Theosis vs. Beatific Vision

[Vico]

…

Correction, the Latin for Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon XI is: Canon XI.—Si quis dixerit, homines justificari, vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhæreat; aut etiam gratiam, qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei: anathema sit.

CANON XI.—If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.iv.html

 

[Ghosty]

Ah, found it.

ST, Q110, article 3

Objection 3. Furthermore, no quality remains after it has ceased to be in its subject. But grace remains; since it is not corrupted, for thus it would be reduced to nothing, since it was created from nothing; hence it is called a “new creature”(Galatians 6:15).

**Reply to Objection 3. **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.”

One thing to understand from this citation is that Grace is not a creature, but is rather “above created nature”, and is substantially a participation in Divine Nature (read Objection 2 and the Reply in the link). Grace itself is not “created”, but is called created because a new man is created through Grace; an analogy would be that if you paint a car red you could say that it is a “new red color”, despite the fact that neither the car nor the red begin to exist with the painting of the car.

As for Apotheoun’s assertion that Grace makes a man uncreated, I contend that this refers, in the writings of the Fathers, to the “operations” of the man, his acting in a Divine manner, not his existence itself. He will not provide any citations to show that any Saints, including Gregory Palamas, taught anything other than our ability (through Grace) to Love with eternal Love, to Know with eternal Knowledge, ect.

Furthermore, this notion of a “created supernatural” is not at all a hallmark of Latin theology, and is actually a contradiction in terms. Fr. Hardon may have used such terminology in his catechetics in American English, but it hardly indicative of typical Latin theology, and certainly contrary to everything written by Aquinas. In contrast to what Apotheoun has asserted here I give you the writings of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., the theological teacher of Pope John Paul II and modern expert in Thomism.

From “On Grace”:

On the other hand, sanctifying grace as such is not a participation in being in general, nor in life in general, nor in intellectuality in general, but a participation in Deity, which is found naturally only in God. Thus only grace is called a participation in the divine nature according as it is in us the radical principle of operations strictly divine, of which the formal object is (in heaven, at least) absolutely the same as the formal object of the uncreated operations of God.

All of this may be diagrammed as follows:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/images/grace3_2.jpg
Thus the stone participates in being and has a likeness to God on the basis of being; grace, on the contrary, is directly and immediately a participation in the divine nature, not in any perfection analogically shared by God and the creature.

  Therefore Deity  		as such cannot be partaken of except by some essentially supernatural  		gift. And, conversely, grace cannot be essentially supernatural unless  		it is a formal and physical participation in the divine nature as  		divine, that is, in the intimate life of God, or Deity as Deity,  		ordaining us to the knowledge of God as He Himself knows Himself  		immediately and to the love of God as He loves Himself.

  Furthermore,  		sanctifying grace is a participation in Deity as it is in itself and not  		merely as it is known to us. For it is produced in our soul by an  		immediate infusion altogether independently of our knowledge of the  		Deity; and just as Deity as such is communicated to the Son by eternal  		generation, so Deity as such is partaken of by the just, especially by  		the blessed, through divine adoption.7

  Hence,  		materially, grace is a finite accident, an entitative habit, but  		formally it is a formal participation in Deity as it is in itself, as it  		subsists in the three persons. Thus it is clearly evident that Deity as  		such in a certain sense surpasses being and intellection, since all  		absolutely simple perfections are identified in the eminence of Deity  		and can be naturally participated in, but Deity cannot be participated  		in naturally. (Cf. below, pp. 138 ff.: The dignity of sanctifying  		grace.)

This quote requires a bit of understanding of the technical theological terminology of matter and form, but I assume it will be sufficiently clear to those following this discussion so-far. I will also add this from the Summa Theologica, which pertains to the nature of Grace and creatures:

The disposition to the form of fire can be natural only to the subject of that form. Hence the light of glory cannot be natural to a creature unless the creature has a divine nature; which is impossible. But by this light the rational creature is made deiform, as is said in this article.

So, pairing this with the citation above from Aquinas’ words on “created grace”, it can be seen that Aquinas is not referring to the nature of grace, as if grace could be a “creature”, but rather that through participation in (uncreated) Divinity a creature is “made anew” (i.e. created as something altogether new). The Grace is not a creature, can’t be a creature, but the creature is new, and their participation in Divinity is new in the context of time; what was before is no longer, and what is now is a man sharing in Eternal Life.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[ronyodish]

So, pairing this with the citation above from Aquinas’ words on “created grace”, it can be seen that Aquinas is not referring to the nature of grace, as if grace could be a “creature”, but rather that through participation in (uncreated) Divinity a creature is “made anew” (i.e. created as something altogether new). The Grace is not a creature, can’t be a creature, but the creature is new, and their participation in Divinity is new in the context of time; what was before is no longer, and what is now is a man sharing in Eternal Life.

Ghosty,

Thanks for your post. I believe underneath all these various theological perspectives that have arisen amongst the various Apostolic Churches, the underlying truth of the faith is one and the same. Anyways, your paragraph above reminded me of the Psalms, particularly this verse:

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me” (Psalm 51:10)

God bless,

Rony