Uncreated Grace and Merit: Scheeben Interprets Aquinas
In the 1880s, Matthias Joseph Scheeben and Theodor Granderath argued over how to interpret Thomas Aquinas’s teaching in Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 114, a. 3 on the relation between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and condign merit. Scheeben pointed to this passage as evidence that his view that the...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2024
|
| In: |
The Thomist
Year: 2024, Volume: 88, Issue: 3, Pages: 373-399 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KAE Church history 900-1300; high Middle Ages KAH Church history 1648-1913; modern history KDB Roman Catholic Church NBC Doctrine of God NBE Anthropology NBG Pneumatology; Holy Spirit NBK Soteriology |
| Further subjects: | B
Summa Theologiae
B Holy Spirit B Grace B divine indwelling B Matthias Scheeben B Thomas Aquinas B Merit B uncreated grace |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In the 1880s, Matthias Joseph Scheeben and Theodor Granderath argued over how to interpret Thomas Aquinas’s teaching in Summa Theologiae I–II, q. 114, a. 3 on the relation between the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and condign merit. Scheeben pointed to this passage as evidence that his view that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as uncreated grace is in harmony with Aquinas. He argued that Aquinas’s phrase “the grace of the Holy Spirit” indicates that, for Aquinas, two principles are necessary for condign merit: created grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as uncreated grace. This is a misreading of Aquinas, which stemmed from Scheeben’s attempt to reconcile his Greek patristic-inspired theology of divine indwelling with Latin Scholasticism. This analysis lends support to the opinion that Aquinas understood grace primarily as created, not as uncreated, as some scholars have recently argued. It also suggests that Scheeben should be regarded as a “Thomist” only in a qualified sense. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2473-3725 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The Thomist
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/tho.2024.a930973 |