www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Hesychasm

Of course this is an analogy, and like all analogies it limps.

It was a decent analogy until the 20th century.
Now, it just doesn't limp, it races backwards.

In no way is the uncreated God limited by the fact that He must make man a participant in His own uncreated reality; rather, the doctrine of divinization deals with the limitations inherent in created nature, which God condescends to overcome by lifting man out of his own limited existence in order to give him a real participation in the divine glory.

Now the Scholastic notion of a 'created' grace is problematic because it resembles Arianism, only at a different level of reality (note that I am not saying that the Western Scholastic view is Arian, but that it resembles that system). Even Roman theologians, like Germain Grisez and Karl Rahner (and others), see the idea of grace as a 'created' thing as a problem that needs to be solved. That being said, it is important to try and understand what the Western Scholastics mean when they speak of grace as 'created,' because as A. N. Williams noted in her book The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas, it is possible that Aquinas' views have been misunderstood. She posits the idea that for Aquinas grace is, in its own essential being, uncreated, but that when it is infused into a finite subject (i.e., the justified man) it takes on the characteristics of the person into whom it has been infused, and thus can be called created. Now perhaps this interpretation of Aquinas does not do justice to his thought, but nevertheless she has shown that there is a way of interpreting Thomas' doctrine in a more Eastern fashion.

Dear Alice,

Whew! I feel better after reading this you wrote:

/To behold the shining face of God in Heaven as one's Creator in all His pure love-- enveloping one in a manner which cannot be described in human feelings or dimension, is exactly what Heaven is, and no theological terminology can dispute that for me...so, whatever tradition or theologian can call it whatever they want, whether it be 'final theosis' or 'beatific vision'...but that is what it will be. /

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fitly spoken like>>>"Apples of gold in pictures of silver." Thank you.

Bless you, dear sister in Christ,

Mary Jo..

Two remarks:


(1) "Created" grace.

The Catholic Church believes in "created" grace? This was news to me; I thought all grace was God's free gift of His own Self and, hence, uncreated. So, I did some reading on the internet. Perhaps the best discussion of "created grace" that I found was at
http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/grace.html

Apparently, the Catholic Church, with its Scholastic bent, differentiates between God's gift of His very Self ("uncreated grace") and the effects He produces on the human soul ("created grace" or "sanctifying grace"). In other words, it is cause and effect. The Holy Spirit gives the gift (grace) of Himself and His action within us; and the Catholic Church calls this "uncreated grace." That, in turn, produces sanctifying effects in the created human being, which the Catholic Church calls "created grace." Thus, "created grace" means the effects of grace upon a created being.

The issue seems to be one of terminology more than of substance. The Catholic term of "uncreated grace" seems to be consistent with the Orthodox term of "God's energies." Both concepts point to the presence of God Himself within us, sanctifying us. The Catholic term of "created grace" seems (to me) to be an unfortunate choice of words to represent the *effect* on human beings of God's presence and action. The Orthodox term of "theosis" seems to be much more accurate.

However, this difference (like so many differences between Eastern and Western Christianity) points toward a Deeper Issue: Western Christians (Catholics and Protestants) tend to view theology as intellectual activity. Orthodox tend to view theology as mystical experience. The two get cross with each other (to put it mildly) when their different perspectives and terminology are not exact matches.

The sadness is that both are trying to express what is inexpressible: He who is utterly unknowable, utterly gives Himself to us, in Jesus Christ and through the unity of the Holy Spirit, so that we might be given by Him, to Him, in an everlasting gift. Grace is simply God's invitation to participation in Himself, the Trinity: starting now and foretasting forever.


2. Prayer Rope versus Rosary

Maria 3 made an excellent post about hesychia.

However, I would respectfully address one point in her post.

My point is the Rosary and the Prayer Rope are two practices of the same thing: achieving interior stillness so as to further receive the Holy Spirit.

If we accept a Trinitarian description of human beings, we can easily see what is going on. Man is made in the image and likeness of God, who is Trinity. In the one God, there is a Trinity to His being: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Hence in Man, who is made in the image of God, there is also a Trinitarian dimension to his being: body, mind and spirit.

Now, the goal of salvation (indeed, of creation) is to live forever in perfect union with God. The process of achieving that goal is theosis: growing in union with God. We grow in union with God by growing from merely being in the image of God to being in the likeness of God. We do so by recognizing the need for God�s grace, by accepting God�s grace, and by living in God�s grace. In other words, our theosis is accomplished first in Romans Chapter 7, then by Romans Chapter 6 and then by Romans Chapter 8; first by Baptism, then by Confirmation, then by the Eucharist; first by the Cross, then by the Resurrection, then by the Pentecost of our lives; first by the gift of the Father, which is the Son, then by the gift of the Son, which is the Spirit, then by the gift of the Spirit, which is our life in Christ and thus the Father and thus the Holy Spirit.

And in this Trinitarian process of theosis, there are three practical steps. One is keeping the commandments. Second is receiving the sacraments / mysteries. But third is prayer.

And the most effective form of prayer is the kind by which Man responds with all dimensions of his being to God. In other words, the most effective prayer is the most total prayer. It is, for lack of a better word, Trinitarian prayer. Thus, the most effective prayer is when all of Man (body, soul and spirit) is further divinized. In this kind of prayer, the Trinitarian nature of Man grows from the image of the Trinity to the likeness of the Trinity.

Now, as there is a Divine procession within the Trinity from Father to Son and to Holy Spirit, so there is a procession of divinization within Man through his Trinitarian nature: from body to mind and to spirit.

Thus, the most effective prayer not only responds to the nature of the Trinity by engaging Man's Trinitarian dimensions (body, mind and soul). The most effective prayer also *participates* in the life of the Trinity. As God proceeds from the Father both to the Son and unto the Holy Spirit, so prayer proceeds from the body both to the mind and unto the spirit.

Allow me to illustrate:

Both prayer rope and rosary require physical prayer. The rope or rosary is held and moved in the hand. The prayer is said with the mouth and thus the lungs and thus all the rest of the body that uses breath, which is all of the body. Hence, two good things happen in the physical dimension of this kind of prayer. First, the body is sanctified by prayerful action. That, in itself, is a good thing. Second, the body is occupied with prayer. Because the body is occupied, it is less likely to be drawn into other activities and it is less likely to draw the mind into other activities. In other words, if the body is occupied in prayer, it tends to draw the mind into prayer. Hence the next point.

Both prayer rope and rosary require mental prayer. The rosary engages the mind by meditation on the events of the Gospel and their meaning in our lives. The prayer rope engages the mind by focusing the mind on the indwelling of God within the heart. Both are mental activities; both focus the mind on God. Hence, two good things happen. First, the mind is sanctified by prayerful activity. That in itself is a good thing. Second, the mind is occupied with prayer; thus, it is less likely to be drawn into other activities, and it is less likely to draw the spirit into other activities. In other words, if the mind is occupied in prayer, it tends to draw the spirit into prayer. Hence the next point . . .

Both prayer rope and rosary require spiritual prayer. Indeed, both prayer rope and rosary ultimately lead to spiritual prayer. If physical prayer is like unto the Incarnation, and if mental prayer is like unto the Pascha / the Cross and Resurrection, then spiritual prayer is like unto Pentecost. Spiritual prayer is the Pentecost of the heart. With the body occupied in prayer, and with the mind occupied in prayer, the spirit is unattached and undistracted; and thus the spirit is *able* to "be still and know that I am God."

It is almost like the prayer rope and the rosary are rattles for we who are still spiritual infants. Like we give rattles to our babies to occupy them to quiet them, so we give our bodies and minds the prayer rope or the rosary. These occupy our bodies and minds, so that our spirits can be quiet --still-- in the presence of God in the human heart.

I am just a sinner, but I have experienced some of this: from praying both the prayer rope and the rosary. The rest I gathered form the writings of the fathers. But experience has proved it true to me.

There is only one Holy Spirit. And Christ lived and died and rose for us so we could be one in Him, unto the Father, precisely by the unity of the Holy Spirit. And the unity of the Holy Spirit is precisely His unique divinization of each of us as individuals yet His uniform divinization of us as members of the same body of Christ. It is inexpressible to me, but my God: it's true. Both the rosary and prayer rope are thus *awesomely* powerful tools to let the Holy Spirit further do His work of divinization within us. God be praised.

--John

Dear John,

Certainly, the Jesus Prayer and the Rosary achieve the same thing!

In fact, the West has the Name of Jesus in its version of the Hail Mary - Western Saints have tended to use that point in this prayer as a kind of "spiritual communion" - something that also happens with the Eastern use of the Jesus Prayer (and, of course, the West has its "Jesus Psalter" and also the practice of saying "My Jesus, mercy!" as St Leonard of Port Maurice taught).

There were also Orthodox Saints, not many, but there were, who ONLY used the Hail Mary and IN PLACE of the Jesus Prayer.

One such saint was called the "Elder of the Theotokos."

St Seraphim of Sarov counselled both the Jesus Prayer and the Rosary/Marian Psalter.

He also taught what is known in the West as the "Pater Noster Psalter" or the recitation of 150 Our Father's.

Alex

Dear Zenovia,

Troubling though this may seem to our brother, djs, , allegories to nature are never perfect when applied to religion - but this didn't prevent St John of Damascus from using them.

I really don't know how Latin Catholic theology views Grace today - or 100 years ago.

What we are really talking about is the perspective of Orthodoxy itself on Roman Catholic theology.

This means that the perspective may or may not be the actual way the Latin West understands this issue - and others.

I've come to understand, for example, that a number of Orthodox perspectives on Western doctrines are simply NOT what the Latin Church believes about them today or before.

That doesn't make the issue go away for the East however.

I would venture to say that the East's understanding of Western "created grace" (and, today, I'm sure that this is NOT how the Roman Church understands it) is that it is an "impersonal" thing that does not involve the gift of God Himself to us, but only some sort of impersonal energy that creates moral goodness and sanctification in us.

Again, that is how I, for example, would understand the idea of "created grace."

The Roman Catholic Church does NOT accept this notion, however, and it is a parody of what it truly teaches.

DJS's concerns about the sun's rays analogy is well founded.

But these analogies are never perfect, nor can they be, when we discuss such issues.

And Photius is quite right in his representation of how Orthodoxy views the "beatific vision" and "created grace."

We should be able to, however, develop our own respective theologies that are in some sense ONE at the core, but also DIFFERENT in many respects.

For too long, Christians have seen differences as heresy - and perhaps the time has come to overcome that paradigm.

Alex

To Alex, Photios, and all,

We are told that we Orthodox believe in the uncreated Graces of God and the Latins believe in Grace as being created. Now should this be true, (for as yet I have not heard the Latin viewpoint only the Orthodox and Oriental viewpoint on 'what' the Latins believe), then I wonder if Grace could mean something different in the West than in the East.

In other words maybe the 'Western' word 'Grace' is not encompassing the same concepts as the 'Eastern' word for 'Grace'. Semantics once again, or maybe cultural differences.

As for the 'beatific vision', how does it differ from the vision of the uncreated light? Sounds the same to me...or does God give different 'visions' to His Eastern or Western saints.

To quote Saint Gregory Palamas:

"So the contemplation of this light (uncreated light) is a union...but is the union with this light other than a vision?" Man's vision of God and deification offer the true knowledge of God. The knowledge of God and theology are not a development of 'reasoning', but a life beyond reasoning. They surpass human seeing and knowing and of course are "superior to the light of knowledge".

All in all, I believe that when we state that we have certain beliefs, and only through those can we be led to 'theosis' we are limiting God through our 'reasoning' and by doing so become that which we are condemning.

Zenovia

Hey John nice to see you back again. One thing though. Uncreated grace is sanctifying grace, created grace is gratitous grace. The use of the terms of uncreated and created grace are particularly confusing to me as a student of the Doctor of the Schools. Alex makes an important point that the Roman theological system is not understand within the contemporary Roman Catholic Church at large. Indeed, His Eminence Christoph Cardinal Shonborn in his article 'A Time of Desert for Theology: Ressourcement versus Models of the Church' commented that the effective detonation of the scholastic system throughout the Church in the post-conciliar period (against the express wishes of Vatican II's document 'Optatam Totius' paragraph 16) has led to a Church that doesnt understand itself. John my friend, I dont know how you manage...

PS) Zen if you want to know what Western Christendom calls 'grace' here's the man to answer you:
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 109 [newadvent.org]
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 110 [newadvent.org]
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 111 [newadvent.org]
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 112 [newadvent.org]
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 113 [newadvent.org]
Summa Theologica First Part of the Second Part Question 114 [newadvent.org]

Dear Alex,

As I mentioned, the sun's rays metaphor was a very nice one before the 20th century. The understanding of the rays at that time made the analogy a good one. With contemporary understanding of the rays, however, the analogy is precisely backwards. It's no longer a good analogy, IMO, but that is no fault of those who used it in centuries past.

Dear Alex, Harmon and all,

Thank you for your explanations. I had written my post before reading them.

Zenovia

I hate to say it, but I am actually pleased by the change in emphasis of the West since Vatican II. I think that the Scholastics were too important prior to the Council, and that since the Council the West has begun to rediscover its own Western Patristic tradition. Perhaps this reemphasis upon the teachings of the Church Fathers will lead to a rapprochement between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches.

Thanks, Todd, for your clarification. I found it instructive. Keep up the good work.

Ghazar

Dear Djs,

Does this mean you would refuse taking part in a "blessing of the four corners of the world" service or refuse to reciting the line "from the rising of the sun to its setting, may the name of the Lord be praised"? I'm always a little leary of those who seek to speak more correctly than the Scriptures and the Fathers.

Are you at least consistent? Do you also call up your local weather man and correct him for saying "sunrise" is at such and such time?

Dear Ghazar,

No. I fully appreciate metaphors - living, dead, and resurrected. An analogy is very different, particularly in its use as a teaching tool. And people who teach are very different from weathermen who merely conveys information.