www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Divine Mercy Sunday?

I spent over 20 years in the academy. There is nothing about a credential that impresses me, more than the reliability and accuracy of the knowledge held by the person also holding the credential.

A false assertion is a false assertion whether I hold it, you hold it, or Einstein holds it. BTW Einsteins first wife is finally getting the credit she deserves as a theoretical physicist in her own right and the one who corrected Albert's original errors.

As for Perry Robinson and Dr. Blosser, if you read ALL that is there in ALL of the various locations you will find a link to a professor of philosophy who simply pulls the pins out of Robinson, as I said. So if you've read all that it should be familiar to you and the link will not be hard to find.

Till then I will assert in opposition to your assertion that you and many others have a very false understanding of the western eccliastical teaching concerning created grace and have used secular humanism and nominalsim, claiming it as the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, to warp it even further to suit your own purposes. One who truly knows philosophy and Church teaching, Church history, and Thomism well has no difficulty in demolishing your false and facile claims.

Eli

I have read the links on the various blogs, but I hoped that you had some additional links, because Perry Robinson did respond to Dr. Blosser's essay on divine simplicity, both in the comments section of Dr. Blosser's own blog, but also at his own blog entitled Energies of the Trinity [energeticprocession.com] . Mr. Robinson showed quite nicely that the appeal to necessity ex suppositione does not refute his argument against the Scholastic notion of divine simplicity.

But if you have additional links I would be happy to read them, and if you have links that deal with the particular issue I raised, i.e., the notion of "created" grace, by all means, please post them.

God bless you,
Steven Todd Kaster, Th.M.

The link is there, Steven. There is no reason for me to go back and search through all of that text again. I have read it all to my satisfaction, and the philosophical data is clear to me as is Church teaching.

Even without the philosophical data to slog through it is a fact that the Church does not hew precisely to the philosophical arguments, but takes them and molds them to fit revealed truth.

So even without the parallel arguments you've still got the meaning of "created" grace as a part of Church teaching all wrong. I can't help you there and do not intend to try to dissuade you. If you are that interested then you are free to go and continue your search for truth. If you think you have it already, what good is it for me to try to change your mind.

I have every right to exercise the same personal authority you exercise here to assert publicly that the meaning of Catholic teaching, and say in rebuttal that you've made some very bad presuppositions and you are wrong about Catholic teaching. I can add to that as I go along writing on this Forum but I don't have to write a thesis here on demand. It will come out in manageable bits and pieces with time and people will see it, I have no fear.

Catholic teaching and medieval scholasticism, humanism and nominalism are not equivalents. That is a fact that is not too much of a secret, at least among Catholic theologians who are faithful to Church teaching and to revealed truth.

Eli

Eli,

I looked for the link and couldn't find it either. However, I find your argument more appealing than Perry's so I have therefore decided it is correct

Matt

I say, good thinking!

Periodically the Thomist who wrote the reply writes to me. I'll have him send me the link when I hear from him. It may be in the commentary from the Pontifications blog also which may be why you can't find it directly in Blosser or Robinson. In fact I think that is the case.

It is one thing to say that the expression of the Divine Mercy as a devotion is very western, although that icon,posted earlier, is most compelling and vast improvement on the comic-book like western rendering. It is nonetheless a western invocation, and might well be appreciated in its integrity by eastern Orthodox and eastern Catholics.

It is quite another thing to posit a absolute rupture between east and west over the concept of grace. If the west thought St. Gregory Palamas was a heretic then they would never allow him to be celebrated as a saint in the west, and he is.

Eli

It is quite another thing to posit a absolute rupture between east and west over the concept of grace. If the west thought St. Gregory Palamas was a heretic then they would never allow him to be celebrated as a saint in the west, and he is.

I think that's a good point and I've said it myself when talking with Eastern Orthodox. As someone who is drawn to eastern theology in at least some respects I am considering becoming a palamite, but I don't think that precludes me from being in communion with Rome. And interestingly enough it's usually Orthodox who say Catholics can't be "Eastern"; there is almost always a great deal of respect for the East on the Catholic side.

In Scholastic theology "created" grace is ". . . a quality, a light that enables the soul to receive worthily the indwelling of the three divine Persons," [Charles Journet, The Meaning of Grace, page 19], but in Eastern theology this Light (or "quality") is the very uncreated energy of God. In other words, the effects of grace in man in Western theology are seen as "created"; while in Eastern theology these "effects" are seen as a participation in the uncreated God Himself as energy. In fact St. Gregory Palamas points out that, ". . . the divine Maximos has not only taught that it [i.e., the gift of theosis] is enhypostatic, but also that it is unoriginate (not only uncreated), indescribable and supratemporal. Those who attain it become thereby uncreated, unoriginate, and indescribable, although in their own nature, they derive from nothingness." [St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, page 86] Thus, in Eastern theology there is no such thing as "created" grace, nor can there ever be such a thing, because grace is God Himself.

Now the differences between East and West on the issue of grace were highlighted by Fr. Joseph Gill, S.J., in his book on the Western Council of Florence, for as he pointed out in his treatment of the topic of grace, the doctrinal differences between the two sides became particularly evident during the discussions between John Montenero, O.P., and St. Mark of Ephesus in the fifth session of the Council on March 14, because during a very heated exchange on the issue of the effects flowing from power of grace, Fr. Montenero ". . . pressed Mark [of Ephesus] as to whether the gifts of the Spirit were different from the Spirit Himself," which is what the Latins believed, or if the gifts flowing from the Spirit were the Spirit Himself, which is what the Byzantine Church holds. St. Mark of course rejected the Latin position and this caused further heated exchanges, culminating in an intervention by the Emperor ordering that the subject be dropped. Now even though the exchange ended abruptly (i.e., because of the Emperor's interference), it did show that the two sides disagree on the nature of grace, and in fact as Fr. Gill went on to say, it was this line of debate that brought up the ". . . Palamitic question of the divine energies, which Mark with most Greeks held to be really distinct from the divine essence, an opinion that the Latins both then and now consider wrong." [Fr. Joseph Gill, The Council of Florence, pages 205-206] Thus, it is clear that East and West understand the nature of grace differently, because for the West the effects of the Spirit within man are "created" realities, i.e., they are a "created" grace; while for the East the effects are a true participation in the uncreated divine energy, which is God Himself as He exists outside of His ineffable essence.

Please, if I am all wrong on "created" grace, then by all means, correct me and give the Latin definition of it.

I have looked up Garrigou-Lagrange's views on the subject, and Charles Journet's, but by all means, show where they are wrong and give me the correct definition of "created" grace.

You really ought to try other sources besides Saint Gill.

Eli

Eli,

Which books would you recommend on the subject? I can always use a longer reading list

That's tough to do blind. Church documents are most critical in learning Church teaching of course, but I'd suggest the reformed Carmelite saints to begin. SS John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. Way of Perfection and Interior Castle in particular.

Surnaturel by Henri de Lubac also.

These things won't substitute for learning the teachings of St. Thomas from a Thomist though. I learned my reading of the Theological Summa from priests at Holy Apostle's Seminary.

Eli

Here [mliccione.blogspot.com] is Professor Liccione's reply to Perry Robinson.

Eli

My grandmother has an enormous portrait of Divine Mercy Christ, she says that she's received a lot of miracles through that image of Christ! (as in most cases I don't know if she knows how this devotion originated and so on)

I would add that all private devotions to Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints are healthy but I don't think it's convenient for Eastern Christians to adopt the feast, as the Divine Mercy Sunday does not enjoy full acceptance in the Latin Church.

I have read that this devotion was declared non-Orthodox by the Roman Church before JPII, Sister Faustina's book was part of the index of forbidden books by Pope John XXIII, there were many doubts of its authenticity as the text had to be fixed and it as written in poor language.

The devotion had many connections with un-orthodox movements such as Charismaticism.

Do you know about this?