www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Everything is so busy this week and next that I am going to find it difficult to divide my attention too widely, so what I say here is going to be brief and so likely to loose things in 'translation' but its worth a try.

1. I'd like to suggest that some part of the teachings that Todd is offering fall in the category of speculative theology. Some of course are not quite so speculative and the Church has spoken concerning them. I don't mind stretching one's mind in the pursuit of knowledge but it is not always good, or even necessary to assert that a bit of speculative theology is, prima face, Church teaching. The idea that the speculation is derived from agreed upon truths is fine. That leaves us able then to interrogate the truth of the derivation.

I think I'll put the other thought in a different note.

Mary

When speaking of graces, the Fathers did distinguish among several kinds of grace, if you will. There were the natural graces of acquired virtue and the divine graces of infused virtues. There was the grace that saved and the grace that sustained us in our daily breath, body and soul.

Part of the difficulty with Todd's constructions and interpretations is that there is no allowance for various graces.

Suddenly all grace is sanctifying or divinizing grace, and what then of those of us who are not yet fully sanctified? Are we then devoid of grace?

Also I think that "uncreated" should be seen in light of the Tansfiguration.

In our classical understanding of the incarnate Jesus, the power of the Holy Spirt spirates from the Incarnate One.

In our classical understanding of the fruits and gifts of the Holy Spirit in man, the power of the Holy Spirit, shows forth in our being and in our behavior.

There is a clear difference here and not just a distinction.

The filioque helps to address some of that.

As far as I can see to date in this discussion, Todd's use of the term "uncreated" without further explanation, does not help in understanding these ancient formularies at all...yet.

Mary

Dear Otshelnik,

The Orthodox do not accept that the West means the same thing using a different terminology - that is something that needs to still be formally cleared up.

The fact that Archbishop Kallistos Ware said that if an Orthodox accepts the Filioque, he could not be branded an heretic for so doing - this doesn't mean that most other Orthodox hierarchs would say the same thing. Certainly, Ware has himself suggested that the Filioque is not heretical and that, as I understood him to say, the Filioque "cannot be heretical and that the more I study it, the more crucial it becomes to me for a good understanding of the Trinity etc."

That is his view and that of some others. But not official as yet.

As for my view - I'm just trying to understand everyone's point of view!

Yours in uncreated Grace,

Alex

Dear Friends,

O.K., I'm naive by nature.

But why is the Eastern doctrine of Uncreated Grace a problem for people here?

It is part and parcel of our Eastern theological tradition - what gives?

Is it that some take exception to Todd's presentation of it? In truth, he is saying nothing that Orthodox teachers haven't.

So what gives?

Alex

The problem isn't with Uncreated Grace per se, as the doctrine that Grace is the Uncreated Life of God is common to both the East and West, and is in fact fundamental to the Latin argument against the nominalist Protestant Reformers (there were Latin nominalists before, obviously, but their view was never dominant, and it became officially erroneous after the definitions of Trent since their views can't be squared with those definitions). The issue is with Todd's presentation.

The issue with Todd's presentation is usually twofold:

First, he seems to insist that the Latin theological term "created grace" means something that it clearly does not, namely that Grace itself is created as opposed to man's participation in Grace. He's been corrected on this many times with citations from Latin theologians, including the one who popularized the term, St. Thomas Aquinas (who says that Grace is called created because man is created with reference to it, and in countless other places refers to Grace as nothing else but the Divine Itself), but he continues to present his caricature of Latin belief. The Latin tradition simply refers to the "state of Grace" as grace as well, and that is created, while the "substance" that is Grace itself is entirely Uncreated, being the Life of God.

Second, his presentation of "Uncreated Grace" is often ambiguous, lacking distinction between our natures which do not change, and our Life by Grace which is a participation in the Uncreated Life of God. While the Fathers don't always make this distinction explicitely clear in their writings, it is made clear in many places, and this distinction has traditionally been upheld by the Orthodox. That's part of the concern I see being raised by Byzantines who are debating with Todd.

That's the issue as I've seen it; I'm sure others could elaborate further

God bless!

Dear Alex,

I don't have any problem with uncreated grace,and hope to participate in it lots. My problem is with the insistence that there is an irreconcilable difference between the Churches. That is a conclusion which should be reached with reluctance, and I don't think the evidence merits it, even from Todd's own usage of terms. Specifically, two terms, that were alleged to be bones of contention:

1. "God is utterly beyond human language." Yet, on further review, it is apparent that the way Todd uses words, he doesn't believe that God is utterly beyond human language. For, if he did, he couldn't post here! God is beyond human language, certainly, but the exact sense of that requires some "scholastic" distinctions to be made. It is in the work of making the distinctions that we find common ground. Aquinas, after all, _also_ believes that God is beyond human language, just not "utterly," because God willed to create after his own image.

2. "We become, literally, uncreated." Yet, upon further review, we find that the word "uncreated" is not meant literally. I quote: "Yes and no. Yes, in that you are participating in God's uncreated energies and have become timeless in the process; and, no, as far as your created nature is concerned, because in essence you remain a creature."

So, it is clear that I do not become literally uncreated, because "as far as your created nature is concerned, . . . in essence you remain a creature."

The assertions do not match the usage.

Karl

P.S. Aquinas, who represents Roman theology par excellence, doesn't use the term "created grace" but once or twice, and only in a limited sense.

Dear Ghosty,

Well, then we should all be extremely grateful to Todd for showing how woefully inadequate Western theological definitions are - beginning with your Filioque!

How you've characterized St Thomas' thought on Grace is something I'm hearing for the first time. What is it with you Latins? Do you do these things just to get the Eastern Church people all worked up?

And isn't that like saying that the Divine Nature is created because God created man?

As for the Byzantines who are debating with Todd, I don't know who they are and for all we know they could be Westerners who became EC because they liked the icons and the incense (we have lots of those in the parish I attend) but who remain as Latin as all get out.

In the end, it's like me saying I'm Byzantine and oppose Theosis on various grounds since it seems to make man into God etc. But remember - I'M BYZANTINE!

In more ways than one, it would seem!

I'm no expert on Byzantine theology, but it is clear from reading the writings of the "Byzantines" here that they've never reviewed the Triads by St. Gregory or books by John Meyendorff or Alexander Schmemann.

I have, for one and I know they would be proud of Todd.

Perhaps a new thread should start up to explain what Aquinas REALLY meant!

That would be interesting . . .

At least you don't have any pretensions to being Byzantine . . . or do you?

Alex

Dear Karl,

(Are you the Karl I knew from way back when?)

Well, Pope John Paul II uses "Created Grace" and does so by taking this from Aquinas - so it matters not how many times Aquinas used the term. And if Aquinas means by that term what Ghosty and yourself says it means, Aquinas should have been hauled up on the carpet for lack of precision, don't you think?

As for God being beyond this or that, Todd is absolutely right. God is very much like that and the language we use is always woefully inadequate. We cannot know God and when we do use language about Him (which we always will) we must do so with the qualifier that the language is too weak a vehicle etc.

I see no problem with that position - our idea of God will always be that - a way to bring God down to our level so that we may understand Him a little - yet in so doing, we must always realize that our conception of God is always a limited one. The Incarnation is God's way of "coming to us" in OLGS Jesus Christ so that we can approach Him in Him, in His Deified Humanity.

In fact, Scholasticism always has that temptation present within itself - to try and treat God "scientifically" to understand Him etc.

To become "uncreated" by participation in the Deified Body of Christ through the Divine Holy Spirit is to "step into" the Life of the God-Man through the Uncreated Energies of God.

We truly do become "deified" as far as creatures can - that's the whole point of Theosis and the way Eastern iconography is represented. It is our participation in, being taken up into, the Life of Christ through the Church and her Mysteries, that allows us to begin the process of Divinization and eternal life.

Outside the Church there is no salvation. Outside the Church there is also no Divinization/Theosis.

The fact that we may only participate in the Life of Christ, the God-Man through the Uncreated Energies of God means that the distinction between creature and Creator is always maintained, like being warmed by the rays of the sun as opposed to being taken up into the sun itself (which would destroy us).

It is Christ in His Incarnation that originally set the boundaries that will eternally exist between Divinity and Humanity while yet allowing us to share in His Divine Life via Uncreated Energies by participating in His Deified Body through Holy Communion etc.

These are all mysteries to be contemplated rather than subsumed wholesale into a neo-scholastic framework.

That's a non-starter and a total turn-off.

Cheers,

Alex

Alex,

My favorite description of Eastern Catholicism I've encountered so far: "Orthodoxy of faith and worship within the Catholic Communion."

That says it all to my mind

Yes, it would. Very often, with Thomas and with Augustine, one has to deal with not what they said, but with what people say they said.

Allow me to paraphrase Edmund Husserl: Back to the sources themselves!

Dear Alex,

I agree with everything in your post about uncreated grace, language about God, etc. What you say about language about God is exactly what Aquinas says, ST I.13. So there!

Scholasticism turns me off, too, but Aquinas doesn't. Many of the "sins" of scholasticism are sins of the manual tradition of theology (I mean, as in manuals that were written for the instruction of priests, which present things in a cut-and-dried textbook manner, which isn't present in Thomas). Aquinas is marvelously bracing and invigorating to read. But one has to _read_ him, not read about him.


As for knowing me way back when, it depends. I don't think I know you, but Karls with K's are rare.

Oh, by the way, I have read Palamas' Triads, I've read lots of Schmemann, and a bit of Meyendorff. Perhaps I'm Byzantine in the tradition of the Kydones brothers.

I am completely open to Thomas being (legitamately) reconciled with the East but someone else will have to do it because everytime I sit down with the Summa I start drifting off and eyeing my Maximus books

Karl,

I am up for it as well. If you start a discussion on some text of Aquinas, I'll be sure to read and hopefully, participate. I've been quite busy as of late, so I've been reading posts but I have not had time to post anything, because I usually like to think awhile before posting. I am finding the discussion here to be intriguing.

Joe

Dear Joe,

It would take a bit of time, and would be a project stretching years! Plus, my training is generally in Thomas' philosophy, not the sacramental theology, which is really the bone of contention. But perhaps someone else can take up the slack.

Let me think about it. Something could be done, and it would scratch my Medieval Philosophy itch. Plus, if I'm correct in my general opinion, it might provide grist for an article or two.

If anyone wants to do a similar reading group for Palamas, why, that would be great! Sort of an online seminar, where the text is read by whoever wants to participate, and then argued over (charitably) afterwards.

What better use could a byzcath website be put to?

That's unfortunate, since I'm not characterizing him at all, but basically quoting him. Here is his actual definition of created grace from the Summa, I-II, Q 110, A 2:


His references to true and direct participation in the Divine Nature are countless, and scattered throughout his works, especially the Summa Theologica. Here's just a couple of examples:


Here is a definition of infused Charity, the Theological Virtue that unites us to God, and you see it's spoken of as nothing less than a direct participation in the Divine Nature.

and:


Eternal good, not temporal good, and is in fact directly contrasted with creation. Aquinas' work is bursting with this stuff, but it's easy to miss if you only read commentators since they usually have their own focuses (not because they necessarily deny the Truths Aquinas is presenting rather matter-of-factly in most cases). I'm always reminded of Chesterton's statement, which he was quoting from another and I'm paraphrasing here, that "Scholasticism doesn't begin with St. Thomas, it ends with St. Thomas".

It's not that Latin theology is woefully inadequate, it's just that like any other theology it requires proper understanding. You couldn't throw a person into complex discussions about Essences and Energies and Hypostasis and theandric operations and expect them to just get by, and likewise with Latin theology.


I don't follow your question at all. I'm sorry

The Divine Nature is not created in any way, neither in Grace nor in natural creation. What is created by definition in both cases is our relationship to the Divine Nature; in the case of nature it's our natural relationship, and in the case of Grace it's the supernatural relationship. The first makes us from nothing into something, and the second makes us from something into literally Divine beings by participation. It's similar to how humanity exists before me, but my relationship with humanity began with my creation; humanity hasn't changed, but I have.


Remember, though, that no matter how brilliant, men like John Meyendorff are theologians and interpreters, and they can have their own spin on things. This is no different from modern Latin theologians, some of whom have taken things very far afield indeed while trying to "walk in the footsteps" of men like Aquinas, and explain those ancient theologians. Men like Rahner immediately come to mind.

I don't think Meyendorff is as out there as Rahner, but my point is simply that a commentator is not the original author, nor are they Tradition itself. The same holds even for Aquinas and Palamas, but they hold special places given their strong and lasting influences on their respective traditions.

Peace and God bless!