created/uncreated grace

[Maryslittleflower]

This came up in another topic and it was suggested a separate thread be started here..

I just thought to clarify the Catholic position about whether grace is created or not. I think this definition is pretty accurate:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ's humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God's own life. all three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

From what I understand, sometimes it's mentioned by people that Catholics believe in "created grace".. but I don't think it really means what is often assumed. We don't believe that the grace itself - the gift itself - is created, but the occasion, the act of the grace in the creature.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This came up in another topic and it was suggested a separate thread be started here..

I just thought to clarify the Catholic position about whether grace is created or not. I think this definition is pretty accurate:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36982

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ's humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God's own life. all three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

From what I understand, sometimes it's mentioned by people that Catholics believe in "created grace".. but I don't think it really means what is often assumed. We don't believe that the grace itself - the gift itself - is created, but the occasion, the act of the grace in the creature.

Actually this just confuses me more, since we (Orthodox) also don't really distinguish between kinds of grace that I'm aware of. Though certainly grace has different effects.

My comment was in response to "offering up suffering on behalf of another for their salvation" because to my understanding, it sounds as though suffering is made into something of a commodity, which can be "spent" on another by choice.

That may be less obvious (to me) than other situations I brought up, such as indulgences and the idea of merits. In these cases, I have seen actual promises that a certain action (so many days of reading Scripture, going on a pilgrimage, reciting so many prayers) or a sum of money can be exchanged for x-number of days/years out of purgatory.

To my mind, if grace is to be used as a measured "payment" which can be quantified, then grace has to be a "thing" ... i.e. Created.

All of that is a lot of thinking to get to a conclusion.

By contrast, in Orthodoxy, I would only say that grace is the Energies of God. It is how He interacts with us, what we can know of Him since His very Essence is ineffable. As such, it cannot be created. And we never quantify it either. Though God Himself certainly understands His own action, how He applies it, and to what end.

I need to think a bit more. With your last post there I thought I was understanding better, but now it seems further away.

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Actually this just confuses me more, since we (Orthodox) also don't really distinguish between kinds of grace that I'm aware of. Though certainly grace has different effects.

My comment was in response to "offering up suffering on behalf of another for their salvation" because to my understanding, it sounds as though suffering is made into something of a commodity, which can be "spent" on another by choice.

That may be less obvious (to me) than other situations I brought up, such as indulgences and the idea of merits. In these cases, I have seen actual promises that a certain action (so many days of reading Scripture, going on a pilgrimage, reciting so many prayers) or a sum of money can be exchanged for x-number of days/years out of purgatory.

To my mind, if grace is to be used as a measured "payment" which can be quantified, then grace has to be a "thing" ... i.e. Created.

All of that is a lot of thinking to get to a conclusion.

By contrast, in Orthodoxy, I would only say that grace is the Energies of God. It is how He interacts with us, what we can know of Him since His very Essence is ineffable. As such, it cannot be created. And we never quantify it either. Though God Himself certainly understands His own action, how He applies it, and to what end.

I need to think a bit more. With your last post there I thought I was understanding better, but now it seems further away.

Hmm.. sorry about that! I think what I'm trying to say is that Catholics actually don't teach what Barlaam did - the person in the controversy about essence and energies.

One way to describe what we believe is that grace is basically participation in God's Divine Life. The presence of the Holy Trinity in us and God's life itself is not created, is not a creature. However, His presence causes a created grace, which is basically how it affects us so that we can receive God's communication.

Fr. Thomas Dubay: "The [Holy] Spirit indwells and does many things in man to render him sacred. This is uncreated grace. . . . It is by sanctifying grace that we are united to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . [who] communicate themselves to men, impress themselves 'into' us. It is created grace that renders us capable of receiving this communication, but it is the communication that causes the created grace" (see "God Dwells within Us," p. 112, 114-115).

Another way to put it is that in the West, we sometimes talk about the "substance" of things and the "accident". The substance of grace itself, is uncreated. However, when we receive grace, we don't become God. The work of grace in us is "accidental". In this way, it has a point of time, and the occasion or the instance of grace is created.

I am trying to think of a way to say this without the terminology but I'd have to keep thinking about how to do that to be honest I'm trying to understand it all still.. I'm not a theologian and maybe something I'm saying is not totally accurate..

I guess what I'm saying here is that Catholics don't believe what Barlaam did, or that grace itself in its substance, apart from us, is a creature. We also don't see that there's a total distinction between God's essence and His attributes "energies" to use the Eastern term. To use Catholic language, there is a "minor virtual distinction": not real, and not just in our minds either. This is probably too complicated, as it is to me.

As for the rest, I'll respond in a minute

 

[Maryslittleflower]

In response to the rest of the post, the number of days in Indulgences refers to the length of penance given in the early Church. The Church doesn't use this anymore and just says "partial" or "plenary". To have a plenary indulgence there needs to be no attachment to sin so that's not very easy.

Contrary to popular belief the number of days or years doesn't refer strictly to actual time in Purgatory but to the amount remitted by that amount of early Church penance:

"
A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.

God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise amount is in severity and duration. "

Catholic Encyclopedia

I think your point here though was that grace has amounts and so we see it as a created thing?

I don't think I have enough theological knowledge to comment on this well.. It seems like God's life itself is not created, our participation in it is created (that is what created grace means). This participation can have degrees but I don't think there is any calculation of that when we offer up suffering, we don't know how much it would help, we just unite it to the Cross so it has any spiritual value at all... one example is Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich who bore people's trials for them and her charity in doing this was like a very efficacious prayer

Hope that helps somewhat!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for your reply.

I have a number of thoughts swimming in my head.

I did understand that the amount of the indulgence was related to that much time remitted.

But the main thing I'm thinking is inspired by your last statement about bearing people's trials for them.

This makes NO sense to me for this reason - I think trials can come for many reasons, but the way in which they benefit us is what we learn spiritually from them - how to trust God in adversity, how to find comfort in God, how to bear patiently without complaint, and so on.

If someone else was bearing MY trial, how could I possibly benefit from it?

We see any "penance" (if it is even called that, which it usually isn't) given in Confession for example, to be restorative. If it doesn't serve for repentance, then it isn't accomplishing healing of the person. It is expressly not a punishment. So ... how could I be helped if my Confessor told someone else to read a certain book, give up certain inappropriate indulgence, or make changes to their prayer rule?

I don't think that's what you're saying, but that's how it sounds to me, given our (Orthodox) framework.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Is purgatory still a thing in the RCC? I thought they got rid of that...

 

[Maryslittleflower]

I understand what you mean... we see it as restorative too, in addition to temporal punishment. An idea from the early Church that seems to relate is that apparently their penances could be lessened if a Christian imprisoned for their faith prayed for them. It seems like the restorative grace is given because of the prayers so there is still a restorative effect. That's actually very similar to how we see Indulgences - the effect is supplied either through our time in Purgatory or the merits of the entire Church.

One other point I was thinking about in terms of grace... It seems like the Catholic and Orthodox view of that is different in many ways... for instance:

Correct me if I'm wrong in this but it seems like the Orthodox understanding is that God's Essence is unknowable to anyone but God because you see knowing it as basically becoming God. So in Orthodox theology we know Him through Uncreated energies that are distinct from the Essence of God.

In Catholic theology, we can see God's Essence but can't fully comprehend it. We see a difference between the two. We don't become God in our substance but we share in His life. His energies or attributes are not formally distinct from His Essence, but there is something called a minor virtual distinction. Not formal and not merely mental. We believe God cannot be made of parts so to us this point is important. As to what this means I'll just let Fr Garrigou Lagrange explain... because I don't fully get it. The One God - A Commentary on the First Part of St Thomas' Theological Summa - R. Garrigou-Lagrange,O.P. - Complete book online

So to bring this back to grace and the topic we are discussing, we believe we can see God's Essence in Heaven without fully comprehending it. We can comprehend His attributes. If we are in a state of grace, God lives in us and of course His life is not created, but the instance of this happening within time in creatures, is created. So we have God living in us but don't become God because we know Him through a created instance of grace that is accidental rather than in substance. Our substance remains that of a creature and the gift itself is uncreated but our reception is created, because we are not divine.

If I'm wrong i hope someone corrects me... maybe I'll check with my priest

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Is purgatory still a thing in the RCC? I thought they got rid of that...

Definitely we didn't get rid of it, and we can't, it's a Dogma

 

[~Anastasia~]

Some of this is a little deep for me, and I would need to check my answer of exactly what we teach. I can make a good guess based on various things I do know, but that wouldn't really be helpful, since I don't think we are here to discuss our personal ideas.

If you're not sure of that being Catholic teaching, we should do the same. I have not read those things in my studying of Catholic theology, so I couldn't begin to say.

And I'd rather have input here from someone who may know. I've asked basic questions, have a basic understanding, but to get too deeply into this I might have to stretch beyond what I know for sure.

I'm trying to be patient, because I have things to say in reply, but I don't want us to have to backtrack on either of our theologies.

 

[ArmyMatt]

God himself, insofar as in his love has predetermined gifts of grace. there are three forms of uncreated grace: the hypostatic union, the divine indwelling, and the beatific vision. In the first of these, God has communicated himself in the Incarnation of Christ's humanity (the grace of union) so intimately that Jesus of Nazareth is a divine person. In the second and third communications, the souls of the justified on earth and of the glorified in heaven are elevated to a share in God's own life. all three are created graces, considered as acts, since they all had a beginning in time. But the gift that is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

but how is the hypostatic union an act of grace?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Definitely we didn't get rid of it, and we can't, it's a Dogma

Maybe I was thinking of "limbo"?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Maybe I was thinking of "limbo"?

maybe, I am pretty sure limbo was done away with under Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

maybe, I am pretty sure limbo was done away with under Pope Benedict XVI

I cant keep up with all their dogmatic inventions. Was limbo actual RCC dogma at some point?

 

[Vicomte13]

Is purgatory still a thing in the RCC? I thought they got rid of that...

Yes.

Now that we talk to Jews (as opposed to driving them out, as in olden days), the realization that Jewish Gehenna is Purgatorial Hell - only permanent for the worst, purgatorial for the rest before they rise up out of it and go to Gan Eden (Paradise) after being cleansed by fire - the realization is dawning - ah slowly - among Catholic thinkers that Jesus directly spoke of Purgatory all the time. Gehenna - to a Jew - is Purgatory. It is not the permanent Lake of Fire.

Unfortunately, the Church spent several centuries claiming that Purgatory is a doctrine devised by the Church through reason, and used that argument to reinforce the authority of the Church to create doctrine in that way (over and against "Sola Scriptura").

Because Purgatory was justified in that way for centuries, Catholic thinkers themselves argue rather strongly (and without merit) that Purgatory is not Biblical. In truth, Purgatory is in plain sight in the Gospels, because the proper translation of what Gehenna IS, in Judaism, is "Purgatory", not "Hell". Or rather, Jewish Hell is Purgatorial, not permanent (for most).

Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to Jews. They all knew what Gehenna was. Still do. Jesus didn't correct their understanding of Purgatory at all. He simply stated that it was where people were going to go if they didn't shape up. They already knew that. So he just used the word "Gehenna", without explanation.

Because the Mosaic Covenant is about the land of Israel in THIS life and never refers to the afterlife, Gehenna is not defined or used in the Old Testament. Jesus simply uses the word without antecedent, to a Jewish population that did not need an explanation because it was part of their tradition.

Christians ignored Jewish tradition for the better part of 2000 years, criticizing it as a thing that Christ rejected. Christ DID reject aspects of it that were contrary to God's will, but he didn't reject all of it. In the case of Gehenna, he simply referred to it directly without clarification, which would be a ratification.

Purgatory is Gehenna. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory. The Church's intellectuals are - slowly - coming to that realization. It is difficult, when all of the written argumentation of the centuries comes at things from a certain angle, to reverse the field. And sometimes, old arguments themelves take on a dogmatic tone which makes it harder still to fix.

Still the truth is that Purgatory is dogma. And contrary to the Church's argument of the past several centuries, it is also Biblical. That it is not Biblical but the product of the Church's reason and teaching authority is not itself a dogma, but it has been so often argued that it feels like a dogma to most.

Gradually the Church's thinkers are coming to the realization that Purgatory was hidden in plain sight - Biblical all along. This knowledge we are gaining because of our reconnection with our Jewish cousins, and the open lines of communication between Christian and Jewish scholarship and theologians, which did not exist after the First Century until about the 20th.

Give it another couple of decades, and everybody will "know" that Purgatory was in the Bible all along.

Until then, it will remain...in limbo.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I cant keep up with all their dogmatic inventions. Was limbo actual RCC dogma at some point?

I don't think officially, but in common practice I think it was treated as such, especially looking at Middle Ages writings.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes.

Now that we talk to Jews (as opposed to driving them out, as in olden days), the realization that Jewish Gehenna is Purgatorial Hell - only permanent for the worst, purgatorial for the rest before they rise up out of it and go to Gan Eden (Paradise) after being cleansed by fire - the realization is dawning - ah slowly - among Catholic thinkers that Jesus directly spoke of Purgatory all the time. Gehenna - to a Jew - is Purgatory. It is not the permanent Lake of Fire.

Unfortunately, the Church spent several centuries claiming that Purgatory is a doctrine devised by the Church through reason, and used that argument to reinforce the authority of the Church to create doctrine in that way (over and against "Sola Scriptura").

Because Purgatory was justified in that way for centuries, Catholic thinkers themselves argue rather strongly (and without merit) that Purgatory is not Biblical. In truth, Purgatory is in plain sight in the Gospels, because the proper translation of what Gehenna IS, in Judaism, is "Purgatory", not "Hell". Or rather, Jewish Hell is Purgatorial, not permanent (for most).

Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to Jews. They all knew what Gehenna was. Still do. Jesus didn't correct their understanding of Purgatory at all. He simply stated that it was where people were going to go if they didn't shape up. They already knew that. So he just used the word "Gehenna", without explanation.

Because the Mosaic Covenant is about the land of Israel in THIS life and never refers to the afterlife, Gehenna is not defined or used in the Old Testament. Jesus simply uses the word without antecedent, to a Jewish population that did not need an explanation because it was part of their tradition.

Christians ignored Jewish tradition for the better part of 2000 years, criticizing it as a thing that Christ rejected. Christ DID reject aspects of it that were contrary to God's will, but he didn't reject all of it. In the case of Gehenna, he simply referred to it directly without clarification, which would be a ratification.

Purgatory is Gehenna. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory. The Church's intellectuals are - slowly - coming to that realization. It is difficult, when all of the written argumentation of the centuries comes at things from a certain angle, to reverse the field. And sometimes, old arguments themelves take on a dogmatic tone which makes it harder still to fix.

Still the truth is that Purgatory is dogma. And contrary to the Church's argument of the past several centuries, it is also Biblical. That it is not Biblical but the product of the Church's reason and teaching authority is not itself a dogma, but it has been so often argued that it feels like a dogma to most.

Gradually the Church's thinkers are coming to the realization that Purgatory was hidden in plain sight - Biblical all along. This knowledge we are gaining because of our reconnection with our Jewish cousins, and the open lines of communication between Christian and Jewish scholarship and theologians, which did not exist after the First Century until about the 20th.

Give it another couple of decades, and everybody will "know" that Purgatory was in the Bible all along.

Until then, it will remain...in limbo.

no. I don't think there is any evidence to connect the 1st century Jewish understanding of Gehenna to the Latin purgatory

 

[prodromos]

Yes.

Now that we talk to Jews (as opposed to driving them out, as in olden days), the realization that Jewish Gehenna is Purgatorial Hell - only permanent for the worst, purgatorial for the rest before they rise up out of it and go to Gan Eden (Paradise) after being cleansed by fire - the realization is dawning - ah slowly - among Catholic thinkers that Jesus directly spoke of Purgatory all the time. Gehenna - to a Jew - is Purgatory. It is not the permanent Lake of Fire.

Unfortunately, the Church spent several centuries claiming that Purgatory is a doctrine devised by the Church through reason, and used that argument to reinforce the authority of the Church to create doctrine in that way (over and against "Sola Scriptura").

Because Purgatory was justified in that way for centuries, Catholic thinkers themselves argue rather strongly (and without merit) that Purgatory is not Biblical. In truth, Purgatory is in plain sight in the Gospels, because the proper translation of what Gehenna IS, in Judaism, is "Purgatory", not "Hell". Or rather, Jewish Hell is Purgatorial, not permanent (for most).

Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to Jews. They all knew what Gehenna was. Still do. Jesus didn't correct their understanding of Purgatory at all. He simply stated that it was where people were going to go if they didn't shape up. They already knew that. So he just used the word "Gehenna", without explanation.

Because the Mosaic Covenant is about the land of Israel in THIS life and never refers to the afterlife, Gehenna is not defined or used in the Old Testament. Jesus simply uses the word without antecedent, to a Jewish population that did not need an explanation because it was part of their tradition.

Christians ignored Jewish tradition for the better part of 2000 years, criticizing it as a thing that Christ rejected. Christ DID reject aspects of it that were contrary to God's will, but he didn't reject all of it. In the case of Gehenna, he simply referred to it directly without clarification, which would be a ratification.

Purgatory is Gehenna. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory. The Church's intellectuals are - slowly - coming to that realization. It is difficult, when all of the written argumentation of the centuries comes at things from a certain angle, to reverse the field. And sometimes, old arguments themelves take on a dogmatic tone which makes it harder still to fix.

Still the truth is that Purgatory is dogma. And contrary to the Church's argument of the past several centuries, it is also Biblical. That it is not Biblical but the product of the Church's reason and teaching authority is not itself a dogma, but it has been so often argued that it feels like a dogma to most.

Gradually the Church's thinkers are coming to the realization that Purgatory was hidden in plain sight - Biblical all along. This knowledge we are gaining because of our reconnection with our Jewish cousins, and the open lines of communication between Christian and Jewish scholarship and theologians, which did not exist after the First Century until about the 20th.

Give it another couple of decades, and everybody will "know" that Purgatory was in the Bible all along.

Until then, it will remain...in limbo.

So past Popes who have taught on purgatory have not taught infallibly? It seems this 'discovery' of what purgatory really is causes even more issues regarding Catholic dogma.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yes.

Now that we talk to Jews (as opposed to driving them out, as in olden days), the realization that Jewish Gehenna is Purgatorial Hell - only permanent for the worst, purgatorial for the rest before they rise up out of it and go to Gan Eden (Paradise) after being cleansed by fire - the realization is dawning - ah slowly - among Catholic thinkers that Jesus directly spoke of Purgatory all the time. Gehenna - to a Jew - is Purgatory. It is not the permanent Lake of Fire.

Jesus was a Jew. He spoke to Jews. They all knew what Gehenna was. Still do. Jesus didn't correct their understanding of Purgatory at all. He simply stated that it was where people were going to go if they didn't shape up. They already knew that. So he just used the word "Gehenna", without explanation.

Hmmm. Rabbinical views are sometimes correct and sometimes not, even disagreeing with each other. Do you also equate Sheol with Gehenna? Gehenna (Gehinnom) was actually a valley just on the south slope of Jerusalem. It is the valley of ben-Hinnom (sons of Hinnom). It was actually a place to burn garbage. The fires were constantly burning. The garbage was burned completely...not to purify it but to destroy it by fire. Before this, it was used as a pagan area used to pass children through the fire for Molokh. The Almighty called it an abomination.

 

[prodromos]

I don't think I have enough theological knowledge to comment on this well.. It seems like God's life itself is not created, our participation in it is created (that is what created grace means). This participation can have degrees but I don't think there is any calculation of that when we offer up suffering, we don't know how much it would help, we just unite it to the Cross so it has any spiritual value at all...

How exactly does one unite one's suffering to the cross? What does this even mean?

 

[Maryslittleflower]

Some of this is a little deep for me, and I would need to check my answer of exactly what we teach. I can make a good guess based on various things I do know, but that wouldn't really be helpful, since I don't think we are here to discuss our personal ideas.

If you're not sure of that being Catholic teaching, we should do the same. I have not read those things in my studying of Catholic theology, so I couldn't begin to say.

And I'd rather have input here from someone who may know. I've asked basic questions, have a basic understanding, but to get too deeply into this I might have to stretch beyond what I know for sure.

I'm trying to be patient, because I have things to say in reply, but I don't want us to have to backtrack on either of our theologies.

I checked and yes it seems it is our theology. We believe in Uncreated and created grace.

Fr Garrigou Lagrange is an excellent source:

"First, there are of course three acceptations of this word “grace” even used in human affairs. For grace (χάρις) originally refers to something, which is not due or is freely bestowed; this meaning is very common in both profane and biblical writings. Hence even in purely human matters the term “grace” has a threefold application, as follows:

1. The love of benevolence conferring a gift, which is not due; for example, we say: This soldier has the grace of the king.

2. The gift itself freely bestowed; thus we say: I grant you this grace.

3. Gratitude for a benefit received; thus: I render you thanks for your benefits.

Moreover, these three significations may be transferred to the supernatural order, whereupon the word grace applies to the following.

1. The love of benevolence on the part of God, conferring supernatural, life. This love of God is uncreated grace.

2. The supernatural gift of grace itself freely bestowed and ordained to eternal life; this is created grace, of which we are now treating, whether it is interior or exterior, such as the preaching of the gospel.

3. Our gratitude to God.

Between the human and the supernatural meanings of the word “grace” there lies a great difference which is principally based upon the fact that God’s love of benevolence for us, as stated in Ia, q. 20, a. 2, infuses and creates goodness in things, whereas the love of benevolence of one man for another presupposes something lovable in that other. But “God’s love for the creature is twofold, the common love whereby natural being is bestowed on created things, and the other special love by which God raises the rational creature above the state of nature unto a participation in the divine good. Thus grace is the effect of the love of God in us and signifies the supernatural gift freely granted by God to an intellectual creature ordained to eternal life (Ia IIae, q. 110, a. 1).