Aquinas 101: Grace

A primer on grace, justification, and merit from the @ThomisticInst https://t.co/0uqUJtZJQm

— Patrick Madrid ✌🏼 (@patrickmadrid) May 22, 2020

And what does it mean for him?

Augsburg, 31 October 1999: "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" signed by the Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation. I was there pic.twitter.com/348UKBpBIX

— Massimo Faggioli (@MassimoFaggioli) October 31, 2019

A return to a first-millenium proclamation of the kerygma, something more patristic?

Necessity?

What is meant by "sinless flesh" here? Is it the same as corruptible? And is it to be identified only with the consequences of Adam's sin on the body, or is there more to it than that (e.g. effects on the soul)?

CWR: The Immaculate Conception Revisited by Dr. Leroy Huizenga

The necessity of the Immaculate Conception does not demand an infinite regress of sinless ancestors, nor does the dogma’s necessity involve ecclesiastical voluntarism. Rather, it’s a necessary part of the Catholic conception of the economy of salvation.

Justification

An Orthodox Perspective on Justification

Salvation by Faith

Justification and Righteousness

Pravoslavie: Those Whom He Justified He Glorified: Paul’s Argument in Romans 1:17-3:31 by Seraphim Hamilton (original)

More on Theosis

Andrew Louth's chapter in Partakers of the Divine Nature.

Introductory course: Apophasis & Theosis

Protestants Returning to Theosis

Carl Mosser:




Trinities podcast episode 59 and episode 60

The Byzantine Anglo-Catholic: Incarnation and Theosis

Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology
Eerdman's - Google Books

"The Retrieval of Deification: How a Once-Despised Archaism Became an Ecumenical Desideratum" by Paul Gavrilyuk

English Translation of the Benedict XVI Interview

Italian translation was mentioned here; English translation at CWR blog.

He repeats his (and the conventional) understanding of Anselm's theory of atonement here.

Eastern Christian Books: Justifying Origen

Eastern Christian Books: Justifying Origen

Second Advent Sermon

Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, Preacher to the Papal Household, spoke about responding to our call to holiness on Friday morning in his Second Advent sermon.

Posted by Vatican Radio - English Section on Friday, December 11, 2015

text

Not sure if his gloss on Luther's teaching on justification is justified. ("haha")

Pope Francis on Divine Justice

From Misericordiae Vultus:

20. It would not be out of place at this point to recall the relationship between justice and mercy. These are not two contradictory realities, but two dimensions of a single reality that unfolds progressively until it culminates in the fullness of love. Justice is a fundamental concept for civil society, which is meant to be governed by the rule of law. Justice is also understood as that which is rightly due to each individual. In the Bible, there are many references to divine justice and to God as “judge”. In these passages, justice is understood as the full observance of the Law and the behaviour of every good Israelite in conformity with God’s commandments. Such a vision, however, has not infrequently led to legalism by distorting the original meaning of justice and obscuring its profound value. To overcome this legalistic perspective, we need to recall that in Sacred Scripture, justice is conceived essentially as the faithful abandonment of oneself to God’s will.

The standard textbook Latin view? As for Pope Francis's opposition between faith and the observance of the law, is he getting the right opposition? Is he characterizing the problem with the Pharisees correctly? Is this rooted in an erroneous understanding of Divine Justice, which fails to see that it is actually identical, or an aspect of Divine Mercy, as is indicated in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and in the use of dikaiosune?

The Latest from Eric Jobe

Grace and Debt – How do we Understand Legal Terminology in Paul?

Related:
Grace and Wrath in the Orthodox Tradition by Dylan Pahman

Eric Jobe on Justification

These two pieces strongly resonated with what I've been thinking about justification this school year. Maybe someone has written something similar from a Latin viewpoint, but I have not come across it.

What Do Orthodox Christians Believe about Justification? A Response to Protestant Criticisms
Reconciling Paul and James: Thoughts about Justification

What is Righteousness?

Post by Orthodox Christian Network.

Thomistica.net: Otto Hermann Pesch (1931–2014)

Rorate Caeli: The "Hermeneutic of Continuity" and the Joint Declaration on Justification

Theopoiesis vs. Theosis

Via Pontifications

Peter Leithart on Theopoiesis.

Carl Mosser of Eastern College gave a superb presentation on deification at the ETS meeting. A large part of the presentation was a study of terminology. He noted that the Greek work THEOS (often thought to be equivalent to "God") had a broader meaning, referring to powers that were immortal, incorruptible, and glorious - the very words that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 to describe the resurrected body. For the early fathers, this is what is meant by "deification," and they frequently link the doctrine to adoption via Psalm 82. Deification is not a capitulation to Hellenism (as Harnack argued) but grew out of biblical exegesis and the patristic understanding of salvation. (Interestingly, Mosser said that 2 Peter 1:4 plays little role in the earliest fathers.)

Gregory of Nazianzus was the first to use the word "theosis" to describe this, and he used it very infrequently. The doctrine and terminology of theosis kicks into gear with Pseudo-Dionysus, the hesychast controversy, Palamas and Maximus the confessor. It is thus linguistically anachronistic to claim that the early fathers have a doctrine of "theosis." With the hesychast controversy, not only the terminology but the doctrine changes. Instead of a strongly soteriological understanding of deification, theosis develops in a mystical context, and is worked out by Palamas and others through the distinction between the essence and energies of God, a distinction that has no place in the earliest doctrine of deification.

The confusion of theosis and the broader doctrine of deification creates significant ecumenical problems. Deification is an ecumenical doctrine, taught in some form by everyone from Irenaeus to Wesley and beyond, but theosis is a distinctly Orthodox development. When the two are confused, deification appears to be a distinctly Orthodox teaching as well. Treating the two as synonymous also leads ecumenically minded Western theologians to downplay the distinctiveness of mystical theosis; Eastern apologists, meanwhile, claim that a true doctrine of deification must take the uniquely Eastern form - complete with the essence/energies distinction - and when the West is found to lack such a teaching, Eastern apologists can claim that the West lacks a doctrine of deification as such.

Mosser ended with some consideration of the best way to describe the reality of deification. The term raises problems, since it implies that men become deities; divinization is hardly better. Mosser suggested that "theopoiesis" is the best way to describe the general, ecumenical view of the church, of which theosis is a uniquely Orthodox variation.

Discussion at Sacramentum Vitae.