www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Does the rejection of Western doctrines make a man anti-Catholic?

Ok. I would say that the West is perhaps using the wrong term to describe the relationship because the way I understand the term "created" is to mean that the relationship is "established". And then again, maybe I am at odds with the theology of the West despite being a Latin Rite Catholic.

I will say this as directly as I can:

Grace is God; and so, there is no such thing as "created" grace.

I agree that they don't need to be added to the universal Church, but I think it's fine to have them remain in the particular traditions from which they sprung. The filioque is a perfect example of this, as it is contemporary with the first Councils, and was even expressed by folks like St. Hilary of Poitiers who lived alongside St. Gregory and St. Basil.

Much of what is viewed as "reinventing the wheel" is actually quite Patristic, just of the Latin tradition. Latins inherited a traditional language that focuses a lot on relational distinctions in addition to substantial realities. As a result there's a lot of "how" alongside, or even in lieu of, the "what". This can be good when approaching natural philosophies and incorporating theology into new circumstances (which is why I think Latins have tended to be so successful in the sciences without losing Faith, and have often led the way in applying Catholic moral principles to new situations such as developments in contraception). The downside is that Latins can easily lose sight of the mystical and personal relationship with God, as theology becomes more a matter of definitions than experience.

If I could put it somewhat curtly, I'd say my impression of the Byzantine versus Latin traditions is that the Byzantine (and also the Oriental traditions to a large extent) is a "taste and see" approach, while the Latins are a "see and taste" approach; Latins like to go right up to the edge of natural understanding. This can be great for dealing with the details of the world from the perspective of Faith, but it can be trouble we never get to the "tasting".

This isn't to say that there aren't elements of both styles in all traditions, just that the Latins tend towards one and the Byzantine the other. I think we can be complimentary without forcing one perspective on the whole Church. In fact, I think it would be a great loss to the Faith if only the "Latin" approach was allowed in theological discussion (and it often is in discussions with Protestants, for example, leaving the participants ignorant of the true gulf that seperates Catholic theology and Protestant theology; for example there's often so much talk of "how" we're saved, that it's forgotten that Catholics and most Protestants have a VERY different idea of "what" being saved actually is. A large part of Lutheran theology, after all, is that Grace is a quality only found in God, and that people do not participate directly in the Divine Life, as Catholics believe).

In short, I think Latins should keep their ancient theological tradition, but not push it on the rest of the Church. It's useful, and it's authentic, but it ain't the end-all of Catholic theology, and I say that as someone who worships with the Dominicans and reads the Summa for entertainment

Peace and God bless!

Todd,

To my mind, it most certainly and absolutely does not.

On the other hand, the question of whether it makes sense for you to be Catholic and hold the views that you hold is a more difficult question, which I'm not going to attempt to answer right now.

- Peter.


P.S.

I was just about to make the same point myself (in response to Gordo who said "I equate being "anti-Catholic" with accusing the Church of Rome of being in heresy.")

Todd,

I do agree with you that Professor Ratzinger's (I don't think he was a Cardinal then) proposal does, in a certain sense, requires more from the East than from the West. However, I'm not convinced that it means the East has to accept Western concepts like UOJ as true; rather, I think it means for the East to consider the Catholic Church to be "legitimate and orthodox" in spite of UOJ et al (hence the phrase "cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millenium").

I think this is picking at words, and not using them the way they are intended. In Latin terminology (and in English) the word Grace means more than just God, and it's also both a "something" and an action. Uncreated Grace is the term used to refer to the "something", and it is indeed God. Created Grace describes only the effects of Uncreated Grace, not a "something", and these effects are spoken of as qualities in the human.

For example, we would say that the "something" of the Grace in Baptism is the indwelling of the Trinity and the Divine Life. This is God, and it is obviously Uncreated. The "having" of the indwelling and the Divine Life by the human must be created, and this "having" is also called Grace in Latin (Sanctifying Grace, to be precise). It must be created because it is a creature that's doing the "having", and what's more it's the act of Baptism that gives them the "having" (meaning they weren't born with it).

There is nothing wrong at all in saying that a person, on the level of energy/operation is uncreated (though such a use of terms would likely cause confusion, as Latins tend instead to use the term "participation" in Divine operations such as Love). Saying that the person's "having" of the uncreated energy is also uncreated, however, would mean that creatures are Divine by nature, in other words pantheism. Only the Trinity "has" the Divine energies in an uncreated manner, as only God is uncreated and possesses them from eternity. Humans can certainly have the Divine Life, but we can never have it in the same manner as the Trinity has it, nor how Christ has it (hypostatic union). The "object" is the same, but the quality of our having it remains infinitely distant from God's. It is the manner of possession that is called created, hence Thomas Aquinas' explaination that "grace is called created insofar as men are created with reference to it".

This isn't me saying it, it's straight Thomistic theology and terminology. That is why saying "Grace is God, and therefore can't be called created" misses the point in this discussion; you are talking about a totally different meaning of the word Grace.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Your statements on this issue highlight the fact that the Eastern and Western views of grace are completely different, because in the Byzantine tradition the "effects" of grace in man are uncreated, not created; and moreover, the "having" of grace is also uncreated, and not created. Now, you and I have talked about this before, rather extensively I should add, and the more you elaborate on what you believe to be the Western teaching, the more clearly I see that the two theological traditions -- as far as grace is concerned -- diverge so completely that they are ultimately substantially different and apparently irreconcilable.

Grace is God; and so, there is no such thing as "created" grace.

God bless,
Todd

How do you square this with a non-pantheistic theology? I don't see how it can logically hold under any circumstances whatsoever.

If our "having" is uncreated, then we can not be considered created in any way, shape, or form, not even on the level of nature. If any part of us is "from nothing", then our "having" of anything must be created; if the subject doing the "having" has come into being, then the "having" has also come into being. Without this disctinction the term "created" loses all meaning and relevance. It's very simple logic.

Peace and God bless!

No, you are correct. Created in this sense is precisely the same as established. It seems Todd is arguing that since Grace is God, our participation in God's Grace must be eternal as God is eternal, a position I do not find convincing or even coherent.

Peace and God bless!

Ahhh...this brings back memories of Trinity East Dorm and Apotheoun and I (and often others)...

No, you are both incorrect. The "establishment" of the relationship is uncreated, because theosis -- like the hypostatic union which takes place within the uncreated and eternal person of the Word of God -- is a divine reality, that is, it is an eruption of the uncreated and eternal God into time, and so it cannot be a created earthly reality.

P.S. - Ghosty, that you do not find the doctrine of theosis "convincing or even coherent" is not really relevant to the purpose of this thread, which is simply to explain the doctrine of the East, while also showing that the rejection by an Eastern Catholic of Western doctrines does not automatically make him "anti-Catholic."

Man becomes uncreated and eternal by participating in the divine energy, and not by participating in the incomprehensible and incommunicable divine essence; and so, there is no danger of pantheism.

This particular issue (i.e., theosis) reveals why the West's failure to make a real distinction between essence and energy in God is so problematic.

I also enjoyed our talks about theology in Room 106, and in the men's common room, of the TE dorm.

So God doesn't "cause" the relationship?