www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West theosis

Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel,

Actually, you are shooting the messenger here . . .

I've said nothing that Orthodoxy hasn't said before on this score.

I also believe that Easterners overdo it.

But it really IS a question of emphasis and the West does seem to emphasize the idea of redemption whereas the East emphasizes theosis.

There is a difference in terms, not of our participation in the life of the Holy Trinity, but in the impact on ourselves of that participation.

This is best shown in the iconography in East and West.

It was Lossky, I believe, who once commented on the fact that haloes in the East are actually attached to the bodies of the saints whereas they tended to be "above" the heads of western saints and detached.

Then there was the naturalistic traditions in western religious painting and devotion.

The West tended to see the Humanity of Christ as somewhat "separate" from His Divinity - which even earlier led to the "Nestorian" charge by the East.

But this is all beyond my simple mind!

Do you think I should have gone to a seminary, Father?

Alex

Alex, I certainly would not wish to shoot this particular messenger!

But since you were the one who referenced the CCC, I thought it necessary to correct the impression that it does not teach deification; in fact, the entirety of the catechism is grounded on the conviction that the Church participates in the trinitarian life of the Godhead.

I have no idea what the difference in halo's mean. I suppose if one could demonstrate that one tradition or the other generated more or better saints, then that would have a point; but I doubt anyone is willing to seriously advance that claim.

Of course, theology is one thing, what is preached each Sunday is quite a different thing. And on the question of what is actually preached on Sunday mornings in Catholic and Orthodox churches, I have no opinions. I'm usually busy on Sunday mornings. :-)

Bless me a sinner, Father!

And well you should be busy on Sunday mornings!

The CCC, which I think is an excellent Latin document ( ),does indeed discuss participation in the Life of Christ etc.

John Meyendorff also never denied that this aspect of Theosis was lost on the Western Catholic Church.

There are different nuances and there is also a different DEVOTIONAL emphasis that reflects what the Western Churches really do believe about Theosis - which is, in fact, different or distinct from what the East believes.

And I think you are in a conflict of interest here.

You are presenting yourself as the "Defender of the West," when you are an Anglican - and we know Anglicans have the greatest possible measure of Orthodoxy within their historic traditions, including iconography, from the time of ST Theodore of Tarsus that you people insist is the "Golden Age" of the English Church.

So I really think you are closer to us than to the Romans.

And that puts you in a clear conflict of interest here.

I might even suggest that the Administrator examine this whole matter at some point . . .

Alex

Only in passing. See the CCC article #1996 where 2 Peter 1:3-4 is referenced in the exposition of Grace, which eventually leads into topics of sanctifying and habitual grace, actual grace, sacramental grace, special graces/charisms, and graces of state.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

And what are you doing reading so much of the CCC?


Thanks for coming to my defence! You really DO turn the other cheek!

Alex

And all of the above are about our life in the trinitarian life of God! This is the basic presupposition of the CCC and it cannot be read rightly only this is recognized. It's not a matter of counting up the number of times "theosis" or "divinization" are mentioned.

Alex,

Actually, I had to go looking for it in a banker's box. I found it tucked away under my autographed copy of Oliver North's "Under Fire" book.

Joe

Dear friends,
I agree with paromer, theophan, and Fr. Kimel who are trying to point out the commonality of theology here, while the others are trying to possibly talk of 'the RC system' vs. 'the Eastern Orthodox system' -- as if the RC's and Eastern Christians are actually two different religions, reaching two different results! I am thinking this cannot be what you mean, guys, but that's what it sounds like. Maybe that is what you mean; I really don't know.
I have more or less ceased posting here, but occasionally will jump in when things get really confusing so I can tell you how confusing it really is.
Maybe I am the only one who read this and found it a bit confusing and disconcerting. If so, I'll just bow out and keep quiet -- which I am trying to do anyway as much as possible.
Communion of Saints

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Having been in a very Latin integrist setting, (an SSPX seminary) I can say that some concept of theosis is definitely taught within the Western Church, but the definite concern of the distinction between nature and grace always seem to diminish deification in most theological settings. Even the whole doctrine of the beatific vision can conceive salvation as more an intellectual exercise (I always liked to think of it, in its most simplistic caricature as "the universe's best movie"), than a real participation in the Divine Essence. Thus, you have such intellectual Thomistic arguments as to whether to know God or to love Him (the superiority of intellect over will), etc. The Eastern theological emphasis on communion with the Divine, the Christological and Trinitarian genius of the East, among other things, makes it a much better vehicle for the authentic Christian and patristic doctrine of what salvation really is: God became man so that man might become God. That's in the end why I ditched the SSPX and the Latin Church altogether. Of course, deification is very much present in such authors as Meister Eckart, St. John of the Cross (if you can't read him in the original Spanish, poor you!!!), and even Dom Columba Marmion. But in the end, you really kind of have to dig for it, at least that is what I found in my own experience.
Of course, I am only speaking of pre-Vatican II theology and spirituality. It might have improve somewhat in modern theology, but it's probably so mixed up with other theological confusion that I would not take the trouble to study it.

Yours in Christ,
Arturo

Who the heck even cares whether or not the West teaches "deification" or "theosis" in the same depth or degree as the East? Each has a right to differ; each views deification/theosis differently in the context of its own particular theology.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto. It's still the same damn fruit.

ISTM that this topic has gone to Hell in a handbasket, and I think it would be best if it were to be closed.

Logos Teen

Check out this article [rumkatkilise.org]

Thank you for posting the link, Fr. Kimel. It refreshed the memory of the excitement of the times. The Eastern Chruch had much influence at the Council and its influence has continued in the theological and liturgical life of the Western Church to this day.

Steve

My dear Latin Friends,

Laudetur Iesus Christus!

As Teen Logo pointed out, this is not a question of two different religions, but two different emphases which is why we CAN speak of a Latin theology "vs." an Eastern theology here.

Fr. Kimel's discussion of a Western "Theosis" based on the CCC is a valiant one, but one which is stretching the Western perspectives to make them resemble Eastern ones on this topic.

The West sees Grace as something created by God - the East sees it as uncreated. The East understands Theosis as our ascending participation in the uncreated Divine Energies of God Himself through Christ in the Spirit.

For the East, Holiness is a Person, the Third Person of the Trinity and our lives meant to be dedicated to the "acquisition of the Holy Spirit" - not the impersonal idea of "holiness."

Alex

Thanks Father Kimel for the link; I hope people will consider some of what is written there when before describing the CCC as a Latin document.

I am no expert on the theology, but it seems to me you make a nice point on on the similarity of the Eastern and Western concepts of assimilation; the distinction, ISTM, lies in the different ways that two traditions describe what this process is not, namely creature becoming creator. Thus:

Now, I imagine that there are plenty of problems that one runs into with "created grace". On the other hand, the essence/energy idea seems to me to be a very difficult one. It is not clear to mean what the East means by "energy", but it is surely something different that what the term means in our contemporary culture, in which the distinction between essence and energy is observational not fundamental, and in which energy flux follows a conservation law. Thus whatever the East means by "energy", is not what we mean when we use the word. These problems are the definite dangerous limitations that Diak recognizes in his analogy.

Is it possible to understand this Eastern energy/essence idea, with our contemporary connotations? Is there updated way of describing this idea?

Dear djs,

I still don't see how the CCC is not a Latin document.

It is a good document. But it teaches us nothing about our theology and the like.

Meyendorff discusses the "uncreated energies" in his book on Palamas and the Triads, published by Paulist Press.

To me, and I'm no theologian (and don't care much for Anselm, alas ), the uncreated energies are emanations from God, much like the rays of the sun, although that too is an imperfect analogy.

By participating in them, we are divinized, but we do not become "God."

The western "created grace" led to grace being considered as a "thing" that we need to get as much of in order to be "holy."

For the East, holiness is the life-long acquisition of the Person of the Holy Spirit in our souls and lives.

For me as well, the Latin notion of created grace focuses on "my" efforts and merits.

The Eastern understanding keeps our spiritual focus on God Who is the One Who lives in us and sanctifies us etc.

The West isn't too far off from this as well, and the CCC does indeed borrow copiously from the East.

So the CCC is a Latin document that has achieved a laudable relationship with the East.

But I still find the "created grace" notion to lack depth and to be "flat" since it is about a "thing" rather than a "Person" as in the East.

Alex