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

Ghosty,

Let me begin by saying that, even if I were to accept your clarifications as to what St. Thomas really means by the term "created" grace, I still could not agree with the doctrine of "created" grace as you have defined it, because it is contrary to the doctrine of theosis as taught by the Eastern Fathers. Now, in order to explain why it is that I reject your clarifications of the Thomistic position, I will briefly go over what you said in the opening part of your most recent post:

Now, the first thing that you did in your post was to make mention -- yet again -- of Aquinas' reference to the quotation from the book of Ephesians, but this quotation, from an Eastern perspective, does not imply the notion of created grace at all; instead, it simply means that man has been created by God with the intention that he should be in perfect communion with his Creator through a life of virtuous activity; and so, it has nothing to do with the nature of grace in itself, nor does it have anything to do with how grace exists in those who have been deified. In other words, the text of Ephesians does not support a notion of "created" grace at all, which means that St. Thomas' interpretation is simply in error.

Next you brought up the fact that Christ's human nature is finite, which -- of course -- both Easterners and Westerners can and do accept as true, at least when it comes to the essence of Christ's assumed humanity. Nevertheless, as far as Christ's human energy is concerned, it has become infinite through the hypostatic union of the eternal and uncreated Logos, because it operates in perfect synergy with the divine energy. Moreover, just as Christ's humanity -- through the hypostatic union -- becomes infinite in energy by the infusion of the divine energy; so too, the energy of a man who is divinized by grace becomes infinite, while his essence remains finite. Thus, through the uncreated and eternal gift of theosis, man himself becomes uncreated and eternal, and of course he even becomes infinite, in energy, but not in essence. Now, taking the uncreated nature of the gift of theosis into account, it is true to say that the saints iconically mirror the hypostatic union of Christ through an energetic union that brings them into intimate communion with the Holy Trinity. So instead of grace taking on man's characteristics, it is man, who -- by the gift of deifying energy -- takes on the properties (i.e., the characteristics) of God. Grace elevates man beyond his own natural energies, and through a never-ending process of synergistic cooperation makes him divine, and not merely through some kind of virtual or intentional union, but by an ontological union in energy. That being said, there is absolutely no sense in which the uncreated grace (i.e., energy) of God can be said to take on man's properties, that is, there is no sense in which grace can be called, or, even worse, truly become, "created."

Now, following your remarks about Aquinas' reference to Ephesians, you bring up the idea that the "state of grace" is a finite reality, because, as you put it, "the state of grace . . . is limited by the bounds of its subject," but this is precisely what the East rejects. Of course, it should be noted that the East generally speaking avoids the Western technical term "state of grace" when it comes to describing the process of theosis because there is nothing static about divine grace. Thus, as an Eastern Christian I prefer to speak of the infusion of the divine energies or of the possession of the divine energies, which -- of course -- must be constantly enacted throughout the never-ending process of theosis; as a consequence, grace, in Eastern thought, is seen as dynamic, not static. Now, taking into account what I have just said, it is clear that the East rejects the idea that the process of theosis (i.e., what the West calls the "state of grace") is a finite reality, because the process of theosis, as I have already indicated, is a never-ending movement of man into God, and that is why St. Gregory of Nyssa calls theosis an eternal stretching (i.e., an epektasis) of man into the divine infinity. Thus, the deified man, who remains finite in his essence, through the process of theosis becomes infinite in his energy. That being said, an Eastern Christian cannot accept the idea that the life of grace (i.e., theosis), or as the West prefers to call it the "state of grace," is finite, because it is in fact the opposite, it is infinite, not finite, since through epektasis man stretches eternally into God. So, there is no way that I as an Eastern Christian can agree with the idea that you expressed in your post, when you said in connection with grace, that "having is limited by the bounds of the haver." On the contrary, by the infusion of the uncreated and eternal energies of God into man, it becomes possible for man to transcend his own limitations as he is drawn through epektasis into the infinity of God's existence. In other words, the deified man experiences an existential, but not an essential change in his own being, as he participates in God's uncreated energies.

Next, you say that man's own finite being is what limits grace, but that this ". . . in no way implies limit on the substance of Grace, which is God (the Divine Life) and infinite." Now, I accept the fact that grace is God, and as such that it is infinite in itself, and so on this point we are in agreement, and in fact we have been in agreement on this specific issue all along, because even Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange admits that grace as it exists in the Trinity is uncreated, eternal, and infinite. Thus, our disagreement has never been about grace as it exists in the Holy Trinity; instead, our disagreement is centered upon grace as it exists in man, because the Eastern Fathers hold that grace as received by man is uncreated, eternal, and infinite, and that it makes man himself uncreated, eternal, and infinite, and -- as I have said many times already -- this only concerns man's energy, and not his essence. That being said, our disagreement is focused solely upon grace as it is understood to exist within the deified man, because the West says that man's limited nature requires that grace -- at least in some sense -- take on the characteristics of the created being into which it is infused, while the East holds that grace, as it is infused into and exists in man, remains unlimited, and imparts to man the properties of God.

Finally, I must disagree with you when you say that, I am ". . . confusing states, or accidents, with substances, and thus making St. Thomas Aquinas out to be saying something he would utterly condemn," because I am not confusing these things; instead, I am simply rejecting the Aristotelian metaphysical categories underlying these ideas. Grace is not an "accident" in man, because it is God Himself as energy. Thus, my main criticism of St. Thomas Aquinas is focused upon his use of pagan categories of thought (i.e., Aristotelian metaphysics) in theology, because they have no place there; and moreover, they have all clearly been condemned by the Eastern Churches as incompatible with divine revelation in the Synodikon that is chanted on the Sunday of Orthodoxy at the beginning of Great Fast (Lent).

God bless,
Todd

I think the question is this: Is the Latin West insisting that the Byzantine East accept Latin theology while rejecting Byzantine? I don't think so. The Latin West (it would appear to my simple mind) is only expressing in its particular manner how God works in the world by using uniquely Latin terms and theology. What I get from these discussions is that unless you accept the understanding from the Eastern point of view, then you are wrong, period, end of discussion. I am not willing to say that the Latin West is wrong, merely different in its expression and understanding of the Truth.

Unfortunately at times I get the impression that there is this almost "snobbery" with some Eastern Posters that there is something inherently wrong with the Latin Church. The term "latinization" is tossed about as though it is a disease infecting the Eastern Church that has to be stamped out whatever the cost. I love Eastern Spirituality and even though I am a Latin Rite Catholic, I probably practice my private faith more in an Eastern manner. It is completely compatible in my mind. As a matter of fact, I find that there are Byzantine traditions found in my Church that are accepted warmly as beautiful expressions of love for God. We need to realize that the East and West are not opposed to one another, rather they are complementary.

Sadly, I cannot agree with you when you say that the two sides are saying the same thing in different ways.

Because either grace imparts divine characteristics to man, and in the process makes him uncreated, eternal, and infinite in energy; or grace takes on man's characteristics and itself becomes limited, finite, and created.

I do not see how both positions can be true.

God bless,
Todd

I never said the two sides were saying the same thing. Where did I say that? I just said that it was the West attempting to explain using Western terms concepts which words at BEST inadequately explain in the first place. Does the West use terms such as "energy" or "hypostasis"? To a westerner those terms are foreign and difficult to comprehend because they is not part of the lexicon.

It is interesting that you mention that the Fathers love paradoxes. Perhaps you should look at it in that fashion. I cannot accept that the Eastern way of explaining or expressing divine truth is the only way to do it.

Nevertheless, my point stands, because the two explanations are incompatible.

It would be a different matter altogether if they were saying the same thing, but just using different words.

Now, as far as the term hypostasis is concerned, yes, the West does use this Greek term. The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union is the prime example of this usage.

Sadly, as far as the term energy is concerned, that term began to fall out of use in the West as early as Augustine, but fell into practical non-existence only during the Scholastic period.

God bless,
Todd

But not in the same sense that God Himself is uncreated, eternal and infinite;

but in the same sense that God's Energies are uncreated, eternal and infinite;

That's what you have to mean. Correct?

I thought my post was fairly exhaustive, but I will repeat what I have already said: Man becomes uncreated, eternal, and infinite in energy, but not in essence.

Now, there cannot be different species or modes of being uncreated, eternal, and infinite, but there can be distinctions within the being of both God and man. Thus, there is a real distinction between essence and energy in God, and also in man; nevertheless, essence and energy in God are eternal, uncreated, and infinite in the same exact way, and through the process of theosis man's natural energy takes on the characteristics of the divine energy, while man's essence remains created.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - It is important to remember that God is more than the divine essence, because He is also the divine energies, and the three divine hypostaseis, and all of these realities are eternal, uncreated, and infinite.

Dear rugratmd,

Well, I hope that I don't come across as a snob and I pray I am not.

Certainly, every Church must remain faithful to its traditions and this, of course, includes the Latin Church.

And, frankly, I really don't know enough about these matters to take a hard and fast position to begin with. I'm an Eastern Catholic, I'm probably as Latinized as they get, and I'm perfectly happy with the way I am, even if this causes some grief to others!

My only point is that unity between East and West will only come about when the two traditions can agree on the substance of what they believe about Grace etc.

It matters not what terminology is employed. If, at the end of (a long day of posting on the Forum) the two sides can truthfully say they believe the same thing about Grace, then we will have unity on that score.

And there is some convincing to be done in that department.

And I'm not the one to decide that!

Latin Catholics, with the best possible of intentions, have, in recent decades, been saying that what their beliefs about Original Sin et alia approximate or are exactly like what the East has always believed.

That is still to be proven or otherwise demonstrated. I'm not saying that it is not the case, just that the East tends to remain unconvinced - and so do Latin Catholics who prefer the older terminologies and concepts i.e. "stain of Original Sin" meaning exactly what it says and the like.

What I read in a number of posts here is a kind of "Eastern soft-selling" of St Thomas Aquinas for the sake of unity and I don't think that is necessarily fair to Aquinas or to RCism.

In that case, it is you, my Latin Catholic brothers, who are not being nice to your own tradition.

It is more important to understand what Aquinas truly believed about grace, rather than to try and recast it to make it approximate the Eastern view.

That kind of "blurring" of the distinctions and differences serves no one well. If anything, it puts Eastern Christians' backs up against the wall by renewing their determination to articulate the differences even to the point of dwelling on them etc.

I still don't have a clear idea of what the RC doctrine of "Grace" is - I'm getting the impression that it is somehow similar to the view of the East.

I want to know what the Latin Catholic tradition teaches on grace - period! I want to think about it and reflect on it. I don't want "Latinized Eastern-lite" since that is just confusing - as well as being unfair to the Latin West.

It is you Latins here who are coming across as snobs, forgive me, by trying to cast Latin theology in an Eastern framework.

Who ever asked you to here? And why would you want to do that? Don't assume you know what the East is all about. I'm Eastern and I don't know.

So tell me about the Latin theology of grace!

I don't know enough of either Western or Eastern theology to dispute the matter.

And I too cherish devotions such as the Rosary.

It is one of the best things the Christian East ever shared with the West . . .

Alex

Fair enough. I won't dispute that the two explanations appear incompatible. I accept the Eastern explanation because by far it makes more sense to me. St. Thomas' explanation tends to run in circles for me.

About "hypostasis"....I was just grabbing something out of the air. <embarrassed> Indeed, the CCC uses the term hypostatic union and I knew this. <still embarrassed>

I see the logic of what you are saying.

Can you express the distinction between Essence and Energies without just repeating words, without I guess just insisting that there is a distinction without just pointing to it? Otherwise I am stuck with yours or as you maintain, the Fathers' "knowledge" ie, revelation.

Here is what I mean. I haven't had the experience of theosis - though I think I am on the right road. So absent the "grace" confirmed in the holy mysteries, my knowledge about God comes from what I do know - created things and my reflections on the holy mysteries.

Or perhaps I am, in your opinion, asking for the impossible.

But on the other hand, if I can communicate with, say Roman Catholics about divine things, or pagans for that matter about natural things, then I guess there is some real common knowledge - for example, some pagans I know think that health, eg, is good for the body or they think that attempting to be virtuous is a good thing. Let's take as an extreme example - Aristotle in his ethics. When I read that, I think I am actually able to understand something real about justice. So that I can agree with them that taking the life of the innocent is wrong.

Is there any way using this kind of knowledge, by which I can understand the distinction between God's Essence and His Energies?

I suspect the answer is no. But then the question is, is there any knowledge that we share with the pagans where we are not just using the same words, but that those words are signifying the same reality?

Dear Orthodox Catholic,

My post was not aimed at anyone in particular. Just an observation that "Latin" does not equal bad in all cases. Sure, we have our faults, but who doesn't?


I am not trying to cast Latin theology in an Eastern light. I am merely attempting to learn something. I cannot tell you with absolute certainty what the Latin Church teaches about grace because I am not sure myself. The Eastern teachings on theosis certainly make more sense with respect to what St. Peter says in his letter, so I am inclined to accept those. But at times, I find the West explains things in a manner that I can accept.

I hope that I have never come across as snobbish. It is by far not my nature, and if I have, please forgive me.

Oh, and Todd, I think the concept that the West has issues with is simply this: how on earth can man be "uncreated" in any way? That seems to be the sticking point. If we could fathom "energy" and "essence" in the manner that the East does (which after contemplation I actually can), then we may be able to get somewhere.

The Latin Church does affirm uncreated grace, and it is completely rooted in Thomistic terminology. This is where Apotheoun is misrepresenting the Thomistic position, and leading others to believe that St. Thomas Aquinas was saying something that he was not. This is not a matter of making St. Thomas Aquinas "sensitized" to Eastern eyes and ears, this is about being faithful to St. Thomas Aquinas' own definitions. St. Thomas Aquinas himself said that grace is called created insofar as men are created with reference to it. This is a critical part of the puzzle that's being overlooked in an attempt to paint St. Thomas Aquinas' theology as incompatible with Eastern theology.

Allow me to quote the too-often inadequate Catholic Encyclopedia to show this distinction:

One thing is being spoken of here, namely the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The accident, or state, is what is refered to as created, the substance is refered to as uncreated. We are the throne in question in the above quote, we are the "temple of the Holy Spirit". Created accidental grace is precisely what St. Thomas Aquinas is saying when pointing out that grace is called created insofar as men are created with reference to it.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, known for its anti-Eastern biases, expresses that this reality rests so securely on Tradition and Scripture that to deny it constitutes grave error. Yet Latins are being accused precisely of this grave error, and that does tend to get one's hackles up.

We don't have to "sanitize" St. Thomas Aquinas for our beliefs to be justified; the attempts to explain him in Eastern terms arises from the apparent confusion some folks are having with his actual Scholastic terminology, and the complications that arise from this (such as accusing us of what the anti-Eastern traditional Latin source calls grave error).

I have tried using Scholastic terms to explain the matter, only to be told that since my audience doesn't accept Scholastic terms, the entire effort is fruitless. What other choice does one have than to try and put it into Eastern terms when Western terms are rejected out of hand? That is far from snobbery, that is bending over backwards to accomodate after trying the direct approach. In my first post, I used nothing but Latin terminology, only to be told it was saying something that I know it wasn't (because what I'm being told it is saying is condemned as a grave error). :p

Peace and God bless!

If this is the case, then it is left to you to prove that Scripture is refering only to the general creation of man, because the text seems to directly contradict such an idea, and refers directly to our creation in Grace. To quote the passage more completely:

The text directly contrasts the previous state ("seperated from Christ"), with the new state ("in Christ"), and it refers to this change in terms of grace. What's more, this is the same understanding shared by both the Oriental Orthodox (and Catholics) and the Latin Catholics. It is expressed in H.H. Pope Shenouda III "Comparitive Theology" for example. If the Byzantine tradition indeed reads this differently (as you have suggested), it is the "odd man out" Apostolically speaking.

I agree completely. There is nothing in St. Thomas' statements that suggests otherwise.

The West doesn't use the term "state of grace" to refer to the process either. I think this is where the confusion lies.

As in the West. This is dealt with by the Beatific Vision, and by the theology of "contemplative prayer" as put forth by St. Theresa of Avila. If you haven't read "Interior Castles", I highly recommend you do so because it describes this process, as it occurs in our lifetime, very intimately. Here is where things go wrong. You have gone from talking about the human state, to the Divine process. The Western terminology does not say that the "state" is the same as the "process", quite the contrary! Rather, the process presupposes the state. Being "in Christ" and "growing in Christ" are spoken of distinctly, just as St. Paul speaks distinctly about being "created in Christ" and "walking in good works" in Ephesians 2:10. I can not grow in Christ if I am not in Christ. Being "in Christ" is a binary function, a yes or no, you are "in Christ" or you are a "Gentile in the flesh", you are born of flesh and blood, or you are born of water and Spirit, but growing in Christ, or working in Christ is an unending process. There is a fundamental, ontological difference between being Baptized, and being unBaptized, but no such ontological distinction can be made regarding stages in the process of growing in Christ (similar to how a stopped car is different in state from a moving car, but a fast moving car is different from a slow moving car only by degree of movement, not by state of motion).

Again, this is an idea shared by both the Oriental Orthodox and the Latins (indeed, I would say it's presented much more explicitely by the Oriental Orthodox than even the Latins, with their emphasis on a literal, ontological death in Baptism, and the literal, ontological birth out of the waters), and if the Byzantines do not share it then there there is a serious division between these groups, and it's not the Latins being the odd ones out. Ironically, it seems to be the Latins that stand between the two traditions in this regard, if what you say is true about Byzantine belief on the matter.

Before we are "in Christ" there is no "moving in Christ". You are absolutely correct that we are always moving and growing in Christ, in theosis, but this process must have a start, a beginning. To quote the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website:

Uncreated Grace is not static, but our journey has a beginning in us with Baptism. It is this beginning that is refered to by "created grace", as it is in Baptism that we are "created in Christ".

Peace and God bless!

Permit me to add two observations:

1) St. Thomas Aquinas called grace a gift, and also asserted that gift is a proper name of the Holy Spirit.

2) The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the term "sanctifying grace" is an incomplete definition. It states that there is something indefinable about sanctifying grace. The Latin teaching can only describe sanctifying grace through its effects on man, preferring not to touch upon that portion of it that is altogether indefinable.

Wow! Wouldn't it be wonderful if in heaven it is revealed to us that what the West treats as the indefinable facet of sanctifying grace is the very thing that the East has defined as the Energy of God?

Can it be that there is more mystery and awe in Latin theology than Eastern polemicists care to admit? But I guess that's not the topic, is it?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Ghosty,

EVERY Eastern/Oriental Father I know of (the Gregories, Basil, Athanasius, Chrystostom, etc.) always interpret the passages in Ephesians 2 in terms of regeneration and our being a new creation in Christ. You are definitely correct on this point. I do not know where Todd is obtaining his information. Possibly, it is another second-millemium development peculiar to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk