In my three previous posts, I argued against Fr. Ryan Erlenbush concerning his claim that a theological position asserted by Pope John Paul II is heresy. Fr. Ryan now has a new post on the topic: Christ did not grow in grace or in holiness.

At issue is the interpretation of Sacred Scripture:

[Luke]
{1:80} And the child grew, and he was strengthened in spirit. And he was in the wilderness, until the day of his manifestation to Israel.
{2:40} Now the child grew, and he was strengthened with the fullness of wisdom. And the grace of God was in him.
{2:52} And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and in age, and in grace, with God and men.

Another rendering of Lk 2:52 has the wording: “Jesus increased in wisdom, age and grace before God and men” (Pope John Paul II Audience)

The term ‘strengthened’ indicates an increase. The term ‘advanced’ indicates an increase. Jesus had the fullness of wisdom, and yet His wisdom was strengthened (increased). Jesus had the fullness of grace, and yet His grace advanced (increased). How can something be full, and yet increase? Pope John Paul II explains:

“The fullness of grace in Jesus was in proportion to his age; there was always fullness, but a fullness which increased as he grew in age. The same can be said of the wisdom which Christ had from the beginning in the fullness proper to the period of childhood. As he advanced in age, this fullness grew in him to a proportionate degree.” Pope John Paul II, The Spirit and the Child Jesus

The Pontiff held that grace can be full and can also increase, because any human nature is finite, not infinite. As the human nature of Christ grew, so did the grace and wisdom of Christ. This fullness increased as His human nature grew in age. This growth of Jesus in wisdom, grace, and stature (age) took place within the Holy Family, under the eyes of Joseph, who had the important task of feeding, clothing and educating Jesus in the Law and in a trade.

When I presented the above quote on the fullness of grace to Fr. Ryan, in a comment to his prior post, he replied “That is a heresy.” He did not recognize those words as belonging to Pope John Paul II, nor as sound Catholic theology. He called the words of the holy Pontiff “absurd”. I then quoted Pope John Paul II as saying “there was also a spiritual growth in Jesus.” And Fr. Ryan rejected that assertion also. This interaction proves that Fr. Ryan has a poor understanding of Christology, and it not fit to teach the subject.

Note that, in my previous posts on the topic, it was a question of whether the human nature of Christ increased in grace and wisdom, not whether there was an increase in holiness. Also, my view is that neither position (real increase, no real increase) is heresy. A faithful Catholic may hold either point of view. Fr. Ryan’s error is to claim that any position asserting a real increase in grace or wisdom is heresy or implies heresy. And yet that is the position asserted by Pope John Paul II, a position repeatedly condemned as heresy by Fr. Ryan (but not by the Magisterium).

Poor Theology

Before delving into the latest set of theological errors expressed by Fr. Ryan, I’d like to point out errors in his methodology.

1. When he argues against a particular theological position, he does not cite the author and source. This prevents his readers from reading the opposing argument. For if his readers read my arguments and his own, many would side with my position.

2. He does not present and refute the opposing point of view, as is commonly done in Roman Catholic theology. Instead, he labels any opposing view as absurd or heresy. But there is no theological argument offered to examine and refute the opposing view.

3. He does not establish his premises, and then argue to a conclusion that follows from the premises. Some of what he asserts is established by quoting a magisterial source. But other times he simply makes a baseless assertion, along with some rhetorical expressions: “it is abundantly clear,” “we must hold,” “it is obvious that”, and the like. He assumes that his own interpretation of a source cannot be a mistaken interpretation.

4. He often cites the theological opinion of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but then he treats that opinion as an absolute dogma, even when recent magisterial teachings contradict that opinion. Fr. Ryan treats the writing of Aquinas as above the teachings of the Magisterium. And when St. Thomas asserts a theological position, Fr. Ryan typically does not even look to see what the Magisterium has recently said on the topic.

Why does Fr. Ryan assert no increase in grace and wisdom in Christ? because St. Thomas expresses that opinion. Why was Fr. Ryan ignorant of Pope John Paul II position on the topic, so much so that he would label it heresy? because he did not bother to seek out Pope John Paul II’s insights on the topic. He pays lip service to the holy Pontiff, but treats his every teaching and theological position as subject to whatever St. Thomas taught centuries ago.

5. Fr. Ryan ignores the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church whenever it contradicts his own understanding. He does not quote or cite the CCC on many topics about which the CCC has a teaching, including the increase in wisdom in Christ. When I point out that the CCC contradicts his position on one topic or another, he ignores the CCC.

6. When faced with a theological argument to the contrary of his own position, Fr. Ryan has two responses. He reasserts his own position more emphatically. And he engages in name-calling and personal attacks. He does not seem to have sufficient theological expertise to refute a contrary theological opinion. His every theological opinion is presented as dogma, and every contrary opinion is claimed to be heresy, or to lead to heresy.

7. Fr. Ryan presents himself to his readers as if he were a Catholic theologian, teaching and expounding on Roman Catholic theology. But he has no works of theology whatsoever, other than blog posts. And he has no respect for any modern-day theologians.

8. When presented with an assertion by a Pope or any magisterial source that contradicts his own claim, Fr. Ryan stands uncorrected. He simply finds some clever means to explain away or radically re-interpret what the Magisterium teaches.

9. Fr. Ryan Erlenbush has taught many heresies and doctrinal errors in his blog, leading thousands of souls astray.

Current Post

In his current post, Christ did not grow in grace or in holiness, Fr. Ryan makes a poor theological argument.

First, let me correct a false claim that Fr. Ryan makes on the subject of dogma versus heresy. Fr. Ryan states:

Finally, we do well to note that the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553) condemned and anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia (a favorite of Hans Urs von Balthasar), in part, for holding that our Savior increased in holiness and grace during his life on earth.

Notice that Fr. Ryan does not quote the Council. Why? because a quote would show that his assertion is false. The Council did in fact condemn the heresies of Theodore, but the Council did not condemn the idea that Jesus increased in grace. Again, the argument here (this post and my last three posts) is not on an increase in holiness. The assertion of Sacred Scripture, of Pope John Paul II, and of the CCC, and my assertion also, pertains to an increase in grace and wisdom. Here is the relevant quote from the Council:

“If anyone defends the heretical Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one, while quite another is Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of human flesh, was gradually separated from that which is inferior, and became better by his progress in good works, and could not be faulted in his way of life, and as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and through this baptism received the grace of the holy Spirit and came to deserve sonship and to be adored, in the way that one adores a statue of the emperor, as if he were God the Word, and that he became after his resurrection immutable in his thoughts and entirely without sin…. let him be anathema.”

Theodore rejected the teaching of the Magisterium that Jesus Christ is one Person with two natures. Since he thought of the human nature as essentially separate from the Second Person of the Trinity, he considered the human nature to be merely a man, to be subject to desires of the flesh, and to need to receive grace at baptism. All of this is condemned error.

However, it is not correct to equate the errors of Theodore, condemned by the Council, with the theological position, asserted by Sacred Scripture, Pope John Paul II, and the CCC, that Jesus increased in grace and wisdom. The heretical assertion that Jesus “became better by his progress in good works” is not being claimed by myself, nor by any of the sources that I cite. Rather, the position is that Jesus had the fullness of grace and wisdom, but that this fullness in His human nature could and did increase.

So Fr. Ryan makes a false claim about the dogmatic decree of this Ecumenical Council.

Fr. Balthasar

By his remark “a favorite of Hans Urs von Balthasar,” Fr. Ryan casts aspersions on a noted Roman Catholic theologian and priest. Faithful Catholics say: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Certainly, one can disagree with Balthasar on any open question in theology. But this type of personal attack, equating Balthasar’s theology to that of a condemned heretic, is sinful.

Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988) was a Roman Catholic priest. He published dozens of works of theology. Fr. Ryan has published none. He co-founded the theological journal ‘Communio’ with Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, and Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Pope John Paul II designated von Balthasar a cardinal in 1988, though he died two days before the consistory. At his funeral, Ratzinger said the nomination was a seal of approval.

“What the pope intended to express by this mark of distinction, and of honor, remains valid,” Ratzinger said. “No longer only private individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he teaches of the faith.” (John Allen reporting for NCR)

Pope Benedict XVI praises the person and work of Fr. Balthasar here.

Holiness

My position is that the human nature of Christ increased in wisdom and grace. I have not asserted an increase in holiness. However, Fr. Ryan does err in his definition of holiness: “Holiness has two characteristics: Freedom from sin and union with God.”

All the souls in Purgatory and in Heaven are free from all sin. Yet some souls are holier than other souls. All the souls in Heaven have the Beatific Union with God, yet some are holier than others. And Christ himself said:

{5:19} Therefore, whoever will have loosened one of the least of these commandments, and have taught men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever will have done and taught these, such a one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, some in Heaven are greater in holiness, and others in Heaven are lesser in holiness, even though all are sinless and all have union with God. And so holiness, even in Christ, must be more than freedom from sin and union with God.

Graces

No magisterial source actually states “there was no increase” in grace or in wisdom in Christ’s human nature. No magisterial source condemns the opinion that grace and wisdom increased. Yet Fr. Ryan asserts his position as if it were dogma, and as if the opposite position were heresy. Why? because he treats every assertion of St. Thomas as a dogma.

As for grace in Christ’s human nature, Fr. Ryan ignores the distinction between the two types of graces (habitual, actual) and he does not seem to understand the meaning of the term grace. He speaks of grace as if it were a created thing, with substance, that would be continually possessed by the human nature of Christ.

Habitual grace is the state of grace. Jesus had this state of grace in His human nature from conception/Incarnation. The state of grace is all or nothing. You have that state or you do not. I know of no magisterial source that teaches degrees of the state of grace. So when Jesus was baptized, He did not then receive the state of grace. He already had and always had that state in His human nature.

What He received was the three permanent characters, of Baptism, Confirmation, and Ordination, in His human nature. This was fitting, but not necessary. In one sense, Jesus was a priest from His Incarnation, as the priesthood would be understood before the Sacraments, under the Old Covenant. But at His Baptism, Jesus was given baptism, confirmation, and ordination as a priest. For no one can be a priest under the New Covenant without receiving the Sacrament of Ordination. But Baptism must precede Ordination. He could not be a priest under the New Covenant from conception/Incarnation, for that very reason.

Now Habitual grace is possessed continually. but actual grace depends upon particular acts. Actual grace is the Divine Nature working in the intellect and free will in order to assist in doing good and avoiding evil.

Prevenient actual grace is God operating alone, apart from the cooperation of the created person. Subsequent actual grace is God cooperating with our free will, if we so choose. Subsequent actual grace does not exist in created persons, nor in the created human nature of Christ, apart from the cooperation of the free will.

When you are doing a good work, the actual grace of God is working with you to assist in that good act. When you perform a different good work, the grace of God assists in that work also. When Christ was suffering in the garden, He had the graces in his human nature that pertain to those good acts. When Christ was suffering on the Cross, He had the graces in his human nature that pertain to those different good acts. But when Christ was teaching in the Temple at age 12, He had the graces that pertain to those particular acts, and not the graces that pertain to other acts, such as during His Passion and Crucifixion. Actual graces are particular to the acts being done.

Jesus, in His human nature, had no lack or insufficiency of grace of any kind, at any time. So we can say without reservation that Jesus had the fullness of grace. But since actual graces pertain to particular acts, and Jesus did greater works as he grew in age, we can say that grace increased in Jesus. For His later works were greater, and so the graces that pertain to those greater words are greater graces. Therefore, the expression of Pope John Paul II is apt: a fullness of grace, but a fullness that could increase.

“The fullness of grace in Jesus was in proportion to his age; there was always fullness, but a fullness which increased as he grew in age. The same can be said of the wisdom which Christ had from the beginning in the fullness proper to the period of childhood. As he advanced in age, this fullness grew in him to a proportionate degree.” Pope John Paul II, The Spirit and the Child Jesus

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.