Created grace

[FrKimel]

Gentlemen: you may find of interest this dissertation on deification in Aquinas. I have not read it yet (and probably won’t, given how many other books I have on my reading list that are demanding my attention), but hopefully it will be helpful to you all.

goo.gl/HvaXGP

 

[Ghosty]

Richa:

In the theology of St Thomas Aquinas, God has no accidents so if sanctifying grace is a quality which is an accidental form than it is not God but something created by God.

Again, I point you to Aquinas’ own words:

Now what is substantially in God, becomes accidental in the soul participating the Divine goodness, as is clear in the case of knowledge.

It is an accident in us, but substantial to God. If it is substantial in God, then it is Divinity itself because God is simple. You are correct that God does not enter into the composition of things, and that we can’t become Divine in our essence, but this does not mean that God can’t share Himself in such a way that we accidentally possess Him and acquire His traits. If we did not then the Beatific Vision would be impossible, as we would not have the capacity to see God as He Is.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Richca]

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?

hello frkimel,
St Paul says "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19). Through sanctifying grace, the Holy Trinity dwells within us as an object known and loved in a supernatural way especially from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity of which sanctifying grace is the principle and root. Sanctifying grace is also the principle and root of other supernatural moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In catholic teaching, sanctifying grace is a created supernatural gift bestowed on the soul by God which makes the soul just in His sight and pleasing to Him and from which the theological virtues, other supernatural moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit flow; and which enables us to live a life pleasing to God and hopefully attain to heaven. The Holy Spirit acts through all these gifts of His. These gifts are not the Holy Spirit or God himself but His gifts. These gifts are ordained to the beatific vision which is the vision and possession of God for all eternity which we hope to possess in heaven.
Sanctifying grace also makes us partakers of the divine nature which is a created participation or a created likeness for sanctifying grace is a habitual disposition or quality which inheres in the essence of our soul and thus is a real part of us.

When St Athanasius says that “God became man so that man might become God” I don’t think he means that man actually becomes God Himself by grace or in heaven. Indeed, I think it is quite impossible for a pure creature to be at one and the same time, created and uncreated, eternal and temporal, finite and infinite. A creature is created, temporal, and finite whereas God is uncreated, eternal, and infinite. I think St Athanasius would agree to the words of St John “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

 

[FrKimel]

hello frkimel,
St Paul says "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19). Through sanctifying grace, the Holy Trinity dwells within us as an object known and loved in a supernatural way especially from the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity of which sanctifying grace is the principle and root. Sanctifying grace is also the principle and root of other supernatural moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In catholic teaching, sanctifying grace is a created supernatural gift bestowed on the soul by God which makes the soul just in His sight and pleasing to Him and from which the theological virtues, other supernatural moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit flow; and which enables us to live a life pleasing to God and hopefully attain to heaven. The Holy Spirit acts through all these gifts of His. These gifts are not the Holy Spirit or God himself but His gifts. These gifts are ordained to the beatific vision which is the vision and possession of God for all eternity which we hope to possess in heaven.
Sanctifying grace also makes us partakers of the divine nature which is a created participation or a created likeness for sanctifying grace is a habitual disposition or quality which inheres in the essence of our soul and thus is a real part of us.

When St Athanasius says that “God became man so that man might become God” I don’t think he means that man actually becomes God Himself by grace or in heaven. Indeed, I think it is quite impossible for a pure creature to be at one and the same time, created and uncreated, eternal and temporal, finite and infinite. A creature is created, temporal, and finite whereas God is uncreated, eternal, and infinite. I think St Athanasius would agree to the words of St John “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

Rich, this just will not do–not as an adequate expression of theosis and our participation in the divine life of the Trinity. I do not challenge whether you have expressed the matter accurately, from a Thomistic point of view (I do not know St Thomas well enough to express an opinion, one way or another). But as long as one begins with created grace, one will always find oneself stuck on the creature side of things, wondering how the Eastern Fathers actually meant what they said about our deification in Christ.

“All that God is,” St Maximus the Confessor declared, “except for an identity in ousia, one becomes when one is deified by grace.” St Gregory Palamas goes so far as to say that we become “uncreated by grace.”

Perhaps Aquinas’s understanding of sanctifying grace can accommodate statements such as these (if I read him rightly, Ghosty thinks that it can); but regardless I do believe that we need to allow the Eastern Fathers to push the deifying envelope and allow God’s self-donation in uncreated grace to remake our understanding of deification. If that means breaking the conceptuality of scholasticism, so be it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I do believe that we need to allow the Eastern Fathers to push the deifying envelope and allow God’s self-donation in uncreated grace to remake our understanding of deification. If that means breaking the conceptuality of scholasticism, so be it.

Sure they should and I believe the West ought to be allowed the same, and when this results in theological definition such as the IC and Assumption than all this should be completely understandable. And if this means breaking a conceptual understanding, so be it. And that would be whatever other conceptual understanding in regard exists, which of course wouldn’t be limited to scholastic, but all the West, and all the East as a collective whole.

 

[Richca]

Rich, this just will not do–not as an adequate expression of theosis and our participation in the divine life of the Trinity. I do not challenge whether you have expressed the matter accurately, from a Thomistic point of view (I do not know St Thomas well enough to express an opinion, one way or another). But as long as one begins with created grace, one will always find oneself stuck on the creature side of things, wondering how the Eastern Fathers actually meant what they said about our deification in Christ.

“All that God is,” St Maximus the Confessor declared, “except for an identity in ousia, one becomes when one is deified by grace.” St Gregory Palamas goes so far as to say that we become “uncreated by grace.”

Perhaps Aquinas’s understanding of sanctifying grace can accommodate statements such as these (if I read him rightly, Ghosty thinks that it can); but regardless I do believe that we need to allow the Eastern Fathers to push the deifying envelope and allow God’s self-donation in uncreated grace to remake our understanding of deification. If that means breaking the conceptuality of scholasticism, so be it.

The catholic faith teaches that the end of the life of grace here on earth is the beatific vision whereby we will know and see God face to face and which will be the fullfillment of all our desires. This vision will result in a participation in the intimate life of the Trinity which begins here on earth in seed form through sanctifying grace, infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the Trinity. It is not possible for a rational creature, man or angel, to desire or have a greater end than that union with God which will result from the beatific vision.

 

[Apotheoun]

Do Eastern Catholics share the view of the Eastern Orthodox that the Roman (western) Catholic teaching on created grace is a serious error?

As a Melkite Catholic I do not believe that there is such a thing as created grace.

 

[Wandile]

As a Melkite Catholic I do not believe that there is such a thing as created grace.

Can you explain created grace ? Just curious…

 

[FrKimel]

The catholic faith teaches that the end of the life of grace here on earth is the beatific vision whereby we will know and see God face to face and which will be the fullfillment of all our desires. This vision will result in a participation in the intimate life of the Trinity which begins here on earth in seed form through sanctifying grace, infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the indwelling of the Trinity. It is not possible for a rational creature, man or angel, to desire or have a greater end than that union with God which will result from the beatific vision.

Touché! A few months back I remember reading a traditional Catholic criticizing the Orthodox for teaching a truncated version of deification: Catholics see, and thus participate in, the divine essence; Orthodox only participate in the divine energies. Talk about deification one-upmanship.

Within the scholastic nature/grace framework, I think I can see why something like a created habitus is necessary; but Eastern Christians do not think within the scholastic framework. The notion of created grace is thus unnecessary within the Eastern understanding of theosis.

 

[FrKimel]

I purchased a book the other day that may be of interest: Naturally Human, Supernaturally God: Deification in Pre-Conciliar Catholicism by Adam Cooper. Cooper is the author of a book on St Maximus the Confessor. He discusses the views of Garrigou-Lagrange, Rahner, and de Lubac.

 

[Ghosty]

FrKimel: Sounds like a fascinating book. I look forward to reading yourthoughts when you read it, and I might purchase it myself.

As to your earlier comment about Latins believing that the Byzantine tradition teaches a truncated version of Theosis, I’ve encountered that myself. I was studying Thomistic theology with a young and upcoming Dominican educator, and he told our group that Byzantine theology denies Theosis, and that it teaches that we can’t experience God directly, but only through “theophany”, in direct contradiction of Scripture that says we will see Him “as He is”.

I corrected him on his misunderstanding, but it became quite clear to me how difficult theological language and approach is to understand without very solid grounding in context and tradition. In this case, since Thomistic theological language includes what we would call “Divine Energy” in its defintion of “Divine Essence” (and this approach is perfectly justified and orthodox within its context), the assertion in Byzantine theology that we experience the Energy and not the Essence appears to create an absolute barrier to true experience of God “as He is”. Of course this is not the true assertion of Byzantine theology, but is an easy misunderstanding.

Ironically, theThomist without context could read Palamas and assume that he was actually asserting the position that his opponent, Barlaam, was actually asserting. It was an eye-opening experience to see how easily this misunderstanding can arise.

Peace and God bless!

 

[FrKimel]

Ghosty, perhaps you can answer this question that I have" What does “essence” mean in the Thomist and Palamite traditions? I suspect that the two traditions are using the word differently. Do you agree?

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, perhaps you can answer this question that I have" What does “essence” mean in the Thomist and Palamite traditions? I suspect that the two traditions are using the word differently. Do you agree?

I haven’t done an exhaustive, academic study of this issue, but it is something I’ve focused on in my readings. It definitely seems to me that the two traditions use the term differently, at least when it comes to Thomism versus Palamism.

In Thomism, for example, the term “essence” seems to mean nothing less than “whole definition of the thing”. So St. Thomas can say without any contradiction that God “acts by His Essence”, because God is active by definition (every creature, in contrast, does not act by its essence). Since God shares His Divinity with us, we “share in the Divine Essence by participation”. In this, of course, I’m only referring to the way God is spoken of, since created things and God are spoken of quite differently in Thomistic theology, such as how St. Thomas would say that heat is an “essential accident” of fire, but that fire doesn’t heat things by its essence since the fire is not essentially in act.

In the Palamite tradition, however, it seems that Essence refers more often to the inner wholeness and foundation of being. In this manner we can distinguish between the Essence, which is the core of the being in question, and the Energy, which is the power and activity of that being. Since God is One and Infinite, His Energy is Divine and not something apart from Him, but it is distinct from His Essence because it is “expressed” rather than being at the core of being. God’s Energy follows upon His Essence, but they are distinguished as the heat is distinguished from fire.

In the Thomistic tradition, since Essence doesn’t necessarily imply a purely inward core, but encompasses everything that is “Divine”, it can be said both that God acts by His Essence, and that we participate in the Divine Essence. This couldn’t be said in the Palamite context, however, because this would imply that the Divine Essence, the very inner being of God, could enter into the composition of created things, as heat passes from fire to metal. Thomism preserves this gap between creature and Deity by highlighting the difference between the essence of created things and the Divine Essence, and also highlighting the various manners in which the Divine Essence is shared with creatures, Grace being the very highest manner of participation.

Again, this is just my layman’s interpretation, and I don’t claim any special insight beyond what some great Dominican instructors shared with me. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Richca]

Ghosty, perhaps you can answer this question that I have" What does “essence” mean in the Thomist and Palamite traditions? I suspect that the two traditions are using the word differently. Do you agree?

I do not think the two traditions are using the word “essence” so much as differently as its application to God. The essence of God is simply the divine nature, the Godhead. And so in the doctrine of the Trinity we confess three persons in one divine nature or essence. I think the doctrine of St Gregory Palamas was probably influenced by a neo-platonic tradition even among some christian writers where the essence, divine nature, godhead, or even the being of God is incomprehensible, above being and non-being, above existence and non-existence, above life and non-life, above consciousness and non-consciousness, etc. And so Palamas made a distinction between the essence of God and the operations or energies of God which seems to me to be a distinction between the essence of God as well as the divine persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If I’m not mistaken, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be known and experienced in Palamite theology by rational creatures while the essence of God cannot be. It would seem that the essence of God is some sort of super transcendental reality behind as it were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and this sort of thinking has its roots in neo-platonism. I do not know how you can know or experience the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without knowing and experiencing the divine nature or essence. This would be like knowing a lion without its lioness or Plato without his humanity. It is just simply not possible.

In the Catholic and Thomist tradition, the divine nature or essence of God is not distinct from the persons of God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the divine nature and the divine nature or essence of God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And so in the beatific vision we see the essence of God which is seeing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for the essence or divine nature is one and the same with the divine persons.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Palamite theology = ultimate incomprehensibleness of a transcendent God
Thomist theology = ultimate reasonability of an all-rational God

Sometimes the opposite ends of the mountain seem farther at the base, than at the peak - quite paradoxically, the peak is Divinity.

 

[Vico]

Palamite theology = ultimate incomprehensibleness of a transcendent God
Thomist theology = ultimate reasonability of an all-rational God

Sometimes the opposite ends of the mountain seem farther at the base, than at the peak - quite paradoxically, the peak is Divinity.

St. Thomas Aquinas (from Summa Theologica)
*
Divine essence cannot be contemplated using bodily senses or imagination, but through rapture.

*2.2 Question 175.
Article 3. Whether Paul, when in rapture, saw the essence of God?
The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Psalm 35:10): “In Thy light we shall see light.” But this light can be shared in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated above (171, 2) of the light of prophecy; and in this way that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a restricted sense. Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to prophecy.
2.2 Question 180. The contemplative life

Article 5. Whether in the present state of life the contemplative life can reach to the vision of the Divine essence?..
Accordingly we must state that one may be in this life in two ways. First, with regard to act, that is to say by actually making use of the bodily senses, and thus contemplation in the present life can nowise attain to the vision of God’s essence. Secondly, one may be in this life potentially and not with regard to act, that is to say, when the soul is united to the mortal body as its form, yet so as to make use neither of the bodily senses, nor even of the imagination, as happens in rapture; and in this way the contemplation of the present life can attain to the vision of the Divine essence. Consequently the highest degree of contemplation in the present life is that which Paul had in rapture, whereby he was in a middle state between the present life and the life to come.