In a message dated 23/11/07 1:26:02 PM Mountain Standard Time, pluviosilla@... writes:

I just ran across an Eastern Orthodox professor who is arguing that the big difference between East & West is that the Western scholastics teach that grace is a *created* substance.

REPLY:
St. Thomas, who was a western scholastic theologian, does not teach that grace is either "created" or a "substance".  He teaches that grace is a "quality" (3rd thought Category; Substance is the first thought Category, Quantity the second and Quality the third thought Category KB), which proceeds from the Divine will, which is (ie. God's Will), of course, not created.  Aquinas teaches that it is a quality in the first part of the second part of the Summa at question 110., quote

WHETHER Grace is a QUALITY?
[Followed by 3 Objections to saying:-  Grace is a qualtiy!]
[ie. The 3 objections argue to the effect:- Grace is not a quality.]

AQUINAS:
On the contrary, on Psalm 103:15: "That he may make the face cheerful with oil"; the gloss says: "Grace is a certain beauty of soul, which wins the Divine love."  But beauty of soul is a quality, even as beauty of body. Therefore grace is a quality.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this translation --- maybe even in the whole treatment of the question, because there are references to "created" grace.  eg.

Obj. 3:  (One of the objections to which Aquinas said "On the Contrary" above...)
Furthermore, no quality remains after it has ceased to be in its subject. But grace remains; since it is not corrupted, for thus it would be reduced to nothing, since it was created from nothing; hence it is called a "new creature" (Galatians 6:15).

COMMENT:
Obviously that objection clearly states that grace was created, although the fallacious implication of this argument is that grace is not a quality.  So how does Aquinas respond to "created" grace, along with his refutation of the conclusion of this objection, which implies that grace is not a quality?

AQUINAS:
Reply to Objection 3.
As Boethius [Pseudo-Bede, Sent. Phil. ex Artist] says, the "being of an accident is to inhere."  Hence no accident is called being as if it had being, but because by it something is; hence accidents are said to belong to a being rather than to be a being (Metaph. vii, text. 2). And because to become and to be corrupted belong to what is, properly speaking, no accident comes into being or is corrupted, but is said to come into being and to be corrupted inasmuch as an accident's subject begins to be or ceases to be in act with this accident. And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it,  i.e. are given a new being out of nothing, i.e. not from merits, according to Ephesians 2:10, "created in Jesus Christ in good works."

COMMENTS:
You ask tough questions, John, on tough topics, although I am not sure you understand my replies --- as was the case with the "paradox", THIS SENTENCE IS (real supposition) FALSE (logical supposition).  Anyway, there is a lot of Aquinas "On Grace" beginning at Summa I-II, question 109, which hopefully will help you in your understanding of the Orthodox arguer.

JOHN STRONG:
I don’t recall ever seeing an argument like that in the Summa. Quite the contrary. As I understand it, we Romans uphold the notion of “salvation by divinization” to use the Orthodox phrase. In other words, we believe that the presence of sanctifying grace in the soul bestows the very nature of God on the recipient of grace.

REPLY:
Sometimes when I hear words like "divinization" or hear talk of any created thing  having the "nature" of God, which, I think, is heard in Orthodox circles, I am not surprized that such "talk" at Alexandria, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Antioch, etc. was shut up, at first, behind an Islamic veil and then, later, behind an Iron Curtain --- not that every Orthodox person or theologian talks of such dubious things.  Not all do.

Since Aquinas describes grace as a quality, and the peculiar mark of quality is that likeness and likeness are predicated with reference to qualities, it might be better to say that "sanctifying grace" makes the person upon whom it is bestowed just a little bit like God, rather than "divinized", for Aquinas does mention that everything that exists does reflect God's goodness.   Qualities also vary in degree.  So, once again, a human in a state of grace is to some small degree a bit like God.

However, no substance varies in degree from any other identical kind of substance, nor do they differ in "degree" from other and different kinds of substances.  So, since  Aquinas argues that grace of any kind (natural or supernatural) perfects nature, it could be argued, I suppose, that sanctifying grace arguably makes its recipients more humanized than "divinized".

But I don't know and Aquinas explains why, with an assertion to the effect that no human actually knows whether or not they are in a state of grace, if I recall correctly.  Thus it is hard, for me, to say much on grace, but Aquinas could and did, given all the special graces of which he was a recipient.

JOHN STRONG (partial requote):
In other words, we believe that the presence of sanctifying grace in the soul bestows the very nature of God on the recipient of grace. That, in fact, is what makes us members of God’s family. We have a bit of the “uncreated” dwelling within.

REPLY:
Some of God's light shines on us, maybe...

JOHN STRONG:
Could this Orthodox professor be taking some remark of Aquinas’ about grace out of context?

ANSWER:
He contradicts Aquinas in saying "substance" and not quality as Aquinas argued.  He may be taking his context from what Aquinas clarified in the 3rd objection and rebuttal, where Aquinas does talk about grace being "said to be created", per requote: "And thus grace is said to be created inasmuch as men are created with reference to it,  i.e. are given a new being out of nothing..."

The full question and all articles of 110, as well as Q.s 109, 111, etc. may shed some more light on his context.

Kevin