[MihaiG]

În prealabil postat de bogdan81

Da Catalin, dar invatatura aceasta a apusenilor despre harul necreat care de fapt produce in noi un efect creat, adica un har creat, dar care ne uneste in mod nemijlocit cu Dumenzeu, nu are nici o noima.
Cum sa ne uneasca nemijlocit cu Dumnezeu daca e har creat ?
In afara de asta, sfintii NU au experiat un har creat si unul necreat, ci doar harul necreat.
Stiam sau banuiam ca apusenii au declarat oficial ca harul e creat. Au facut asta la 2 concilii considerate de ei ecumenice: conciliul tridentin si conciliul Vatican 1.
Deci la ei invatatura ca harul e creat e oficiala.
Acum ei vor sa spuna, asa cum fac si cu filioque, ca ei niciodata nu au sustinut filioque, ca ei niciodata nu au sustinut ca harul e creat.
Se fac ca ploua.
Dar e limpede ca sfintii au experiat aceasta lumina taborica despre care au marturisit ca NU e din lumea aceasta. Si daca NU e din lumea aceasta inseamna ca e NECREAT.
Asta au trait sfintii.
Acum catolicii, dupa ce prin "doctorii" lor si conciliile lor au tot spus ca harul e creat, o dau la intors, ca si cu filioque, ca ei nu au zis niciodata ca harul e creat.

Câteva clarificări, pentru cine citeşte engleză:


The question "is Grace created or uncreated" misses the point of what is meant by created and uncreated in this context. In Latin theology, when Grace is called created it doesn't refer to the substance of Grace, but the instance of Grace. So the Grace is the Divine Life Itself, but our share in it has a beginning in time, and in that sense it is called created. When it is called uncreated it refers to acts of Grace that have no beginning in time, like God's foresight and plan of Gifts.

Those Eastern Orthodox who complain about "created Grace" mistakenly believe that the Latin teaching is that Grace is a creature, which is not at all what is meant. What is meant is that our participation in Divinity begins, and is not itself eternal; even Eastern Orthodoxy teaches this fact.
Eastern Orthodox who don't pay careful attention to the actual teaching of "created Grace" mistakenly assume that Aquinas means the same thing that Barlaam did, namely that Grace is actually a creature and not really a participation in Divinity. St. Gregory Palamas countered this by refering to Grace as "uncreated", not in reference to its being in us, but purely in reference to it being the Divine Nature and not some creaturely substance. Aquinas wasn't dealing with this argument at all, and as can be seen he clearly argued that Grace is participation in Divinity itself, and not some creaturely thing. His use of the term "created" is completely different from that of Barlaam and Palamas.