(553) Council
Two Physeis in one divine Hypostasis
Constantinople II
(7th century)
Because Christ is divine, he could not sin. He always was in line with Father. Not possible to do this with human will (Jesus only had divine will)
*refuted by Maximus the Confessor and Constantinople III
Monothelitism
(580-662)
- refuted Monothelitism
- Distinction between human will into Natural and Gnomic wills
St. Maximus the Confessor
- Free movement toward perfection of one’s nature
- Necessary for human nature (separates us from animals), so Christ must have had one
- Always in harmony with God’s will
Natural Will
- Ability to make choice between real goods and apparent/false goods (salad vs junk food)
- Makes sin possible
- Only human hypostasis has one–Jesus does not
Gnomic Will
(680-681)
Council that condemned Monothelitism
Constantinople III
“image smashers”
- Did not think image of Christ/saints could be used in worship
- Denies Incarnation in a way
Iconoclasm
(675?-749)
- Refuted Iconoclasm
- Because God became visible as a human, we can have an image of Christ which is an image of God. Saints are united with Christ, so we can see Christ through them
John Damascene
Council that refuted Iconoclasm
Nicea II
Constantinople I, II, & III
Nicea I & II
Council of Chalcedon
Council of Ephesus
Councils before split in Church
“gift”
Grace
gift of union with God with forgiveness of sins
Theological meaning of grace
God and Holy Spirit present within us
Uncreated grace
Effects on us brought about by the presence of Holy Spirit
Created grace
Points out shift from uncreated to created grace and wants renewed emphasis on uncreated
Carl Rahner
Points out while we should be aware of uncreated grace, we should not downplay created grace. Both rely on each other to be important
Henri de Lubac
<p>Started belief that we can redeem ourselves without grace</p>
<p>Pelagius</p>
- even after first sin, we are still able to save ourselves through freedom alone
- refuted by Augustine and Church
Pelagianism
(late 1500s)
controversy about how grace helps us
Dominicans vs Jesuits
Controversy de Auxiliis
<p>1. when we do good, grace somehow compels freedom so we couldn't have done it otherwise 2. sufficient grace vs. efficacious grace 3. God's choice to give efficacious grace Accused of Janeism</p>
<p>Dominicans</p>
<p>1. When we do good, we freely choose to do so & cooperate with grace, but could have gone against grace & done evil 2. When we do we evil, we choose not to cooperate with grace 3. God foresees peoples participation with grace Accuse Pelaganism</p>
<p>Jesuits</p>
As a result of fall, human nature is hopelessly damaged
*similar to Calvinism
Jansenism
Isn’t enough to overcome sin, so we still end up sinning
*Dominican idea
Sufficient Grace
Is enough to enable us to do good, so we will do it
Efficacious Grace
Ordered D&Js in Controversy de Auxiliis to end argument. Starts commission that failed
Pope Clement VIII
1607 - ordered sides to stop attacking; didn’t work
1611 - ordered end to debate. Said papal announcement would come but never did
Pope Paul V
(1468-1534)
*Says Aquinas does not say there would be desire for union with God without grace
Cajetan
(1877-1964)
Aquinas view is in state of pure nature; no desire for union with God without grace
Reginald Garrigou-Lugrange
Leader of movement “Ressoucement”
*If read carefully, he still says Aquinas thinks we would desire heaven without grace
Henri de Lubac
“Going back to the source”
Ressoucement
Even if without grace we desired heaven, then if God desired not to give us grace he would be doing us an injustice. Which means it would not be a free gift because God owes us grace
Cajetan & Reginald Garrigou-Lugrange’s view
Constantinople II
(553) Council
Two Physeis in one divine Hypostasis
Monothelitism
(7th century)
Because Christ is divine, he could not sin. He always was in line with Father. Not possible to do this with human will (Jesus only had divine will)
*refuted by Maximus the Confessor and Constantinople III
