Debating the filioque

[Cavaradossi]

It is interesting that you say this. I think you will find this funny. St. Thomas says that the Filioque was the faith of the Nicene Fathers and the denial that the Holy Spirit was a novelty invented by the Nestorians. He also says that St. John Damascene got his rejection of the Filioque from the Nestorians.

Thomas Aquinas was in error on that point. St. John of Damascus in On the Orthodox Faith taught that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but proceeds through Him because the Father alone is cause. The antecedent in this case (that the Father alone is Cause) is drawn directly from St. Gregory the Theologian. Furthermore, the Greek-speaking Fathers do not speak of the Spirit proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) from the Son, but of the Spirit proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) through the Son or the Spirit progressing (προἲόν) from the Son. St. Maximus the Confessor too (if we are to take his letter to Marinus as authentic) also outlines this point, saying that the Latins in those days who spoke of the filioque did not intend to make the Son cause of the Holy Spirit, but only to confess the progression (προἲέναι) of the Holy Spirit through the Son. St. John of Damascus, in writing that the Spirit does not proceed (έκπορεύεται) from the Son, but rather proceeds through Him is in no way teaching an error introduced by the Nestorians, but rather is teaching what is basically the consensus of the Greek Fathers who came before him, that on account of the Father being the sole Cause, the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but proceeds through Him.

 

[ronyodish]

I’m not sure if this was posted earlier, but this document is quite possibly the best current information on this Latin vs. Greek squabble of the Filioque:


(Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity)The Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Alexandria did not acknowledge the 2nd Ecumenical Council for quite a while do to its removing Alexandria from second place behind Rome. Rome did not acknowledge the changing of the order of precedence either. St Cyril of Alexandria never acknowledged the 2nd Council. In his third letter to Nestorius, he quotes the Creed as such:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible…And in the Holy Spirit: But those that say, There was a time when He was not, and, before He was begotten He was not, and that He was made of that which previously was not, or that He was of some other substance or essence; and that the Son of God was capable of change or alteration; those the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.

Therefore, when St Cyril (during the Council of Ephesus) prohibits adding anything to the Creed established in Nicaea, he actually meant the Creed of Nicaea. There was no Council held to prohibit adding anything to the Creed of Constantinople I.

St. Cyril’s concern in his letters to Nestorius was Christology not the procession of the Holy Spirit. Besides St. Cyril was only one Father of the Church nor was he the only Father present at Ephesus. Besides if anyone follows St.Cyril it would be the Copts which use the Creed of Nicaea as amended by I Constantinople without the filioque.

Your argument makes no sense. Canon vii of Ephesus which prohibits any additions to the Creed was passed after Charisus read the Creed of Nicaea as amended by Constantinople I. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Canon VII condemns any alteration of the Creed of Nicaea as amended by I Constantinople. The Council of Chalcedon ratified the Creed as amended by I Constantinople. The 7th Ecumenical Council recognized I Constantinople and Ephesus as an Ecumenical Councils. Besides the Church of the East, (Nestorian) which does not recognize the Council of Ephesus uses the Creed as written by Nicaea and amended by I Constantinople.
Besides even if there were no canon prohibiting changing the Creed, common sense tells us that the Creed as ratified by the Ecumenical Councils is the authoritative version of the Creed. Neither East nor West has the authority to unilaterally alter the Creed as written by Nicaea and amended by I Constantinople. Finally at the Council of Constantinople of 879 the representatives of Pope John VIII agreed that the Council of Nicaea I as amended by Constantinople I was the standard Creed of the Church that could not be changed. John VIII ratified the IV Council of Constantinople and therefore agreed that the Creed could not be altered.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Reverend Father,
I believe that the Catholic position is more in line with the Orthodox position than you may think - from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Emphasis added.
The Catechism clearly teaches elsewhere that every man and woman is created in the likeness and image of God - to this day. The Catholic Church condemns as heresy Luther’s notion of “total depravity”. Human nature has been tainted, but it is not completely corrupted. To clarify, St. Thomas and the Catholic Church do not teach that man is deprived of all graces by original sin, but rather we are deprived of what in Latin theology is defined as sanctifying grace - that is, participating in the divine life of the Trinity. Other graces are still available to even the non-baptized for it is only the grace of God that man is first moved to faith and repentance. The Catechism continues:

I wrote my comments in response to the statement "For Thomas, original sin consists in the deprivation of supernatural grace and the impairment of our human nature.
Is not all grace supernatural? If not what is grace and does it come from but God?

The statement that we are deprived of supernatural grace says to Orthodox that Catholics believe that through the inheritance of original sin we are deprived of all grace because we believe that all grace is supernatural.
In Orthodox theology grace is a fully divine and uncreated energy of God flowing from His hidden divine essence. That is Palamite theology, which is normative in Orthodoxy.
We agree with the rejection of Luther’s doctrine of total depravity by the Catholic Church. Therefore, you are right Catholic teaching is more in line with Orthodox teaching than the statement that we are deprived of supernatural grace would imply.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[ronyodish]

Besides the Church of the East, (Nestorian) which does not recognize the Council of Ephesus uses the Creed as written by Nicaea and amended by I Constantinople.

Fr. Morris,

The Assyrian Church of the East is not Nestorian. She reject Nestorianism (confession of two Sons and two Persons) as a heresy. Her Christology, though slightly different, is nevertheless quite orthodox. You can read the Common Christological Declaration for more information.

Also, the Church of the East uses a slightly different version of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. For instance, she does not have the following statement in her version of the Creed in regards the Holy Spirit:

“who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets”

This subtraction from the Creed does not seem to have raised any Eastern Orthodox eyebrows! I guess the squabbling with the Latins is more important.

Now in regards the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Assyrian Creed (like our present Chaldean Catholic Creed) does not have the Filioque.

God bless,

Rony

 

[tdgesq]

Finally at the Council of Constantinople of 879 the representatives of Pope John VIII agreed that the Council of Nicaea I as amended by Constantinople I was the standard Creed of the Church that could not be changed. John VIII ratified the IV Council of Constantinople and therefore agreed that the Creed could not be altered.

Father,

If what you state here is accurate (and there is considerable historical dispute over it), then it seems the Orthodox should accept Constantinople 879 as an ecumenical council. It doesn’t. Neither does the Catholic Church.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

The Assyrian Church of the East is not Nestorian. She reject Nestorianism (confession of two Sons and two Persons) as a heresy. Her Christology, though slightly different, is nevertheless quite orthodox. You can read the Common Christological Declaration for more information.

Also, the Church of the East uses a slightly different version of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. For instance, she does not have the following statement in her version of the Creed in regards the Holy Spirit:

“who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets”

This subtraction from the Creed does not seem to have raised any Eastern Orthodox eyebrows! I guess the squabbling with the Latins is more important.

Now in regards the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Assyrian Creed (like our present Chaldean Catholic Creed) does not have the Filioque.

God bless,

Rony

The Church of the East still rejects the title Theotokos for Mary and accepts the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was a forerunner of Nestoriansim and was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council. The Church of the East also considers Nestorius a Saint. Therefore even if the teaching of the Church of the East is not strictly Nestorianism, there are important issues that need to be resolved by much better theologians than I am. I am aware of the common declaration on Christology between Rome and the Church of the East. The Church of the East has entered into a relationship of Communion with the Chalcedonian Catholic Church which to us means indirect Communion with Rome. However, it is also evident that the ultimate cause of the schism was that for its own self-preservation, under the Persians, the Church of the East had to assert its independence of the Byzantine Empire.
As Eastern Orthodox, I still believe that common acceptance of the Faith of the ancient undivided Church as expressed by the consensus of the Fathers and the dogmatic decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils is a necessary requirement for the restoration of unity among Christians.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Father,

If what you state here is accurate (and there is considerable historical dispute over it), then it seems the Orthodox should accept Constantinople 879 as an ecumenical council. It doesn’t. Neither does the Catholic Church.

But it is considered to have been an ecumenical council (in fact, if I recall, it even called itself as much), although it is not enumerated with the Seven or liturgically celebrated as they are. As Fr. George Dragas points out, there are quite a few issues which have affected its enumeration (or sometimes lack thereof) throughout history which nevertheless have not affected the Orthodox acceptance of this council which called itself ecumenical, and was received by the five patriarchates.

 

[frjohnmorris]

But it is considered to have been an ecumenical council (in fact, if I recall, it even called itself as much), although it is not enumerated with the Seven or liturgically celebrated as they are. As Fr. George Dragas points out, there are quite a few issues which have affected its enumeration (or sometimes lack thereof) throughout history which nevertheless have not affected the Orthodox acceptance of this council which called itself ecumenical, and was received by the five patriarchates.

Fr. Francis Dvornik, a Catholic historian, argues in his exhausted study of the question of St. Photius and the Council of Constantinople of 879 that Pope John VIII accepted the decisions of the Council.
Even before the Council of 879 Pope Leo III objected to adding the filioque to the Creed arguing that the Ecumenical Councils had forbidden any changes or additions to the Creed. To emphasize his point he had two silver shields with the original text of the Creed in Greek and Latin without the filioque and mounted in St. Peters in 810. However, adding the filioque to the Creed has become a cause championed by Charlemagne and his successors partially as a way to assert their independence of the Eastern Roman Empire. Finally by 1014 at the coronation of Henry IV the Creed was chanted in Rome with the filioque for the first time under Pope Benedict VIII. It is to be remembered that Henry IV restored Benedict VIII to the papal throne after an effort by Gregory VI to seize the papal throne. Thus Benedict VIII owed his position to Henry IV. Rome considers Gregory VI an anti-pope. Thus the filioque was added to the Western Creed for political reasons. Significantly to this day when the Creed is used by the Roman Catholic Church in Greek, the filioque is not included.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I wrote my comments in response to the statement "For Thomas, original sin consists in the deprivation of supernatural grace and the impairment of our human nature.
Is not all grace supernatural? If not what is grace and does it come from but God?

Let me correct what I said earlier. I meant to type the supernatural habit of grace, which is what we call sanctifying grace. Sorry for sowing additional confusion, but it is easy to make mistakes posting from a phone.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Let me correct what I said earlier. I meant to type the supernatural habit of grace, which is what we call sanctifying grace. Sorry for sowing additional confusion, but it is easy to make mistakes posting from a phone.

Let me be honest. I have tried several times to understand the Roman Catholic concept of grace, but find it extremely confusing. Roman Catholicism seems to believe in several different kinds of grace, while we Orthodox only believe in one kind of grace, an uncreated energy of God flowing from the divine essence of God. Am I right in thinking that instead of describing different kinds of grace, that Roman Catholic theologians are simply describing different effects of grace? What is the habit of grace? Is grace created or an divine and uncreated energy of God?
I know that the Calvinist definition of grace as “undeserved merit,” or “unmerited favor” is inadequate because it reduces grace to an attitude of God towards the believer, instead of a real experience of God or communion with God.

 

[ronyodish]

The Church of the East still rejects the title Theotokos for Mary and accepts the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was a forerunner of Nestoriansim and was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council. The Church of the East also considers Nestorius a Saint. Therefore even if the teaching of the Church of the East is not strictly Nestorianism, there are important issues that need to be resolved by much better theologians than I am. I am aware of the common declaration on Christology between Rome and the Church of the East.

Fr. Morris,

Since you are aware of the Common Declaration, then you should know that the Church of the East does not reject the title of Theotokos as if it were a heretical title. She simply makes no use of it, and prefers, instead, her own orthodox Marian titles.

The Declaration states:

“The humanity to which the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth always was that of the Son of God himself. That is the reason why the Assyrian Church of the East is praying the Virgin Mary as ‘the Mother of Christ our God and Saviour’. In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as ‘the Mother of God’ and also as ‘the Mother of Christ’. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.”

The Christology of the Church of the East was articulated by Mar Babai the Great. It is an Aramaic Christology, and not a Greek Christology. It confesses the Lord Jesus Christ as one Parsopa (Person) with two Qnome (individuated natures) and two Kyane (general natures), without division, without separation, without change, and without confusion. It rejects any teaching which separates and divides the Lord Jesus Christ into two Parsope.

As far as Theodore the Interpreter, the influence of this Greek Father on the Church of the East was mostly in the area of Biblical exegesis, favoring the literal exegesis of the so-called “School of Antioch” rather than the allegorical exegesis of the Alexandrians.

Also, it is disputed among current scholars whether Theodore, and even Nestorius, were ever “Nestorian” in their Christologies. So, any veneration of the Church of the East towards Theodore and Nestorius is not because they believe these Fathers taught a two-Person heresy, rather, they are venerated with the understanding that they were orthodox in their Faith, but were simply misunderstood.

In any case, the Church of the East should not be labeled Nestorian, regardless of what Theodore and Nestorius ever taught, because the Church of the East does not originate from them. The Faith of the Church of the East is orthodox, originates from the Apostles, and is nourished through the centuries by the Aramaic Fathers.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

It would take a dialogue between theologians from both the Eastern Orthodox and the Church of the East to unravel the Christological issues that divide us. To my knowledge that has not taken place. Obviously the common statement on Christology issued by Rome and the Church of the East is interesting, but because we were not directly involved in the discussions, it would have no authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I have read some of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and works about him. I believe that the 5th Ecumenical Council was correct to condemn him for a defective Christology. He described the union of the divine and human natures of Christ as “a moral union.” He also wrote that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Christ the same way that the Spirit dwelt in the prophets, but that the indwelling of the Spirit in the prophets was limited, while that in Christ was unlimited. He used such terms as “indwelling” and “God was in the man” to describe the relationship between the human and divine natures of Christ. He wrote to Apollinaris, “we also assert that the Divine Logos assumed humanity, but we would never maintain as you do that he became man.” Fr. John Meyendorff one of the leading Orthodox theologians of the 20th century wrote that “his system continued to exclude the notion of the God-Word born of the Virgin Mary.” Thus Nestorian is the logical conclusion of Theodore’s teaching and Nestorianism leads to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was really only an inspired man and not God in the Flesh. I suspect that is why some modern liberal theologians have tried to resurrect the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Liberal theologians tend towards Nestorianism. Calvin’s Christology is heavily Nestorian.
Information and quotes taken from my book The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Christian History p. 68.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Let me be honest. I have tried several times to understand the Roman Catholic concept of grace, but find it extremely confusing. Roman Catholicism seems to believe in several different kinds of grace, while we Orthodox only believe in one kind of grace, an uncreated energy of God flowing from the divine essence of God. Am I right in thinking that instead of describing different kinds of grace, that Roman Catholic theologians are simply describing different effects of grace? What is the habit of grace? Is grace created or an divine and uncreated energy of God?
I know that the Calvinist definition of grace as “undeserved merit,” or “unmerited favor” is inadequate because it reduces grace to an attitude of God towards the believer, instead of a real experience of God or communion with God.

Sanctifying grace is the infused grace “whereby He draws the rational creature above the condition of its nature to a participation of the Divine good” (ST I-II, 110, i). It is called a habit which means a condition/disposition or garment. The second meaning is an image from scripture. Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment (Zech. 3:4). Sanctifying grace is therefore not a substance, but an accidental quality of the soul. “He infuses into those that He moves towards the acquisition of supernatural good, certain forms or supernatural qualities, whereby they may be moved by Him sweetly and promptly to acquire eternal good” (ST I-II, 110, ii).

You are correct that these divisions are not to differentiate kinds of grace in the way how cake and ice cream are different kinds of desserts. For example, Thomas distinguishes between sanctifying grace, which is God’s work in us for our own salvation, and gratuitous grace, which is God’s work in us for the salvation of others. Another distinction Catholics make is between habitual grace, which is an accidental quality in the soul, and actual grace, which is God’s moving us toward the supernatural good. If you understand this second distinction, it might help to understand the Catholic teaching on the distinction between an actual sin (i.e. a sinful act) and original sin, which is the sinful habit we are born with.

You ask whether grace is created. Sanctifying grace is said to be created in the sense that it begins to exist in the subject, not as if it were a created substance.

As Boethius [Pseudo-Bede, Sent. Phil. ex Artist] says, the “being of an accident is to inhere.” Hence no accident is called being as if it had being, but because by it something is; hence it is said to belong to a being rather to be a being (Metaph. vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as its subject begins or ceases to be in act with this accident. 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

I guess what you are asking first is whether the Latins agree that grace is an uncreated energy of God. Second, if this is distinct from God. If you mean grace as in the God’s love, that is uncreated. Scholastic theology would of course not teach that God is distinct from his love. You are getting into the Palmatic essence-energy distinction which, as I said earlier, is beyond my understanding and something I do not wish to get into. I will just give my (uneducated) take that talking about God’s uncreated energies as distinct from God’s essence is only a manner of speaking about God’s operation in the world and not positing the existence of a demiurge as some polemicists charge.

As regards the Protestant notion of grace as purely God’s favorable attitude, Thomas explicitly rejects this.

“Even when a man is said to be in another’s good graces, it is understood that there is something in him pleasing to the other; even as anyone is said to have God’s grace–with this difference, that what is pleasing to a man in another is presupposed to his love, but whatever is pleasing to God in a man is caused by the Divine love, as was said above.”
(ST I-II, 110, i)

 

[ronyodish]

He described the union of the divine and human natures of Christ as “a moral union.”

Fr. Morris,

As I said earlier, there is dispute among scholars as to whether or not Theodore and Nestorius ever truly believed the heresy which they became known for. For example, in your statement above, you said that Theodore described the natures as a “moral union”, whereas, this article states:

“Theodore has rejected out of hand that Christ’s natures are united in either a substantial or an accidental moral union.65 [Swete, 2.293–94.] He opted for what he considered to be a special, unique graced kind of union—a union that has bedeviled theologians and philosophers who cannot comprehend a union that is neither substantial nor accidental.” (Theodore of Mopsuestia Revisited, pg. 470).

I personally hope that one day these condemned Fathers can be rehabilitated amongst the greater body of the Apostolic Churches, but if not, then oh well. As an Assyrian-Chaldean Catholic, my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is steadfast and does not depend on the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of this Father or that Father, but on the Apostolic Faith which we received from St. Thomas the Apostle and his companions.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

I guess what you are asking first is whether the Latins agree that grace is an uncreated energy of God. Second, if this is distinct from God. If you mean grace as in the God’s love, that is uncreated. Scholastic theology would of course not teach that God is distinct from his love. You are getting into the Palmatic essence-energy distinction which, as I said earlier, is beyond my understanding and something I do not wish to get into. I will just give my (uneducated) take that talking about God’s uncreated energies as distinct from God’s essence is only a manner of speaking about God’s operation in the world and not positing the existence of a demiurge as some polemicists charge.
(ST I-II, 110, i)[/indent]

Unfortunately it is not possible for Orthodox to discuss grace without getting into the Palamatic essence-energy distinction. St. Gregory did not invent his teachings but got it from the Fathers. The distinction between essences and energies is found in the writings of St. Basil. In a sense you are correct. We are talking about “God’s uncreated energies as distinct from God’s essence is only a manner of speaking about God’s operation in the world and not positing the existence of a demiurge as some polemicists charge.” What we mean is that grace is an actual transforming experience of God Himself, not a created thing that we partake of like taking medicine to control one’s blood pressure. It is also a way to teach that we become united with God, and become “partakers of the divine nature,” II Peter 1:4 Through this distinction we are able to avoid pantheism.
I find your Thomism equally confusing, because like all Scholastics, Thomas used categories from Aristotle. In the East, where Aristotle was well known, his ideas are confined to science, and considered too based on human reason for theology. To a Easterner, the West seem to have too much trust in human reason and not enough sense of mystery. You try to understand and define too much. For us grace is grace. There are not different kinds of grace. There are different ways that grace effects us depending on our condition. Grace is also not created, but is an actual deifying and direct experience of God.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Your problem is that you are conflating different aspects of grace. Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but an infused disposition of the soul. It is said to be “created” in the sense that a soul that is at one time dead in sin is later regenerated by God. This accidental quality of grace which disposes man towards his supernatural end is present in the soul where it was not previously. It would be a mistake to think of sanctifying grace as a “created thing” in the sense that God creates something called sanctifying grace and then stuffs it in the soul. Rather, He reforms the dead soul and this new quickened state of the soul is said to be sanctfying grace. This is why such a person is said to be “in a state of grace.”

Sanctifying grace is a habit. It is therefore not grace in the same sense as you would speak of God’s energies. That is probably more akin to what Catholics call actual grace, which is God moving men toward himself. In summary, sanctifying grace is habitual (a condition of the soul) as opposed to actual grace.

Catholics do not deny a participation in the Divine Nature.

“For as man in his intellective powers participates in the Divine knowledge through the virtue of faith, and in his power of will participates in the Divine love through the virtue of charity, so also in the nature of the soul does he participate in the Divine Nature, after the manner of a likeness, through a certain regeneration or re-creation.”
(ST I-II, 110, ii)

Finally, I don’t understand the charge that Westerners make too much use of philosophical categories. Greeks are just fine with using philosophical terminology like ousia, hypostasis etc. when speaking of the Trinity. You also seem fine with Eastern writers like St. John Damascene. What is the big difference between them and someone like St. Thomas. I don’t agree that Thomas destroys mystery. I have always found that his writings instill a great sense of mystery and wonder.

 

[Zekariya]

Finally, I don’t understand the charge that Westerners make too much use of philosophical categories. Greeks are just fine with using philosophical terminology like ousia, hypostasis etc. when speaking of the Trinity. You also seem fine with Eastern writers like St. John Damascene. What is the big difference between them and someone like St. Thomas. I don’t agree that Thomas destroys mystery. I have always found that his writings instill a great sense of mystery and wonder.

The Greek Fathers used Greek words for theological terms. Physis once was used similarly to hypostasis but later was used similarly to ousia. This is not science but rather using human words to describe the mysteries of God.

St Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s teachings as a science. One substance cannot coexist in the same location as another substance because they can’t “scientifically” exist together.

We say, “It looks like bread and wine but it is now the Body and Blood of Christ.”
St Thomas says, “The accidents of bread and wine exist but the substance of bread and wine cease to exist because Christ’s substance has replaced them.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

Your problem is that you are conflating different aspects of grace. Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but an infused disposition of the soul. It is said to be “created” in the sense that a soul that is at one time dead in sin is later regenerated by God. This accidental quality of grace which disposes man towards his supernatural end is present in the soul where it was not previously. It would be a mistake to think of sanctifying grace as a “created thing” in the sense that God creates something called sanctifying grace and then stuffs it in the soul. Rather, He reforms the dead soul and this new quickened state of the soul is said to be sanctfying grace. This is why such a person is said to be “in a state of grace.”

Sanctifying grace is a habit. It is therefore not grace in the same sense as you would speak of God’s energies. That is probably more akin to what Catholics call actual grace, which is God moving men toward himself. In summary, sanctifying grace is habitual (a condition of the soul) as opposed to actual grace.

Catholics do not deny a participation in the Divine Nature.

“For as man in his intellective powers participates in the Divine knowledge through the virtue of faith, and in his power of will participates in the Divine love through the virtue of charity, so also in the nature of the soul does he participate in the Divine Nature, after the manner of a likeness, through a certain regeneration or re-creation.”
(ST I-II, 110, ii)

Finally, I don’t understand the charge that Westerners make too much use of philosophical categories. Greeks are just fine with using philosophical terminology like ousia, hypostasis etc. when speaking of the Trinity. You also seem fine with Eastern writers like St. John Damascene. What is the big difference between them and someone like St. Thomas. I don’t agree that Thomas destroys mystery. I have always found that his writings instill a great sense of mystery and wonder.

What do you mean by “habit” when describing sanctifying grace? The concept of grace as an uncreated energy of God is essential to Orthodox theology because our understanding of salvation is not legalistic, but mystical. Those who are saved are saved through a real communion with God through His grace which a real experience of God. This communion with God changes us to be like God. That is why we call salvation deification.

It is true that the Greek Fathers used terms from Greek philosophy. However, they did not believe it necessary or good to try to reconcile Christian theology with Aristotle. Instead Orthodox theology emphasizes the mystery of God. St. Gregory of Nyssa used the example of Moses who went into the darkness of the cloud and smoke of Mt. Sinai to converse with God. We call this apophatic theology, which means the theology of not knowing or doing theology on the basis of what God is not. It exists in the Western tradition, but tends to be somewhat marginalized as mystical whereas it is central to Eastern theology and considered superior to cataphatic theology, which is more central in the West.
Historians tell us that scholasticism was born in an effort to reconcile Christian theology with Aristotle. To me scholasticism tries to understand too much through human reason and logic. For example the distinction between substance and accidents, terms borrowed from Aristotle, used to describe the change that takes place in the bread and wine during the Eucharist. We simply teach that the bread and wine are changed into the sacred Body and Blood of Christ and make no effort to use the categories of Aristotle or anyone else to try to define the nature of the change. Instead, we treat it as a mystery beyond human comprehension.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Greek Fathers used Greek words for theological terms. Physis once was used similarly to hypostasis but later was used similarly to ousia. This is not science but rather using human words to describe the mysteries of God.

St Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s teachings as a science. One substance cannot coexist in the same location as another substance because they can’t “scientifically” exist together.

We say, “It looks like bread and wine but it is now the Body and Blood of Christ.”
St Thomas says, “The accidents of bread and wine exist but the substance of bread and
wine cease to exist because Christ’s substance has replaced them.”

Your argument makes great sense to me. I agree that after the consecration that it looks like bread and wine, but is really the Body and Blood of Christ.
I am beginning to recognize that a lot of the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are more linguistic than theological.

Archpriest John W. Morris