www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Yes, heaps come up, but none says anything about "created grace" per se.

Here is what I found interesting:

In other words, it's all grace. Nothing in those statements would lead me to understand that the West believes the grace itself is created, rather that man is so infused with grace that he is even prepared for participating in the life of God by grace itself. Or to reference the snippet from the Tridentine Consiliar documents above, God, through sharing his life with us leads to our justification. The life he shares is not (nay cannot) be created because God is not created. The way I understand what the Tridentine documents say is that God in and of himself is just because it is his very nature. Man is not just in and of himelf but because God shares himself with man his justification becomes a reality (or as they put it he is "made" just).

The absence of the particular term 'created' grace in the Catechism is a result of ecumenism and the Eastern Catholic Churches involvement in its drafting.

Here is a good article about the melkite Patriarch
Melkite Patriarch [melkite.org]

Ryan,

Thank you for responding to my posts, and let me say that you certainly have a right to your own opinion on these matters, although I do not share it, because the theology of the Scholastics, whether it concerns the issue of "created" grace (i.e., the doctrine that holds that sanctifying grace is a "created" habitus, which somehow allows a man to receive the Holy Spirit), or the divine simplicity, or the concept of the beatific vision as a vision of the divine essence, is incompatible with the teaching of the Fathers of the East (i.e., St. Athanasios, the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory Palamas, et al.). Now, I should also note that I am not "anti-intellectual"; instead, I am opposed to the uncritical insertion of pagan philosophical constructs into the theology of the Church. Aristotle is not a saint, and I quite frankly do not see him as a "master" within the Tradition of the Church.

Now, as far as the use by the Eastern Fathers of Platonic and Stoics terms is concerned, it is important to note that they (i.e., the Fathers) did not accept the Platonic worldview, in fact quite the contrary, they radically altered it, and they also radically altered the meanings of the terms that they took from pagan philosophy. For example, the terms ousia and hypostasis were used as synonyms in pagan philosophy, but the Cappadocian Father reinterpreted these terms in order to make them stand for distinct realities in God. Moreover, the Cappadocians altered the meaning of ousia (essence) not only by distinguishing it from hypostasis, but by rejecting the Greek notion that ousia was the knowable underlying substrat or essence of a thing. In place of this Greek conception of ousia as the knowable essence of a thing, the Cappadocian Fathers held that ousia is unknowable, that is, essence, whether of God or man, cannot be known at all; instead, it is only the energies of a being that can be known. Thus, I do not agree with the 19th century scholarly assertion -- made by many even today -- that the Fathers of the Church were somehow "Platonists" or "Stoics," because quite the contrary, they rejected the Platonic chain of being, along with the idea that human reason by looking at the world could come into a real and living contact with God. Another example of this radical rejection of pagan philosophy can be seen in the theology of St. Gregory of Nyssa, who is often thought of as a Platonist, but who clearly rejected the Platonic chain of being, by holding that reality is divided between uncreated and created, and not between immaterial and material. Now in doing this St. Gregory of Nyssa, who was following in the footsteps of St. Athanasios, successfully broke the back of the Platonic system and replaced it with a biblical and Christian view of the world. Moreover, in connection with his rejection of the Platonic chain of being, St. Gregory of Nyssa also taught that God is essentially adiastemic and akinetic, and so, there can be no natural theology for him beyond a simple recognition that God exists. Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa was no more a Platonist than I am. Moreover, Eastern Orthodoxy, in the synodikon chanted on the Feast of the Triumph of Orthodoxy condemns the ideas of Plato, Aristotle, and many of the other Greek pagan philosophers. So, I simply do not agree with those who try to assert that the Fathers were simply Christian Platonists.

Now, I had thought that it would be apparent to anyone reading my posts, that my main point throughout this thread has simply been to state my views as an Eastern Christian. Clearly, I refuse to accept contradictory theological positions, that is, positions that would involve my having to embrace a form of spiritual and doctrinal schizophrenia, but I have not "declared" any Western position to be heretical; and moreover, I do not possess, nor do I claim to possess, any authority to do that. Nevertheless, it should also be apparent to anyone who is familiar with both doctrinal traditions that they are built upon different metaphysical presuppositions, and that -- as a consequence -- many of the newer doctrines created by the West during the course of the second millennium cannot simply be forced upon the East, at least not without doing extreme damage to the Byzantine theological tradition.

With the foregoing information in mind, here are a few of the things that I believe as an Eastern Catholic:

• (1) I believe in the primacy (not the supremacy) of the Pope within the Church, but that primacy functions only within synodality, since both primacy and synodality are divinely instituted.

• (2) I believe that essence, hypostasis, and energy, are all really distinct -- but not separated -- in God.

• (3) I believe that grace is uncreated, because grace is God Himself as energy, and since grace is an uncreated reality, it makes the divinization of man possible.

• (4) I believe that the persons (hypostaseis) of the Holy Trinity are really distinct from each other, but not through oppositional relations, because there can be no opposition within God, since He is adiastemic; instead, the persons (hypostaseis) are distinct by their modes of origin (tropos hyparxeos).

• (5) I believe in the monarchy of the Father, that is, I believe that the Father is the sole font, cause, source, origin, and principle of divinity; and as a consequence of this doctrine, I reject any theory that would make the Son a cause within the Godhead.

• (6) I believe that the hypostasis of the Son is eternally generated by the Father alone, and that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally only from the Father. Thus, both the Son and the Spirit receive their subsistent being from the Father alone, since He is the sole cause of divinity.

• (7) I believe that there is a real distinction between the hypostatic procession of the Spirit, which comes only from the Father, and which concerns the Spirit's existential origin, and the eternal manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, not as person, but as energy.

• (8) I believe that theosis involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energy, and that it is impossible for any created reality, that is, for any created habitus, to give man a real participation in, vision of, or knowledge about, the divine essence.

• (9) I believe that doctrine is unchanging and unchangeable.

Now, of course, I could go on, but I think that this rather incomplete list explains what it is that I believe as an Eastern Catholic, while highlighting in a non-polemical way the differences between East and West on all of the issues listed.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

I'm curious as to where you stand on the disputed "moral issues". That is, do you agree with East or West on contraception/divorce? Speaking for myself, especially with regard to divorce, it seems that the Orthodox have sold out. Jesus seems to be pretty clear on banning it. Moreover, since we are both fans of St. Maximus, I'll take this opportunity to remind you that he says the purpose of sex is procreation. How does that jive with artificial birth control?

When I get a chance I'm going to work up something on the Papacy to send you. I think the West can make a stronger argument than the outline you've put forth; of course, whether even that is convincing is a different question.

I appreciate the work you've put into your posts and even if I don't agree with absolutely everything I am, at the least, sympathetic.

Dear Todd,

First of all, let me congratulate you on initiating this thread which is really THE most important thread on the theological and ecclesiological differences between East and West that this Forum has EVER had.

I say that without any exaggeration and your articulate presentation of the arguments brings much to the fore in a concise and direct way.

As an EC, I accept all that you have outlined with respect to Eastern theology such as Uncreated Grace, Triadology etc.

For any EC to do otherwise is to really be something other than an EC i.e. Latinized and otherwise untrue to his or her actual tradition. Certainly, not all EC's would agree, but at least there is an implicit commitment or awareness that we are to move closer to "something that is more Eastern" and away from "what is Latinized" in our Churches.

I believe that the patriarchal movement within the UGCC since the time of Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor underscores your discussion of Papal, Regional and Local Primacy and this in an EC Church that has had the greatest experience of martyrdom and suffering precisely in witness to the Primacy of Rome.

So while we're "not there yet," we're on our way, even though there will always be segments of our Churches that will resist "to the last breath" full "Easternization" as being, among other things, "implicitly anti-Catholic" (which is nonsensical, but there you have it!).

Our brother, Gordo, has implied that to quote or invoke St Mark of Ephesus really IS to be anti-Catholic and I wanted to quickly address this from a hagiographical point of view in the first instance.

That St Mark Eugenikos has become a symbol of opposition to union with Rome - I think we can all readily agree that that is a fact.

Latin Catholic historians seem to have blamed St Mark of Ephesus for the failure of the Council of Florence i.e. that had he not opposed it, effective church unity could have been achieved (the same with St Photios who is regarded, in the West, as the instigator of the controversy over the Creed that led to the schism of 1054).

And that position is simply untenable. Neither of those two Orthodox saints came up with their own "obstinate opinions" that "created or maintained the schism." It is a position in Latin Catholic ecclesial historiography that should have been discarded long ago.

They affirmed what their Church maintained as its representatives. Photios, in fact, died in communion with Rome (after the pope of the day and he recited the Creed together without the Filioque - with the pope affirming his view that the Filioque is actually heretical, according to some historians). St Mark came to Florence as a unionist with the minimum demand of unilateral removal of the Filioque from the Creed as essential to effecting real union of the Churches. This was the requirement of the Orthodox Church, as it had been for several hundred years already.

Neither Mark of Ephesus nor Photios were ever "anti-Catholic" (!) or against the unity of the Churches (again !).

Neither saw a problem with the West's view of the Filioque as a theological opinion.

But they adamantly did see a problem with tampering with a Creed intended for the universal expression of the one Faith of the Church - something affirmed by Ecumenical Council, also ratified by Rome.

Perhaps another view of the Council of Florence could be that it was not so much the fault of the Orthodox (who adhered to the unchanging Tradition of the one Church of the first millennium with regards to Triadology) but of Rome itself? Could it be that the Rome of today would not have repeated the action of the Rome of 1440 with respect to the failure to agree to return to the common Creed of the Ecumenical Councils and so would have ensured ecclesial unity?

And how can St Mark (who has never been condemned by Rome at any time and who was canonized by the Eastern Orthodox Church - and we do not question each other's canonizations) be considered anti-anything having to do with Catholicism when he was simply representing his Church and its ancient Faith?

To consider St Mark of Ephesus in a negative light in this way is to affirm that Rome's doctrines of the Filioque et al. are indeed infallible and therefore to be accepted by all. Either they are or they are not. And, if so, then, people, let's forget about any kind of unity between East and West. The Greek-Catholics can, in that event, decide whether they want to become full Roman Catholics (because that is what they would really be) or else return to Orthodoxy.

Suffice it to say, I hold every optimistic view of a union with Rome and Orthodoxy.

However, such a union will not be based of a "blurring" of the very real issues that have divided us for centuries.

In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger's view that East and West can become one if they but accept each other's differences as precisely that - differences that do not divide - needs to be better defined. As is, that view repeats the traditional Western Catholic view that the differences between East and West are not "such a big deal." They are and the Orthodox take them very seriously. To consider them to be not "such a big deal" is to only drive the wedge between us even further.

And I know that there are those, like Eli, who would strenuously deny the differences are anything more than semantic. Again, that position is not only untenable (indeed, let us just take a look at Rome's response to the Zoghby initiative to see what Rome really does think of all this . . .) but it does an injustice to BOTH Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

But I'll come to my issue now. I've no problem with what Todd has affirmed as being the faith of Orthodoxy and also of EC's here.

And I've no problem with the admission that we EC's, our protestations to the contrary, really are "under" Rome rather than "in communion with" it. I've been in the UGCC patriarchal movement for too long to think otherwise.

My question has to do with the faith basis for union (of any kind) with Rome.

When we EC's deny the Latin theological tradition and affirm our own - what are we REALLY saying then?

ARE we saying that EC's and LC's believe the same, but have different theological traditions that do not, ultimately contradict one another?

ARE we saying that the EC theological and ecclesiological tradition is and should ideally be the same as that of Orthodoxy?

If the latter, does this mean that we, like Orthodoxy, consider Rome's positions to be really heretical?

And, if so, what business have we being in ANY kind of union with Rome AT ALL - period?

Thank you for initiating this fascinating thread, Todd and I look forward to reading your further articulate commentaries!

Ciao!

Alex

I just want to point out that any search for "created Grace", in the manner it's been implied in this thread, is necessarily going to be fruitless when looking in official Latin documents. This is because there is no Latin teaching that Grace, in its absolute sense, is a creature. What has been taught in Latin theology is that man's relationship with Grace is created (hence Baptism), and that when speaking of "created Grace" it's the relationship that's being refered to, and the effects of Grace in the soul of a person are refered to as "created graces". St. Thomas Aquinas popularized this terminology, and he had this to say about it in the Summa [newadvent.org] :

Since Latin terminology refers to both the cause (the indwelling of the Trinity) and the gifts (sanctity, Divine goodness, wisdom, ect.) as "Grace", the term "created" is added to the latter to indicate that these things are not inherent in the human nature, but are present by participation in the Divine. Since this participation is "made in time", it's called created, as the relationship is new to the creature and not in-born.

Peace and God bless!

Yeah. What he said.

That is what I was trying to say in my post, but Ghosty, you did a better job.

WBB

Dear Ghosty,

Thanks for making that issue transparent!

One problem Eastern Christians have always seen with the ups and downs of Western theology is its need to reinvent the wheel - so to speak.

What is wrong with keeping to the formulations and traditions of the first millennium on the very topics that led to the schism?

Some say that the REAL reason the Council of Florence was a bust was that Rome got its back up against the wall when the Orthodox party of our Father among the Saints, the Holy Confessor and Defender of Orthodoxy, Markos Eugenikos, Archbishop of Ephesus suggested that Rome return to the earlier version of the Creed. In other words, Rome understood it as an admission of some sort of error in the end - and balked at that.

Why couldn't Rome return to the Patristic-based eccesiology and theology of the first millennium - that would see the foundation develop for a solid reunion of East and West?

Did not Rome do the same with respect to the Novus Ordo? All that stuff about returning to what the early Church did and the like (if one accepts that the early Church was Novus Ordo ).

What would happen if Rome simply affirmed the Creed without the Filioque, Uncreated Grace et al. in no uncertain terms?

Theological traditions are fine, but they need not be added to what the united Church of the first millennium affirmed was necessary.

Is that unreasonable?

Alex

This explanation, along with the more Scholastic explanations of "created" grace given by men like Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Charles Journet, et al., is precisely what the Eastern Christian tradition rejects as false. Deification is an eternal and uncreated gift, and those who receive this grace themselves become uncreated by it, as St. Gregory Palamas explains: ". . . 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] That being said, it is clear that the East would reject any doctrine that turns the uncreated gift of deification into a type of "created habitus" or "created relationship." Moreover, it is not possible for such a "created habitus" or "created relationship" to unite man to the uncreated God, because only that which is itself uncreated can unite a man to the Holy Trinity. In other words, what unites man to the Tri-hypostatic God is the uncreated divine energy itself, which is an eternal gift, and which is immediately experienced by the saints ". . . as a direct illumination which has no beginning, but appears in those worthy as something exceeding comprehension." [St. Gregory Palamas, "The Triads," page 84] Thus, theosis is timeless even though it arises in time, just as the incarnation of the Son of God occurs in time, but the divinity of the Word made flesh remains uncreated. The Western theory of "created" grace cannot be conformed to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, and so it should be rejected by Eastern Christians.

I think the understanding of the word "created" is what I am having an issue with. The relationship being created has nothing to do with "stuff" or some "thing", rather, it is that the relationship has been "called into being", or that there is a relationship present which at one time was not. Are you saying that the Eastern Chruch rejects this relationship has come into existance?

Grace is God Himself, and so there is no sense in which it can be called "created." Moreover, as St. Gregory Palamas and St. Maximos the Confessor taught, the relationship between God and man established by grace (i.e., the gift of theosis) has no beginning, that is, it is eternal and uncreated. Thus, as I have said several times already, grace is God Himself given to man as energy.

So, it would be considered wrong in the East to say that a relationship was forged between God and man?

So, how can it be "established" then?

The fact that theosis is established in time, does not make it created, because one must remember that grace is God, and when God enters into time He remains uncreated and eternal. God is immutable. That is why, as the Church Fathers taught, theosis has no beginning, that is, it is an eternal and uncreated reality; and so, when it is received by man, it makes him -- at the level of energy -- uncreated and eternal, and that is why St. Gregory of Nyssa said that in the eschaton man is finitely infinite.