www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology created grace

Hi folks

This is related to a recently closed topic in which some consternation was expressed over the RC's use of the concept of created grace.

It is often asseted that the differences between easterners and westerners is purely teminological rather that being one of theological substance - but this is rarely followed through with specific examples - I would like to make my own humble contribution on this matter (Warning I am no theologian and have had no training in this subject!)

Can grace be created? well might it be that it depends what one means by 'created'. MIght it be the case that when the RC refers to created grace and the BC refers to grace being uncreated, that they are using the word 'created' in two different senses?

I suggest that there are two ways in which the word can be understood:

(1) created in the sense of ontoligically dependent on God in the same way that all physical entities are said to be created

(2) Created in the sense of being contingent or not necessary. Much of God's activities can be understood as created in this sense. Such activities need not have occured because they are the result of God's free choices. For example, God's activity to create anything at all or his choice to redeem humans.

Grace can certainly not be creaeted in the first sense. This is because it is part of God's nature itself. However, it can (and will be) created in the second sense. Because it is not a necessary fact that God creates and redeems humanity, grace will be contingent on God's choices.

This I think is the sense in which RC means that grace is created.

What do you think?

I don't think so.

O well...

I have asked this question on different discussion. Where does the Roman Catholic Church officially teach that grace is created and all Catholics must believe and accept this as a dogma of the Catholic Church? i.e. ecumenical council, infallible papal statements, or other binding statements.

Jesse Venner

The meaning of "created Grace" is explained quite clearly in the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas:

The creature in question is the human, not the Grace. Since Grace, in Thomistic theology, can refer to both the "thing" (God's Life), and the "state" (a human who is in Grace, i.e. participating and sharing in the Divine Nature), created Grace is used to refer to the state of being of a person who is "created in Christ", or "born again", or a "new creature in Christ" ect. It is called created because a person must be "made anew", and brought into the Divine Life; the state of Grace did not exist in the person before, and now it does, and the state exists because the person now shares in the Divine Life (and the person is a new creature, has new being).

There is no such thing as "created Grace" as a being seperate from the Divine Life (called uncreated Grace in Latin theology). It is the term that refers to the state or quality of a creature having the Divine Life.

It doesn't, and it won't. It's based on the language of the Summa Theologica, and Thomistic theology. It is not heretical, but no Catholic, not even Latins, are bound by Thomistic terminology.

Peace and God bless!

First, it is an ancient principle of the Eastern Fathers that the energies (energeiai) of a being are proper to the nature of the being in question. Thus, an uncreated being (i.e., God, since He is the only uncreated being by nature) has uncreated energies (energeiai), while a created being has created energies (energeiai).

Second, both of these points witness to the common confusion in Western theology, since at least the time of the Scholastics, between God's energies (energeiai), which are necessarily uncreated because God is uncreated, and God's works (erga), which are the effects of the uncreated energies (energeiai) of the triad of divine persons (hypostaseis).

That being said, there is no sense at all in which grace -- at least for the Church Fathers -- can be held to be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy (energeia). Moreover, if grace is a "created habitus" or a "created relationship" as the Scholastics taught, it follows that it would be distinct from God, being a mere accident and not a true participation in the uncreated being of the Holy Trinity. What is more, as a created reality it would be impossible for grace to deify man, because -- as the Cappadocian Fathers taught against the Pneumatomachian heretics -- only that which is uncreated can bring about the process of theosis in man. Finally, it should be noted that what I have said about the uncreated being of God applies both to the triad of divine persons (hypostaseis), and to the enhypostatic and natural energies (energeiai) that flow out from them as a gift of the eternal and uncreated grace of theosis to mankind.

It seems that brothers Ghosty and Todd are talking about two different things.

Brother Ghosty says the "created" in the term "created grace" does not refer to grace, but refers to the man.

Brother Todd, on the other hand, says that the "created" refers to grace itself, and thereby judges the Western phraseology - even more, the entire Latin theology - as "confused."

If Ghosty is correct about the Latin teaching, then it seems it is Todd who is confused. If Todd is correct, then Ghosty is confused.

Ghosty has offered us a quote from the veritable father of scholasticism to indicate that Ghosty's interpretation is correct. Can Todd offer us a quote from St. Thomas to support his interpretation? I would be interested in his reply.

After all the evidence is presented, let everyone decide on their own. Personally, I would let the Latins, and especially the SOURCES, speak for themselves, and not be swayed by secondary sources or interpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

Originally posted by Marduk...

This discussion is well over my head (30 feet at least - so yes - count me among the confused :rolleyes: ), but one Latin source that mentions �created grace� in a context that might (or might not) be relevant to this topic is John Paul II in a homily given in Canada during his 1984 Apostolic visit wherein he states:

�We thank the Father for the Son and the Holy Spirit. We thank the Son for the Father. We thank the Holy Spirit because through the love of the Father and the Son he is the uncreated Gift: the source of all the gifts of created grace.�

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j.../hf_jp-ii_hom_19840912_st-john-s_en.html


~Isaac

Isaac,

This statement by Pope John Paul II highlights the difference between East and West on the doctrine of grace, because -- for the East -- the uncreated persons (hypostaseis) of the Holy Trinity, and in particular the Spirit, are the source of all the gifts of uncreated grace received by man. In other words, what the West sees as created gifts (i.e., the charismata or energies of the Spirit), the East sees as uncreated gifts. Moreover, it is because the gifts of the Holy Spirit are uncreated energies (i.e., uncreated graces), and not created, that the deification (theosis) of man is made possible.

God bless,
Todd

That's not what is said by the Pope at all. It says that the Holy Spirit is the source of all the gifts of created Grace. Created Grace has already been defined above by St. Thomas Aquinas (and JPII was an ardent Thomist).

You have yet to refute the meaning of the quote of St. Thomas Aquinas, and you can't refute it because it is the basis for all subsequent Thomistic writings on "created Grace". In the context of Thomistic theology (and the quote I've provided), the gifts the Pope is refering to are the manifestations of the Grace that makes the man a "new creature in Christ", which is called created "only insomuch as man is created with reference to it".

Unless of course you want to say that man is not a new creature in Christ, in which case I suggest you take it up with St. Paul who coined the phrase. Or do your versions of Ephesians and Second Corinthians say "For we are his workmanship, uncreated in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" and "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new uncreation"?

Peace and God bless!

Marduk,

As the quotation from Pope John Paul II makes clear, the West sees the gifts of the Spirit received by man as created, while the East sees the gifts of the Spirit received by man as uncreated. Now clearly, the two sides are teaching something substantially, and not merely semantically, different. Moreover, the East would say that St. Thomas is confusing the fact that man is a created being, with the fact that grace in relation to man must be received as a created reality. Now, the reason that St. Thomas makes this error is because for him the only uncreated thing (for lack of a better word) is the divine essence; and so, the grace received by man cannot be uncreated or it would be the divine essence itself, and that would -- in the theology of the Scholastics -- involve falling into the heresy of pantheism. But the Eastern Fathers (St. Athanasios, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos, et al.) make a real distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies; and, as a consequence, they hold that it is possible for man to receive the very uncreated energies of God, and not some kind of created likeness to Him. Now, the problem with the Thomistic position -- as the Cappadocian Fathers proved with their arguments against the Pneumatomachian heretics -- is that no "created" reality can bestow the uncreated gift of theosis. Thus, the "created" graces that the Pope talks about cannot bring about the divinization of man.

God bless,
Todd

Todd,

Marduk wanted a �Latin speaking for himself,� and I can�t think of anyone I�d consider more Latin than John Paul II. I thought His Holiness was affirming the Latin belief of �created grace,� but was unsure � thank you for the clarification.

I must say that I find the eastern understanding of this issue as presented by you much more compelling than the western. Thank you for your efforts in shedding light on this difficult (and interesting) point of difference between east and west.


~Isaac

Ghosty,

In spite of your protestations to the contrary, there is no such thing as "created" grace. Thus, the graces received by man from the uncreated person of the Holy Spirit, are themselves uncreated.

That being said, man is a "new creature" in that he has become uncreated at the level of energy, while remaining created in his essence, and that is why St. Maximos said -- in reference to the saints -- that "there is in all respects one and the same energy of God and of those worthy of Him" [St. Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua, PG XCI, 1076BC]; and in fact, to put it simply, that is what the uncreated gift of theosis is all about.

Sadly, as Ghosty's posts make clear, East and West really do appear to teach something substantially different about the nature of grace, because -- for the East -- grace is God; and so, there can be no such thing as "created" grace.

May the Lord bless you,
Todd

Isaac,

I agree. Because if I must choose between Ghosty's views on the Latin doctrine of "created" grace, and the views set forth by Pope John Paul II, the latter is going to win out every time.

God bless,
Todd

So, what you are saying is according to St. Paul, in Christ through the Holy Spirit, we indeed become an "uncreated creature." The paradox is fascinating to say the least, and to me it is absolutely plausible considering that God is three yet one.

Yes, you have described it beautifully, because the paradoxical nature of theosis means that a man who has been deified by grace becomes an icon of the incarnation, being both created and uncreated at the same time. In other words, just as the incarnate Logos is uncreated in His divinity and created in His assumed humanity; so too, the man who has been divinized by Christ remains created in essence, while -- through grace -- be becomes uncreated in energy.

In this way, the mystery of the uncreated hypostatic union of the eternal Logos made man is mirrored in the uncreated energetic union of the saint who has been deified by Christ through the gift of theosis.

God bless,
Todd