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

Todd,

Thank you for pointing out III Q7 art 11. I am still certain that this particular scholar had in mind that Thomas never used the term "created grace."

In the article you point out he says:

"Sed Contra est quod gratia Christi est quiddam creaturam in anima."

I am not certain of the translation, but the English "Grace is something created in the soul" does not strike me as quite right. And he is not here concerned so much with the question of grace as with the soul of Christ.

I think he is maintaining that because the soul of Christ is created, the grace "in it" cannot be infinite which does make some sense.In fact the question is, "Whether the Grace of Christ is infinite?"

----


1. What Council has defined that? Here my emphasis is on "any kind" and on "uncreated energies."

2. 3. There is an equivocation here in the use of the term energies. In 2 there is a distinction, but in 3, God's energies are Him.

-----

To say that God's essence is His existence is not a definition. It is an explanation that in God, unlike the angelic creatures, there is no distinction bewteen His essence and existence. God's simplicity is thereby preserved.

While St. Thomas with St. John and St. Paul hold that we will see God "face to face", he states:

Summa contra gentiles: Book III Part 1 ch. 47.

But he also states:

Summa Theologica I Q12 art7


I think you are correct but that translation still doesn't prove that energies is more than a nominal distinction here.

For some interesting insights, I would suggest reading A.N. Williams, "The Ground of Union." She considers the issues very well between Aquinas and Palamas. I think I got a copy of this on Amazon several years ago.

In the Theotokos,'

lm

Yes, Thomas is saying that grace as it exists in the soul of man (and even of Christ incarnate) is itself a "creature" (creaturam), and that is precisely what the East rejects. In Eastern theology grace is uncreated, eternal, and yes, even infinite in the soul of man, and that is why man becomes uncreated, eternal, and infinite in the eschaton, as St. Gregory of Nyssa says. This is what the doctrine of epektasis is all about. Thus, East and West disagree about the nature of grace.

Your statement betrays a Western mindset, because the Church does not "define" anything in an ecumenical council; instead, it issues a decree (horos) that establishes the parameters within which we can speak about the mystery, but of course the mystery itself remains indefinable; and moreover, such decrees are rare, because councils are only called in order to suppress heresy.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of divine faith that grace is God, and no council is necessary to tell us this, because it is the consensus of the Fathers that only that which is uncreated can deify man. Only the Pneumatomachian heretics of the 4th century disagreed with this patristic teaching.

You tell me that you are Eastern Catholic, and yet you appear to be completely ignorant of Eastern theology. There are three real distinctions -- without a separation -- in God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis. Thus, God exists in three different modes, because He exists as essence, He exists as energy, and He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, the perichoresis the whole of the divine essence is present within each of the three divine persons, and in all of the many enhypostatic energies that flow out from them to man as a gift of grace.

Once again, you exhibit a complete lack of familiarity with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, because to participate in the uncreated divine energies is to see God face to face. Nevertheless, no created being can ever see or participate in the divine essence, because it is hetero-essential in relation to created reality, and to say that a man can see or participate in the divine essence is to fall into the heresy of pantheism. Thus, when scripture says that no man can see God and live, it is referring to the divine essence, but not to the uncreated energies, because as St. Basil said, "His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach." [St. Basil, Letter 234]

Now, as far as St. Thomas' failure to make a distinction between essence and existence in God is concerned, the result of his error makes theosis, as an ontological reality, impossible. Man can only participate in God's enhypostatic energies, and that means that theosis involves a real participation in God's existence, but not in His essence. You need to read Dr. Scot Douglass' book Theology of the Gap in order to disabuse yourself of this Thomistic metaphysical error.

Sadly, St. Thomas held that God was incomprehensible because man is finite, but this is not the teaching of the Fathers of the Church; instead, they taught that God is incomprehensible because He is beyond being. Now, man -- as a diastemic and kinetic being -- cannot transcend the ontological divide between the divine essence and created essences; and thus, it is only God who can in a unidirectional manner transgress this ontological boundary, and He does so through His uncreated energies, which move into the created order in order to deify it. That being said, man cannot predicate anything of the divine essence, because it is, as St. Gregory of Nyssa points out, adiastemic (See St. Gregory of Nyssa's, Seventh Homily on Ecclesiastes, J412).

There are so many errors in your statements, that I cannot possibly correct them all, but I will simply reiterate what I have already said, because for the Cappadocian Fathers there is a real distinction -- without a separation -- between the divine essence and the divine energies, and to deny this causes problems for within their theology of divinization, while simultaneously destroying their arguments against the Eunomian heretics. Sadly, at least based upon your comments so far, your theology appears to be Western, and not Eastern.

Now, as far as A. N. William's book is concerned, I read it -- and her dissertation (which is the original basis for the book) -- and I must say, that her analysis, particularly in connection with the doctrine of St. Gregory Palamas is faulty, because she reduces the real distinction between essence and energy to a nominal or virtual distinction, and that was declared heretical at the Palamite Councils of the 14th century. Instead of her book, I recommend that you read Joost van Rossum's dissertation entitled, "Palamism and Church Tradition: Palamism, Its Use of Patristic Tradition, and Its Relationship with Thomistic Thought," and Fr. M. Edmund Hussey's dissertation called, "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Gregory Palamas" (n.b.: both dissertations were published by Fordham University).

In conclusion I must admit that I am disappointed that an Eastern Christian appears to know little or nothing about the theology of the Cappadocian Fathers and St. Gregory Palamas, and instead quotes the Scholastic philosophical speculations of Aquinas, which are based upon the pagan metaphysics of Aristotle and not upon the tradition of the Church.

That being said, I will simply reiterate again: grace is God, so it cannot be created.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - You may want to read the some of the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers, especially those that they wrote against Eunomius, and -- of course -- it would be good to read the writings of St. Maximos and St. Gregory Palamas (See the Philokalia volumes 2 and 4).

By the way, what writings of St. Gregory Palamas have you read? The Capita Physica perhaps, or the Triads? Have you read his homilies, which have just recently come into print in English? Have you read the Hagioretic Tome? Or have you failed to read any of his writings? I await your answer to these many questions, because it will help me to see the level of familiarity that you have with Byzantine doctrinal tradition.

The following quotation is from Fr. John Hardon's (S.J.) writings, in which he gives a definition of sanctifying (i.e., created) grace. I have highlighted the problematic portions of this definition by putting them into bold print:

Now, in the above quotation, Fr. Hardon says that, "Sanctifying grace is not God"; while the Byzantine tradition says that sanctifying grace is God. Moreover, in the Byzantine doctrinal tradition grace is not a "created" likeness, but is instead a true assimilation (omoiosis) of man to God, that is, it is an ontological likeness or reality that unites man to God synergistically in an experiential and existential manner, and not merely through some type of a "created" similitude.

God bless,
Todd

Todd:
Thank you for clearing this up.
Peace,
Ryan

Dear all,

First, let me say that I agree and accept everything that Apotheoun has been describing about grace. What I do not understand and have yet to agree on is his characterization (or mischaracterization) of the Western understanding of grace. By all accounts (so far as has been given) it is still just a matter of semantics. So far, brother Todd has not given us any quotes from St. Thomas, the source of the scholastic teaching on grace, that supports his interpretation of St. Thomas as "confusing the created being into whom the uncreated grace is infused, with the nature of the grace itself." We only have his word. And after I specifically ask that the SOURCES are used, and not secondary sources or interpretations, he gives us Fr. John Hardon's quote, saying that sanctifying grace is not the Holy Spirit Himself. All Todd had to do was appeal to the Catechism itself - surely more authoritative than Fr. Hardon - which states that Grace is first and foremost the gift of THE SPIRIT. The Catechism immediately proceeds to distinguish Grace AS the Spirit Himself (as gift), from grace as the GIFTS(plural) that the Spirit grants us. Who should we believe, Fr. John Hardon (and Todd) or the Catechism?

OK, let's admit that there are some things that the West calls "grace" that is not by definition the Holy Spirit Himself. The obvious, charitable, and Christian solution (if we are to obey St. Paul's exhortation to avoid warring over words which is USELESS) would be to say to a Latin Christian, "those OTHER things you call grace that is not specifically divine, we would call something else. We understand it is only a matter of language, and we would not make this a cause of division." Instead, it seems Todd's ONLY solution is, "Grace only means one thing to us Eastern Christians. Therefore, you cannot apply the word to anything else, because we are simply not willing to make any attempt to understand what you mean. If you do not change your language, we will separate from you."

As I stated, I agree with and accept Todd's explanation of grace. But I deplore his attempt at creating division where there is none. Once again, I offer Todd the simple solution of pointing out where St. Thomas is guilty of the things Todd accuses him.

Regarding JP2 (of blessed memory), I know he has been quoted as USING the term "created grace," but its use is not what I was asking about. I was talking about the EXPLANATION of the term, something St. Thomas gave, something brother Ghosty gave, but something brother Todd has yet to give.

Finally, let me say that I am not an avid St. Thomas reader. But I know enough to be able to assert that St. Thomas believed that Grace IS the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Marduk

This is because in Thomistic terms, sanctifying grace is not a "substance", but an "accident", and accidents have no being whatsoever. It's a mode, not a thing. This is why Thomists can say that in the Eucharist the substance is the Body and Blood, and that only the accidents of bread and wine remain, and say at the same time in different words that there is no bread and wine at all in the Eucharist, only the appearance. Hence the Old Catholic Encyclopedia states:

and the article goes on to state:

As you can see, the "created grace" is the accident, while the substance, the "thing" of Grace, is uncreated. This does not make for two different kinds of Grace, but rather for a state called grace, and a thing called Grace. The thing is God, the state is of man. Sanctifying grace refers only to the state of man, not to what causes the state by being within man (the Divine Life). If the Thomists were to confuse the mode, or accident, of grace with the substance of grace, then it would follow that we ourselves could never share in the Divine Nature, which is contrary to Scripture. This is because man would not be the one Living the Divine Life, but rather only God (the Holy Spirit) would be Living the Divine Life within man, and we'd be a kind of material sock-puppet of God, draped over, but never uniting with the Trinity.

Im wrote: St. Thomas Aquinas did indeed use the term created grace, but he also defined it:

So even in St. Thomas' usage, created refers to the human being and not to the substance of Grace. Created grace is not a "something", but a "somehow". The something is the uncreated Divine Life, the somehow of humans having it is that we are "made new creations in Christ". In the end, that is all the boogey-man of "created grace" means.

Peace and God bless!

Mardukm:

Kind of reminds me of a certain physis debate, how about you?

Peace and God bless!

I thought I would add slightly to the italicized portion of the response quoted above, in order to correct a slight typographical error (of which there were a few in my long post), but also in order to supplement what I said for the sake of clarity:

It was only after re-reading this portion of your earlier post (quoted above), that I realized that you may be laboring under the false impression that when an Eastern Christian speaks of a real distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies, that he is making a distinction between God and His energies, but that is to misunderstand the nature of this distinction, because both essence and energy are God, just as the triad of divine hypostaseis are God.

Here are the two points taken from an earlier post of mine, that apparently confused you (they are numbered 2 and 3 in your post):

2. This statement is false, because the Cappadocian Fathers insist that there is a distinction between essence and energy in God.

3. In other words, His activities (energeiai) are Him.

Now, the distinction -- without a separation -- between the divine essence and the divine energies is real; in other words, it is not merely a virtual or nominal distinction within the human mind, for as St. Gregory Palamas said in his response to the heretic Gregoras, "God Himself exists and to Him belong the divine essence and the divine energy." [St. Gregory Palamas, Contra Gregoras, II; see also John Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, page 215] Now, taking into account what St. Gregory has said, it is clear that in the theological tradition of the East -- unlike the West -- that God is more than His essence. Moreover, it is also important to remember that for the Eastern Fathers the divine essence is utterly transcendent and incommunicable, because man can never become homoousios with the Holy Trinity; and, as a consequence of this doctrine of essential divine transcendence, it follows that the vision of God cannot involve a vision of the divine essence as St. Thomas Aquinas holds, but only a participation in the uncreated divine energies (which are truly God Himself as grace), which come down to us as a gift of the triad of divine persons. Because as St. Gregory said: "Do not think that God lets Himself be seen in His superessential essence (hyperousios ousia), but rather according to His deifying gift and according to His energy." [St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, III, 1, 29] In other words, participation in God's uncreated life and glory involves of necessity a real distinction between the divine essence, which is incommunicable, and the divine energies, which can be participated in because they are the outflowing of divinity into the world from the Tri-hypostatic God. Now, if a man fails to make this theological distinction the outcome is the heresy of pantheism, because for the Cappadocian Fathers, and for St. Maximos and St. Gregory Palamas, the vision of God entails a real participation in God, and so to see the vision of God's essence would not be salvation in their theology; instead, it such a vision involves a pantheistic annihilation of man, since he would become homoousios with the Holy Trinity, and would lose his own essence.

Finally, I will conclude this post with a quotation from Fr. Hussey's dissertation that highlights the differences between the Eastern and Western understanding of grace and salvation (i.e., divinization):

God bless,
Todd

Ghosty,

Sanctifying grace (i.e., deifying grace) is an energy, not an "accident," and it is absolutely repugnant to Eastern Christian doctrine to say that grace has no being whatsoever, because grace -- in the teaching of the Eastern Fathers -- is an uncreated and eternal enhypostatic energy.

Clearly, East and West are miles apart on the doctrine of grace and theosis.

God bless,
Todd

Well, lucky for me, I do not have to worry about this, because I do not believe that there is such a thing as "created" grace.

God bless,
Todd

Sadly, St. Thomas allowed himself to be carried away into the most absurd doctrinal positions because he accepted the metaphysics of Aristotle (St. Aristotle I suppose for the Thomists), but I reject Aristotle's metaphysics, and follow the teaching of St. Athanasios and the Cappadocian Fathers instead. To put it simply, I prefer to found my life upon a Christian understanding of God and the world, instead of a pagan one based upon Aristotle.

God bless,
Todd

As I see it,"created grace" is, at worst, a misnomer.

At first glance, I would certainly think that "created grace" meant "grace which is created"; but I must conclude that it doesn't actually mean that, since Aquinas specifically said that grace is not created.

It seems to me that Aquinas' "created grace" means something that is not grace but is created -- perhaps something that could be called "gracefulness" or "graciation".

That is an interesting interpretation of St. Thomas' theory, but as an Eastern Christian I see no need for a "created habitus" or a "created relationship," or "created graces or charismata" of any kind for that matter.

Grace is God.

God bless,
Todd

Let's suppose what you say is true. If so, then God is absolutely unknowable to the human intellect. But if that's the case then you really wouldn't be able to know that He is unknowable because about something which you can know nothing, you can posit absolutely nothing. Furthermore, it would be impossible to to know if there is a real distinction between His essence and energies becaue His essence is beyond being.

Part of the difficulty I have with all of your arguments is that you want to canonize St. Gregory Palama's theology (note I still refer to him as St. Gregory even though I disagree with some of his positions). I can see some of his strengths and some of his weaknesses.

I am unwilling, however, to trash St. Thomas Aquinas which you are quite willing to do. That doesn't seem to help build any Ecumenical bridges. And finally if you expect the West to trash St. Thomas, I think those expectations are as unreasonable as the Pope denying his authority as defined in Vatican I and reiterated in Vatican II.

Now either God's energies are His essence or not. If they really are then I think St. Gregory also claims that we do know God in his essence. But I think his position, in the Triads which I have read, is that there are these "uncreated" energies which are not fully God, ie they are not His essence. That does create a problem because now we have an additional distinction besides Father, Son and Holy Spirit - something uncreated but not God. But if the energies aren't God (and I honestly don't know whether you claim they are or aren't because you are equivocating on the term) then in being united to those energies, we aren't really united to God.

St. Thomas I think recognizes the ontological divide not because He thinks God is "beyond" being but because He is Being par excellence such that He does NOT fit into any of Aristotle's categories of being. No finite creature can fully comprehend Him even though a creature can, through the light of glory, really be united to Him. Now that's theosis! Furthermore it's theosis without pantheism (because a finite being cannot fully comprehended Being itself).

As to the Fathers' positions on theosis, they are there but not in any fully defined way. I understand that St. Gregory attempts to make sense of the Fathers' statements on theosis to respond to an unjustified attack on the holy monks. Insofar as He was defending them, I respect that and I think He was doing a good and noble thing.

I only comment that St. Thomas has his own view of theosis and I find it to be a better explanation which makes more sense of creation, Holy Scripture, the Trinity and the Fathers' position. It is a more comprehensive position and is worthy of consideration. Now if that excommincates me from the Eastern Catholic Church so be it, but as far as I know I am still in it. But please don't represent your position as the only one an Eastern Christian is allowed to maintain.

While you mention a Council that dogmatizes St. Gregory's theology was that an Ecumenical Council? No! Even the Orthodox don't maintain that Council as ecumencal.

I have pointed out some difficulties which I have with St. Gregory's position. If you can explain it without continually equivocating on the term energy, I could better undertand your position. But I think the equivocation is necessary to make the energies both God and "not God" to make sense of your position.

Here is one Catholic theologian addressing the idea of created grace:

The analogy of the ring and the wax seems to be fitting. The ring imprints its image in the wax but the wax is not the ring. But between the two there is not a mediating "thing". The image in the wax is the "grace." It is created because it is in a created thing. In the final theosis, however, "We shall be like Him because we shall see Him as He really is." 1 Jn 3:2. I think we can agree on that.

I have enjoined exchanging ideas with you.

In the Chirst and the Theotokos,

lm

Yes, it is true, because the Eastern Fathers teach that the essence of God is completely unknowable to the human intellect, while at the same time His energies (to the degree it is possible) are knowable. Moreover, I had expected that you -- as an Eastern Christian -- would know this to be true.

Here are a few (but certainly not all) of the sources you can read to confirm what I am saying, because St. Maximos the Confessor speaks about this truth in his Centuries on Theology and in his Centuries on Love; while St. Gregory Palamas speaks about this, in both the Capita Physica and in The Triads; and St. John Damascene teaches this in the first book of his treatise De Fide Orthodoxa; and moreover, the Cappadocian Fathers entire refutation of the heresy of Eunomius is based upon this divine truth.

That being said, the Scholastic philosophical theories about God have no place in the theology of the Eastern Fathers, because they were not Platonists or Aristotelians.

God bless,
Todd