T
Tomdstone
Guest
Do Eastern Catholics share the view of the Eastern Orthodox that the Roman (western) Catholic teaching on created grace is a serious error?
- Status
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I will let Eastern Catholics speak for themselves, but I would hazard a guess that no, they do not believe that the Western view is a “serious error,” as Latin Catholics would then essentially be preaching another gospel.
Just so people have a reference, St. Thomas (probably the only mainstream Catholic source in which you will see this term) says that grace is called “created” in the following sense.
And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”
newadvent.org/summa/2110.htm#article2
That is, he is not teaching that God creates a lump of grace and puts it in the soul or something ridiculous.
Just so people have a reference, St. Thomas (probably the only mainstream Catholic source in which you will see this term) says that grace is called “created” in the following sense.
And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it, i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, “created in Jesus Christ in good works.”
newadvent.org/summa/2110.htm#article2
That is, he is not teaching that God creates a lump of grace and puts it in the soul or something ridiculous.
M
MichaelinMD
Guest
As an Eastern Catholic, I would agree with you. More than that, I really cannot say because of the severe limits of my knowledge and understanding.
Have a blessed and wonderful Pascha!
In Christ,
MinM
B
Basilian
Guest
Christ is risen!
The East has taught that the grace of God is the very divine life of God. Because of the theology of theosis, no grace can be anything other than the life of God. This way of seeing the uncreated energies of God developed before the Great Schism was healed among many Eastern Churches. Think of St. Gregory Palamas of the 1300s - almost a full 300 years before the Union of Brest, and other such unions.
We can probably all agree that it isn’t simply “unmerited favour”, or a parcel of divine help.
I am very interested and confused by the idea that “created grace” vs “uncreated grace” are different gospels entirely. Could that be true…?
The East has taught that the grace of God is the very divine life of God. Because of the theology of theosis, no grace can be anything other than the life of God. This way of seeing the uncreated energies of God developed before the Great Schism was healed among many Eastern Churches. Think of St. Gregory Palamas of the 1300s - almost a full 300 years before the Union of Brest, and other such unions.
We can probably all agree that it isn’t simply “unmerited favour”, or a parcel of divine help.
I am very interested and confused by the idea that “created grace” vs “uncreated grace” are different gospels entirely. Could that be true…?
V
Vico
Guest
At the Council of 1351 St. John of Damascus was quoted as making a distinction between the energeia and the consequence of energeia called energima. The energia is uncreated Grace that energises, and energima is the created effect. I believe energima is consistent with the Catholic dogma.
Refer to: God Hidden and Revealed: The Apophatic Way and the Essence-Energies Distinction – Kalistos Ware, Eastern Churches Review, 7. 1975. pp 125-136.
Catholics must hold to the dogma of faith of grace that effects a change, and it is called created grace. There is no dogmatic teaching, that must be accepted, regarding uncreated effects, that I have ever read about (of the 255+ dogmas of faith that I know of). I do not deny the fidelity of this dogma of the Catholic Church.
Per Cathoic, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit consists of:1) the uncreated substantial grace,
2) the created accidental grace.
The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit which occurs at a moment in time, does not erase that there was an earlier time when that person was not a “dwelling place of the Spirit”.
St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction 3:6.“You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit.”
(Ancient Christian Writers, p. 57)
1 Corinthians 12:6:
And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.
και διαιρεσεις ενεργηματων εισιν ο δε αυτος εστιν θεος οενεργων τα παντα εν πασιν
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
No, I don’t think that they are different gospels. What I meant is that since grace is centr to the gospel, if the notion of “created grace” were incompatible with “uncreated grace,” then one would be a different gospel from the other. For my part, bot being well-versed in Eastern theology, I would be inclined to say rather that tey are merely the same thing considered under different respects. Uncreated grace as the operation of God and created grace as the “new creation” in man, as Vico explained.
R
Richca
Guest
Hello QNDNNDQDCE,
Actually, St Thomas Aquinas says that “grace may be taken in two ways: first, as a divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act.” I think in this sense you could say that grace is uncreated because it is God himself by His gratuitous will who moves our intellects and wills to good and especially meritorious good.
Secondly, Aquinas says that “grace may be taken for the habitual gift, i.e., sanctifying grace.” Sanctifying grace is a supernatural gift created by God and which He infuses into our souls and which inheres in our souls. Sanctifying grace which we receive in baptism makes us partakers of the divine nature. It elevates our souls to a supernatural order. But sanctifying grace does not make us God but like to God. For there is an infinite distance between being the divine nature and participating in the divine nature just as there is an infinite distance between being itself which is God and participating in being such as creatures. Sanctifying grace, though it elevates us to a supernatural order and perfects our nature and by which we have a share in the divine nature, does not change our status as creatures or human beings. For whatever is not God is something created by God and thus sanctifying grace being a supernatural gift bestowed on the soul by God is something created by Him.
I think the statement you made in post #6 in which you said “Uncreated grace as the operation of God and created grace as the “new creation” in man” is more to this point.
V
Vico
Guest
In the Modern Catholic Dictionary is this:
“there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982
The created grace concept (Franciscans and Thomists) was used to explain how justification and sanctification consists in a change in the human soul so that it becomes a partaker of the divine nature without becoming God. So that concept of created grace has the same goal as St. Gregory Palamas had when he made the distinction between the unsharable divine essence and the sharable divine energies or actions.
F
FrKimel
Guest
I am presently blogging on a little book published in the early 60s on the topic of grace. Today I just posted an article on the scholastic development of “created grace.” Folks should find it of interest, and I certainly welcome feedback: goo.gl/Hoybrz.
My tentative belief, for what it’s worth, is that Eastern Christians would not object to an understanding of created grace, as long as created grace is not understood as a “thing” standing between God and man. The whole point of theosis is that God gives God.
My tentative belief, for what it’s worth, is that Eastern Christians would not object to an understanding of created grace, as long as created grace is not understood as a “thing” standing between God and man. The whole point of theosis is that God gives God.
G
Ghosty
Guest
FrKimel: I read your article on created grace, and I just wanted to thank you for it and say that it is one of the most fair and clear treatments of the subject I’ve read. I think you are quite correct in saying that “created grace” is easily misunderstood, more due to the basic wording itself than anything else, and that it really doesn’t introduce anything new or distinct from God’s action in our soul and the participation in the Divine Life.
I think it’s a great insight that the language of “created grace” arose from the particular direction of inquiry among Latin theologians, and was never intended as a break with the Tradition of direct participation in Divinity through Grace. I would add that Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, even stresses that “created Grace” is indeed actually Divine and uncreated in its essence, but is called “created” because it has a beginning in time (meaning our Divine Participation begins in time, not that some new “substance” is created), and that it doesn’t arise from anything already “in us”, i.e. it is truly a gift from God and not a development of our own human nature; we are given Divine Life gratuitously, not because we are “little gods” merely growing in our own nature.
The language itself is quite foreign to Eastern ears, but no moreso than Palamite language is to Latin ears. Both languages developed to address peculiar theological concerns in areas of the Church that were sadly rather distant from eachother. Both required a lot of hashing out and refinement, and both require certain assumptions and contextual understanding to be clear to the listener. I really appreciate that you have not only made the effort to understand the language and context of this Latin theological concept, but also translate and explain it to those of an Eastern mindset.
Thank you for your work, and may God continue to Bless you and guide you!
I think it’s a great insight that the language of “created grace” arose from the particular direction of inquiry among Latin theologians, and was never intended as a break with the Tradition of direct participation in Divinity through Grace. I would add that Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, even stresses that “created Grace” is indeed actually Divine and uncreated in its essence, but is called “created” because it has a beginning in time (meaning our Divine Participation begins in time, not that some new “substance” is created), and that it doesn’t arise from anything already “in us”, i.e. it is truly a gift from God and not a development of our own human nature; we are given Divine Life gratuitously, not because we are “little gods” merely growing in our own nature.
The language itself is quite foreign to Eastern ears, but no moreso than Palamite language is to Latin ears. Both languages developed to address peculiar theological concerns in areas of the Church that were sadly rather distant from eachother. Both required a lot of hashing out and refinement, and both require certain assumptions and contextual understanding to be clear to the listener. I really appreciate that you have not only made the effort to understand the language and context of this Latin theological concept, but also translate and explain it to those of an Eastern mindset.
Thank you for your work, and may God continue to Bless you and guide you!
F
FrKimel
Guest
Thank you, Ghosty.
F
FrKimel
Guest
Ghosty, you may also find the conclusion of the series of interest: goo.gl/iu0Kuj.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I actually read the whole way through, and enjoyed it very much. Now you just have to tackle the filioque and solve a thousand years of polemics! 
I look forward to reading through the rest of your blog. May God continue to bless you and keep you, Father, and please pray for me.
I look forward to reading through the rest of your blog. May God continue to bless you and keep you, Father, and please pray for me.
R
Richca
Guest
hello ghosty,
In the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, St Thomas says “grace may be taken in two ways; first, as a divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us” (ST I-II, Q. 111, Art. 2).
As a habitual gift which is sanctifying grace, grace is a being created by God and infused into the soul which makes us partakers of the divine nature as St Peter says “he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Sanctifying grace does not make us God but is something of the likeness or a participation of the divine nature. There is an infinite distance between being the divine nature such as God is and having a participation in the divine nature which is sanctifying grace. St Thomas says that sanctifying grace is a “certain beauty of soul which wins the divine love. But beauty of the soul is a quality, even as beauty of the body. Therefore, grace is a quality.” Thus sanctifying grace has qualitative being in our souls which is infused there by God and which raises our souls to a supernatural order.
Secondly, grace may be taken as a divine help whereby “God moves man’s soul to know or will or to do something, the gratuitous effect in man is not a quality, but a movement of the soul; for motion is the act of the mover in the moved” (ST I-II, Q.110, Art. 2).
R
Richca
Guest
hello frkimel,
Though sanctifying grace is something created by God and which He infuses into our souls (such as at baptism) which raises our souls to a supernatural order and by which we participate in the divine nature as far as a pure creature is able, it should not be understood as something standing between God and man. As something created and finite, it is not God yet our end is God. The life of sanctifying grace here on earth is ordained to the beatific vision where in heaven we hope to see God face to face (1 John 3:2) and enjoy Him for all eternity.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Read the whole of Question 110, Article 2 and you’ll see that Aquinas does not say that sanctifying Grace is a “being created by God”. On the contrary, he says that sanctifying grace is an accidental form of the soul, and therefore does not have its own being. Specifically he says this:
And just prior to this he lays out precisely what this accident is, namely a direct participation in Divinity:
So Grace itself is supernatural, i.e. Divine, but it exists in us accidentally rather than substantially. This is just a fancy way of saying that what God is by His Nature, we are by Participation. Since Divinity is accidental to us we never “become God” in our nature, but we most certainly do share in Divine power and activity (in Byzantine theology we call this Divine Energy). This is not a power or being distinct from God, but an actual sharing of “the Divine form”. We share in it imperfectly because it is is an accident to our nature, as opposed to the Son that shares substantially with the Father (i.e. Divinity is His very Nature, and not an accidental form bestowed upon His Nature).
So Aquinas can say without contradiction that Grace is both nobler than our nature, that it is truly supernatural (Divine), and yet it is an accident, or non-essential characteristic, of our being. In its substantial being, Grace is infinitely greater than our nature because it is truly Divine, but as an accident it is “created” in the sense that we acquire it, and a new form is made of our nature.
Peace and God bless!
F
FrKimel
Guest
Hi, Rich. Please do take a look at the series of articles I wrote and let me know if you disagree with anything.
In response to your comment above and your comment to Ghosty: what I notice above all is what is not included–the Holy Spirit (uncreated grace). I’m sure that you would have added him if you were presenting a fuller statement, yet it is precisely this omission that worries the Orthodox. “God became Man,” St Athanasius declared, “so that man might become God.” Does your formulation say this?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I enjoyed the articles. Pretty much sums it up here…“To phrase the matter somewhat differently, created grace is a personal mode of being, being-in-another, life in God.”
G
Ghosty
Guest
FrKimel: You may find this ttreatise by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. interesting and illuminating:
ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace3.htm
It is a bit technical in its terminology, as it is written for educated theologians, but it is very thorough and deals directly with the topic at hand. He draws mostly on Aquinas, but fills in different opinions from various theologians, including Nominalists. His main point in this particular chapter is that sanctifying grace must be a formal sharing in Divinity Itself, albeit accidentally rather than naturally, as created nature would be incapable of direct experience of God (most notably in the Beatific Vision) because God is infinitely greater than any created nature, and invisible as He is to our limited, creaturely vision.
If we are to see God Himself, as promised in Scripture, then we must possess “Divine eyes”, and such power is only possible for Divinity. Since we can come to see God, we must be given true Divinity in some manner, and this is by sanctifying grace.
In these writings by Thomists you can really see how similar the teaching is to that of Palamas, albeit coming from the direction of humanity rather than of the Divine Nature. Palamas answers how Divinity is sharable, Thomists answer how humans can share in It. The two views, in my mind, are almost perfectly complimentary.
Peace and God bless!
ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace3.htm
It is a bit technical in its terminology, as it is written for educated theologians, but it is very thorough and deals directly with the topic at hand. He draws mostly on Aquinas, but fills in different opinions from various theologians, including Nominalists. His main point in this particular chapter is that sanctifying grace must be a formal sharing in Divinity Itself, albeit accidentally rather than naturally, as created nature would be incapable of direct experience of God (most notably in the Beatific Vision) because God is infinitely greater than any created nature, and invisible as He is to our limited, creaturely vision.
If we are to see God Himself, as promised in Scripture, then we must possess “Divine eyes”, and such power is only possible for Divinity. Since we can come to see God, we must be given true Divinity in some manner, and this is by sanctifying grace.
In these writings by Thomists you can really see how similar the teaching is to that of Palamas, albeit coming from the direction of humanity rather than of the Divine Nature. Palamas answers how Divinity is sharable, Thomists answer how humans can share in It. The two views, in my mind, are almost perfectly complimentary.
Peace and God bless!
R
Richca
Guest
- Status