in the head. It is comprehensive: head, heart and spirit nothing short of theosis. From what Thomas wrote in the Summa Contra Gentiles, I have no doubt that Thomas knew that and finally found it.

Dear lm,

In that case, the Latin Church should have no problem affirming "Uncreated Grace!"

There, that's one problem solved!

Alex