Can someone elaborate on "thesosis"?thanks

Dear Valentino,

Theosis is the process by which we participate in the Divine Energies of God by participating in the Life and Body of Christ through the Holy Spirit and are transfigured thereby.

It is the process by which we are brought into the Transfiguration of Christ on Mt. Horeb and are "Divinized" without, however, actually "Becoming God."

The icon of the saint teaches us about this. The saint's depiction makes him or her resemble the icon of Christ to show he or she is "Christified."

Theosis is accomplished through a lifelong communion/union with Christ by the Holy Spirit. Salvation is not only by faith and good works, as the Western Christians often argued about.

It is also by the union with Christ Himself, the Word Incarnate, whereby our bodies as well are transfigured by the deifying rays of His Divine Energies.

Prayer, Holy Communion etc. are means to this end.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you for the explanation.

A question:

Would Theosis and grace/sanctifying grace be equivalent?

Teaching my children from a catechism has helped me to understand grace as "God's life in us". I never got that concept of grace when I was a kid.
The term grace was unclear to me at that time.

God bless you,

Paul

Dear Paul,

Well, theosis is about our participation in the Uncreated Grace or Energies of God.

"Sanctifying Grace" as explained in RC manuals isn't on that same level (I believe it is created) and is therefore different.

One main difference here is that we are called to "acquire the Holy Spirit" whereas the West often talks about "attaining holiness."

The former is about our relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Source of all Good and Holiness, Himself, Who sanctifies and deifies us.

Another difference is regarding the overall impact of sanctification on us.

The West basically has little to say about Deification, Divinization or Theosis - the CCC has nothing to say about it.

When the West was arguing about faith and works, the East went a step ahead and added that it is our communion with God in Christ by the Spirit that is what it is all about.

Our participation in the Life of Christ is what communicates to us the experience of the Transfiguration.

Alex

Dear Alex
(your posts so often make me smile)
Would you please elaborate on the Energies
as written about by Gregory Palamas. I am at the
moment reading a book by Daniel Rogich "Becoming
Uncreated: the journey to human authenticity"
dealing with Gregory's teachings on the Uncreated
Energies of God. I find his teachings so much more satisfactory than the West's sanctifying
grace.

I think other folks here would benefit from some
discussion.
denise

Dear Alex,

I want to add what I've been taught from Scripture that describes theosis (correct me if I'm wrong).

2 Peter 1: 3-4

His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power.

Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature , after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.

Man! That is something to meditate on.

Paul

Dear Denise,

St Thomas More was once chided by John Colet about the fact that More's wife was so short, while More was so tall.

"You should have gotten a wife that was more your size," John said.

To which More replied, "One must always choose the LESSER of two evils . . ."

And that is the source where both sayings became common in the English language, More's famous one and John's "pick someone your own size."

Believe it or not . . .

Palamas makes the important distinction between the inner Divine LIfe of God Himself, to which we have no access as it is beyond us, and the Uncreated Energies of God that emanate from the Holy Trinity and in which we most certainly do have access as we participate in the Life in Christ.

Again, here is a distinction between Western and Eastern perspectives.

The West often talks about the "Imitation OF Christ" as the famous work by Thomas Kempis is titled.

The East emphasizes the fact of our actual participation in and partaking of the Life IN Christ.

Just as God became Man in Christ and so permeated our Humanity with His Divinity, transfiguring and Divinizing it thereby, so too are we called to partake of the Body of Christ in Holy Communion, prayer, the liturgy etc. to live the Life in Christ and be divinized thereby.

The West also has tended to see in the Incarnation an expression of "Divine Humility" in taking on our human nature.

The East, however, understands the Incarnation as something that impacted US with Christ's own Divinity.

We are made "Divine," we are lifted up to heaven to become members of the Kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our very bodies are deified through participation in the Body and LIfe of the God-Man, our Lord Jesus.

We are to become one with Christ to allow His Divine Blood to flow in our veins, to allow His Life to be ours.

The Uncreated Energies of God are channelled into us by the Holy Spirit as we acquire Him more and more throughout our Life in Christ, as St John of Kronstadt so brilliantly wrote about in his diaries.

These Energies are not the Inner Being of God - for if God communicated that to us, we would be truly become God!!

Alex

Yes, St. Gregory Palamas made a distinction between the essence and energies of God. Before him, in the Cappadocian Fathers, notably St. Gregory of Nyssa, we can see foundations of these principles. St. Clement of Alexandria coined the term "synergy" to describe the cooperation between our will and the divine energy. The idea of theosis, essence and energy are very different in meaning and approach from the Western idea of sanctifying grace.

The West as generally tried to quantify and define that grace, when it occurs, what the effects are, etc. while the East has taken a more organic and mystical approach of intimate communion with God through theosis, and experiencing God through His energies.

I thought up an analogy of a light bulb, although any analogy is very dangerous and very limiting. You can see the light, feel the warmth. These are energies, manifestations. The electricity is the essence. You can't see it with human eyes, and you can't touch it or else ZAP - you know what happens. The electricity in this example is "unnapproachable" in a sense as the essence. I know this is a very allegorical and primitive example to describe such a profound reality.

One short but very illuminating quote relating to theosis is that from St. Athanasius in his work "On the Incarnation": "God became man so man might become God". Through theosis we all partake of the divine nature.

Alex:

With all due respect, I believe that we're in another linguistic situation that approaches the same thing from different angles.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition seems to be saying what you are saying when you describe theosis but uses the term sanctifying grace. At any rate, given the explanations there, snactifying grace is certainly not created.

Check out paragraphs 824, 1266, 1999, 2000, and 2023-24.

Your explanations of theosis, however, are right on the money and are a very concise description of what I have read about this before.

If I may compare--as a layman without formal theological training--it seems to me that sometimes Latin approaches try to define in specific terms--for the benefit of people being taught, of course--what sometimes is an experience. It reminds me of the analogy I have used before wherein language and the thought patterns it engenders causes us to look at things the way we do. Latin asks "what is the law" or "what is the definition" while the Eastern Fathers through the Greek language ask "what is life" or "what are the shades of meaning."

This is not totally the picture and is certainly oversimplified, but it seems to me to give some focus on how the different mindsets approach the same mystery. And no one approach can wrap itself around the totality of the mysteries that we are all trying to understand.

Thank you for your posts. They continue to nourish.

BOB

Your entire explanation was well done... and you are right, the arguments have passed. Yes.. there are some smaller evangelical churches which still hold to the old rumors and there are some who see it as an assignment from God to hammer the RC for its supposed errors and corruption. The Orthodox hierarchy down here in American cringe at the influx of bible-belting evangelists who convert and then spout their RC hatred as if it were Orthodox hatred. While the Orthodox and Catholics here do not agree on words - there is no display of animosity either. I am RC but am somewhat adopted by the local Russian Orthodox church. The priest there is my spiritual director - plus my best friend. I am building one of the first Orthodox biblical research web sites for the Orthodox seminary. When we go out to lunch we are the only two in the restaurant who say grace and cross themselves in public. The Orthodox deacon teaches Patristics at the local RC seminary. We have much more in common than we do that may separate us (words semantics and long held misunderstandings).

The arguments between main Protestant churches and Catholics has been over for awhile. For many years - Protestants believed that Catholics believed - that one works his way to heaven through good works and indulgences - while the Protestants place the emphasis on faith. A keyword, understood a bit diffrently by both - was "merit".

The reapir culminated with the Lutherans culminated in 1999
http://www.cesnur.org/testi/cath_luth_1.htm

�We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits�

through dialog they came to understand that the RC means to say all along - that God will not make us saints despite ourselves - at some point he needs our cooperation. He does not make us saints against our will or without our free will cooperation. Being human - our cooperation will naturally be manifest in human ways.

So as you say here...
[B}Theosis is accomplished through a lifelong communion/union with Christ by the Holy Spirit. [/B]

Most main Protestant churches have declared they agree, that acts of faith and acts of good works are the visible human side of the faith and the cooperation born of communion and union with Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Was it Paul or James who said "what good is faith without good works?" meaning a faith that does not bear active fruit - is still-born. The man who receives coins from his master and buries them in the ground instead of spending them - earns no interest for his master. He has not put the money he had received to work and action.

As you know � well .. Let us take this from the joint declaration �

"Many antitheses could be overcome if the misleading word �merit' were simply to be viewed and thought about in connection with the true sense of the biblical term 'wage' or reward"

Now look at that - a word which fit perfectly well in Latin with its Latin meaning and inflections - did not works as well when translated to English (at least not for those who had not the Latuin heritage) - imagine that - it took more than what 500 years of arguing to boil down to the sematics of a word. Ah - the human condition. Without the love of Christ operative within us - we shall never overcome Babel.

As you know and well note in this present Pope.. what was once written in words and form for the purpose of the fuller understanding of its own charge (members) put into words appropriate for the cultures comprising its people - the RC has been bending over backwards to make understandable to peoples and churches of different cultures, social circumstances, traditions and history, and the changes inheriant in the languages that comprise its own charge.

In these times, in the shrinking of Christendom, where secular values are replacing Christian values on all government levels - that backdrop is highlighting the shared Christian values and beliefs of all Christian churches. The divisions of Chritindom have certainly had something to do with the advance of secularism.

The time when the catholic churches, each being preserved by the presents of the seven sacraments and a valid sucession - the time is coming and indeed is already in the sprouting - that they shall be re-united in hearts and ecclesiastical cooperation and open to understanding the other. Past rumors eventually die away, as dead as the orginal ones who began them. The active sin lay with those who began them - the continuation of is simply our human condition of weakness and frailty and the repair certainly constitutes what is also faith and good works to fruition. Where esle does love begin but within ones own family?

The trouble with the Mid East is that the Palestinians and Jews - never forgive and forget. Each believes that the way to peace of the future - is to assign blame, correct past faults and wrongs, assign hatred and uncover conspiracy . The past is gone, never to return, and its history really depends on who is doing the interpretation. Nothing has ever been cleared up or corrected - in the past. No one can reach back there and change a thing let alone figure out for sure who was the first blame and was he justified. All side - react in what it considers is its own self-defense - and that self-defense is in turn assumed by the other - through lack of understanding and trust - to be aggression. They are chained (as it were) to misunderstandings of the past which can never be figured out or righted because the past is a book closed and sealed which allows no changes and no further reading.

They remind me of some children, who, when grown, blame their horrible lives and the way they are and act upon their parents and upbringing. They see themselves as mostly and almost totally - products of their environment - where is free will? No child becomes a mature adult until he ceases trying to fix the past.

Cheers and good will

Dear Bob,

One problem with the CCC is that it really has adopted a number of perspectives from the Eastern Church and presents it as normative for Catholics NOW.

I can only applaud its effort and that of the Pope!

Its view of Original Sin, Purgatory etc. are closer to the East, or right on, than RC doctrine ever was before. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But it also means that we have to look elsewhere for older RC theological points of view on the created nature of sanctifying grace etc.

But the most important difference here remains.

In the RC system, it is "sanctifying grace" that is at work. In the East, it is the communication of the Holy Spirit Himself.

As St Seraphim of Sarov said, the aim of the Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit!

Alex

Dear RayK,

Excellent, as per your usual!

For me, the truly wondrous aspect of the East's theology of sanctification and Theosis is "Communion with God" and partaking of the Divine Nature.

And you are right - the entire Bible speaks of this. Christ Himself asked us to remain in Him, to live in Him, the true Vine as His branches.

Alex

Here's an interesting web site that includes a pages on mysticism and theosis:
http://www.frimmin.com/

What you ya'll think?

Sophia

Though I am not that well acquainted with the traditional Latin distinctions of grace, I do believe that Alex really overdoes the alleged differences between East and West on theosis. I suspect that the differences here are much more semantic than substantive.

Traditionally, Catholicism has addressed our participation in the divine nature of God under the category of adoption [newadvent.org] .

The West gets hit hard by the Orthodox for the traditional formulation of created grace. I do not want to either defend or criticize this category; but I will note that its true function is to protect the Creator/creature category. Orthodoxy accomplishes this task by another means, namely, its (problematic?) distinction between the being and energies of God.

Alex may be right that the Catholic Catechism does not actually use the word theosis, but the entire Catechism is based on the proposition that Christian life is grounded upon and participates in the trinitarian life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Please look at the sections on Baptism and Eucharist and then look on the section on Grace. Do you see a huge material difference here?

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

Bless, Father Kimel!

The point is not that the CCC doesn't accept and express Eastern theological ideas - it does and its section on the Jesus Prayer is wonderful.

The real point is that the CCC is not therefore a good representative of traditional WESTERN thought on the subject of holiness.

Alex

Alex,

I read the CCC to say that sanctifying grace is uncreated. (sorry, I don't have the citation available). Logic tells me the only thing uncreated is God, THE CREATOR.

My understanding is that at baptism one receives the Holy Spirit. What could be more an uncreated grace but the third person of the holy Trinity?

As you can tell, I'm not a theologian. I hope I'm not babbling.

Paul

Alex,
So what, in a nutshell, does Meyendorff say that makes sense about the distinction between essence and energy? And in making this distinction, how does he avoid going "flat"?

Dear Paul and djs,

I did NOT say the CCC denies uncreated grace!

I said that the CCC is NOT a traditional reflection of western theology on Grace - it makes a deliberate effort to reach out to the Eastern Church in this regard which is a good thing.

How well it does that - that's for theologians to determine, not me.

We CANNOT know the nature of uncreated energies versus God's Divine Essence.

Just as we cannot know the distinction between the manner of the Son's proceeding from the Father versus that of the Holy Spirit's.

We do know, and the Fathers on both sides assure us, that there IS a distinction that distinguishes, therefore both Persons - quite apart from the Filioque.

The idea of created grace limits, not expands, any reflection on our life in the Holy Trinity through Christ.

But the fact remains that the West has demonstrated and is demonstrating that it can relate its theological paradigms to the East and can appreciate the East to the extent that it can assume certain Eastern positions that it believes are the same as its own.

Whether they are or not is again for theologians to determine.

Alex

Here's a short article comparing St Thomas and St Gregory on Uncreated and Created Grace [praiseofglory.com] .

I have just picked up, through ILL, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas by A. N. Williams. This looks like a very promising study, though I doubt I'll have time to really read it thoroughly before its due back to the library, given other projects. Her basic thesis is that, despite differences between the theologies of both men, a fundamental disparity does not exist between the two on deification and sanctificaiton.

Williams does address the distinction between being and energies in Palamas. She personally believes that this distinction is only nominal in Palamas, though many Palamites interpret the distinction as real and ontological. This is important, as it is certainly doubtful that the Cappadocians, who seem to be the originators of this theory, posited a real distinction between the two.

Why do contemporary Western trinitarian theorists have find this distinction a problem? Because the whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity is to assert that God truly communicates himself, in the fullness of his reality, in the Incarnation of Christ. He does not withhold himself but gives himself fully. Thus the Western claim that we can truly know God, though we can never comprehend him.

As I understand the purpose of Palamas's distinction, it is to prevent a pantheistic absorption of the believer into the Godhead in such a way as to eradicate the believer's creaturehood. If Williams is right that this distinction is only notional, then the Western concern is protected.

I think there is a limitation with the English language here. "Knowledge" usually implies an intellectual act in English. What Palamas is talking about is actually "experiencing" the energies of God, not "knowing" in the intellectual sense.

This was the whole point of his agrument with Barlaam of Calabria in the Triads, namely Barlaam held that one must first have "knowledge of things" or "knowledge" in the intellectual sense, and Palamas argued to the contrary, that some of the simplest monks and holy people were abounding with experience of the energies of the transfigured Christ and His Holy Spirit that would be in most Western views fools or simpletons in an intellectual sense.

Palamas makes a concerted distinction between essence and energies, and to somehow minimalize that distinction I think to an extent goes against the grain of Byzantine apophatic theology. "The deifying gifts of the Spirit (energies) cannot be equated with the supersessential essence of God" he writes in the Triads. This distinction is at the heart of apophatic thought.

I and many other Byzantines become somewhat nervous at the use of terms like "know" and "knowledge" because of the distortion of Scholastic ideas through the Enlightenment and into modern thought where the "knowledge" of man put him above God or eliminated the need for God.

And where I think many of us Westerners get uncomfortable with the apophaticism of the East is that it seems to come close to saying that God has not truly revealed and communicated himself in Christ Jesus. We are not talking just about an "intellectual" knowledge. We are talking about a personal and evangelical knowledge of the eternal deity given to sinful humanity through the Spirit in the sacred humanity, acts, and words of Jesus of Nazareth. "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known" (John 1:18).

I fully agree that we cannot know what God is, but surely we must say that we are given to know who God is. Thus we read in the Orthodox-Reformed agreement on the Holy Trinity [reformiert-online.net] : The crucial evangelical concern is that God is as he has revealed himself to be, that when he gives himself to us in Christ through the Spirit, we are truly being given God as he truly is.

Let me put the question this way:

How is it that we know that God is ineffable and incomprehensible? It is because our philosophical reflections have told us that this is so, or is it because God has made himself truly known in Christ and we have thus personally encountered the ineffability and mystery of God?

Letting the liturgy itself be the catechist, the tropar from the Feast of the Transfiguration has much to say in this regard:
"Thou wast transfigured on the mountain, O Christ our God, showing to Thy disciples Thy glory as each one could endure, shine forth Thou on us who are sinners all, Thy light ever-unending through the prayers of the Theotokos. O Light-giver, glory to Thee"

As "each one could endure" is key. The essence of God is completely transcendent and ineffable, and to us as humans can only be experienced through His energies as "each can endure" and thus can not be experienced in its totality, as it is beyond knowing and as St. Gregory Palamas also says, even beyond unknowing. And at the Transfiguration the revelation of the energies of God eventually became overwhelming to the human senses and reason of those present.

The Transfiguration is iconic of all living persons on earth in this life being able in some way to experience the Taboric or Uncreated Light, the energies of God, through the person of Jesus Christ, but not the totality of God's essence, because of the ineffable, transcendent and infinite nature of God beyond our human sensual and rational limitations.

In this regard the Byzantine tradition takes a much more experiential approach rather than attempting to rationalize or reduce the realities of God to categorization or verbal description, which will always be lacking and incomplete, and eventually minimalization of God Himself by erroneus and prideful supposition that we somehow "understand" all of this.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

On the issue of created and uncreated grace, I can only input that in the West, there exists both according to classical scholastic philosophy. There are, if memory serves, three types of grace, and among these a million distinctions. There are actual graces, which are merely favors God can bestow on you, from the meeting of a crucial person in your life of faith, to a cool breeze on a hot day. Then, there is sanctifying grace, which actually changes the soul from sinner to just; it is not the indwelling of the Trinity in the soul, but the grace that "cleans up" in order that the Godhead can dwell within. Then, there is the actual union with God, of which I don not remember the name, but I do recall my teachers saying that this is distinct from sanctifying grace and actual grace, both of which, in the West, are created. These might just be some hazy memories from seminary days, but this is why Latin Christians can say, "You will get great graces from praying such and such a prayer, doing such and such a thing, etc." In the East, so it was explained to me by a ROCOR monk, grace is always uncreated and always singular: Grace and not graces. In the end, I suppose it is only a matter of wording, and it just all depends on the Latin obsession to disect the invisible and undividible. (Where does actual grace end and sanctifying grace begin? And on and on.) In the book, "Ground of Union", the author writes that St. Thomas writes of created grace solely in order to defend the ontological integrity of the creature in relationship to the Creator, and not to diminish the Christian doctrine of theosis.
As for essence and energy in God, I struggled with this problem in my seminary days, but in my case the major figure that helped me out was St. Gregory of Nyssa. In the Western idea of the beatific vision, on can get the impression that our eternal beatitude (our union with the Trinity) is the result of one act: the viewing of the essence of God like the freezing of a still photograph. In St. Gregory of Nyssa's thought, our advancement toward God is an eternal ascent into the Infinite, a race to catch the ever-expanding beauty of God. There must, in the end, be some "core" of the Trinity, that God "sees", but we don't, and even Latin theology will admit this when pressed ("Totus videtur, sed non totaliter"= All is seen, but not completely) This is due to our conditions as creatures and thus finite, but God does not hide from us. He is merely superluminous, ineffable, and all-glorious. He shows us what (or rather, Who) He is, but it takes an eternity to really know Him.
At least that's how I understand things.

Arturo

Dear Diak,

Do you really think that this is what the Western Church is about in her theological expression of our Faith?

"In this regard the Byzantine tradition takes a much more experiential approach rather than attempting to rationalize or reduce the realities of God to categorization or verbal description, which will always be lacking and incomplete, and eventually minimalization of God Himself by erroneus and prideful supposition that we somehow "understand" all of this."

I have lived in the Western Tradition all of my life. I have studied Scholastic Theology, Biblical Theology, etc. as it has been and is taught in the West. I have never been taught that our approach to learning is coterminus with the truth that we're learning about. Nor have I learned that God can be captured in discussions of categories, genus, or species. Thinking in this way, in categories for example, is just that thinking for the purpose of examining and of learning.

The experiential is alive and well in the Western Church also. God is working with us also.

A difference in emphasis does not mean that we minimalize God in any way. We know that He is Who He Is and that He is essentially unknowable except as we experience Him in Christ through the working of the Spirit. We, in our historical experience, simply borrowed the propensity of early easterners like Aristotle and attempted to use things like categories to examine what God has said.

It seems to me that some in the East do not see our analytical propensity as necessarily something to run from. If I recall correctly, one of the Patriarchs of your own Church created a university school of theology for your Church in Ukraine. He stressed the usefulness of using Thomistic Theology as a framework that would help make the study of theology in the East more like a science.

Of course, my memory might be serving me poorly again.

We do not associate understanding more about the Reality under study in theology with grasping the totality of the Reality under study in theology or with minimalizing that Reality.

It not appropriate to suggest that we do, in my opinion.

But, I digress.

Thanks for hearing me out!

Steve

St. Gregory of Nyssa's "darkness of God" especially discussed in his "Life of Moses" forms a pillar of apophatic thought that becomes more developed with Palamas much later.

St. Gregory of Nyssa is really a critical foundation of the whole development of "negative language" about God which can be seen not only with Palamas but also strongly in Denys the Areopagite's "Mystical Theology" which draws heavily on the themes of darkness of God and unknowing from the "Life of Moses".

It's interesting you mention St. Gregory of Nyssa in terms of enlightenment, Arturo. With myself it was actually the reverse, it was St. Gregory Palamas for me that "closed the loop" so to speak with illumunation of certain texts and ideas of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Denys the Areopagite, etc. that I had read earlier, and re-reading them after reading St. Gregory Palamas was amazing.

Steve, it is not a matter of "right or wrong" but an essential difference in approach. I wouldn't be Catholic (in communion with Rome) if I thought the Latin approach was inherently wrong. Unfortunately in many Greek Catholic seminaries Byzantine theology was eliminated and the formation became basically entirely Scholastic, so some of us are possibly a bit touchy about this subject .

As Greek Catholics we deserve to be taught our own uniquely Byzantine theological heritage. I am not advocating the elimination of Thomistic theology at all, to the contrary it should be taught, but if we are to regain our patrimony as per the directives of the Holy Father we must also regain our theological heritage.

I think St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God are a good example. In an almost Euclidian manner (akin to a geometric proof) he makes the arguements. This is completely different than how St. Gregory of Nyssa or St. Gregory Palamas would approach this subject, which would be in a much more mystical and "negative" manner.

"Contemplation, then, is not simply abstraction and negation; it is a union and a divinisation which occurs mystically and ineffably by the grace of God, after the stripping away of everything from here below which imprints iteself on the mind..." (Triads of St. Gregory Palamas)

The Byzantine and Latin theologians are very much united, however on the issue of human suffering bringing one closer to God.

Because of a certain amount of supression of Byzantine theology in Greek Catholic semanaries and the forced study of Scholastic theology over the last 200 years, we have a lot of ground to cover to balance our theology back in line with our Byzantine heritage.

The Latin and Byzantine theological approaches we are discussing here, while very different, are at their very heart complimentary, not opposing. Both need each other to avoid extremes of thought in the Catholic communion.

Dear Diak,

Thanks for your quick response. Let me say first that I understand and agree with most of what you say.

From what I've learned here and from the words of the Pope, there is a need for the Eastern Churches to teach in the Byzantine tradition and embody it fully in their practices. I have no issue with that.

But that was not the point of my post.

When you said:

"In this regard the Byzantine tradition takes a much more experiential approach rather than attempting to rationalize or reduce the realities of God to categorization or verbal description, which will always be lacking and incomplete, and eventually minimalization of God Himself by erroneus and prideful supposition that we somehow "understand" all of this."

It seemed to me that you were mischaracterizing the tradition of the West. It appeared that you were suggesting that we think that we can "reduce the realities of God to categorization or verbal description."

You correctly point out that these will always be lacking and incomplete. You suggest that this will eventually lead to our "minimalization of God Himself by erroneus and prideful supposition that we somehow 'understand' all of this."

I am sure that you know that that is not what scholastic theology is about. It is simply another learning tool. We would not presume to allow our theology to suggest that we have captured God's realities in categories or verbal description.

Indeed, it seemed to me that your comments shoved and folded Western Catholic theology into categories and descriptions which are not its own.

God is Who He Is and He is Mystery and Majesty. Nowhere that I am familiar with in Western Catholic thought is the notion to be found that by studying God's realities we can minimalize God.

The goal as I understand it is to do the exact opposite. The goal is to amplify and reflect on the beauty and glory of the One whom we study. It was intended to enhance our sense of wonder, I think. Surely this was the effect in St. Thomas.

Of course all theologies will always be lacking and complete, not just those of the West. They all fall short of encompassing the Realities of God. All theological approaches the analytical, the scholastic, and it seems to me, the apophatic, among others are creations of humankind.

As I understand it is not an erroneous and prideful supposition that we can somehow "understand all of this" that leads us in the West to the use of theological concepts and frameworks to try to learn about God." It is Faith seeking greater understanding of the Reality which enraptures and draws us to study Him in His Revelation that leads us.

It is not Faith seeking to encompass the Godhead and to make Him in our Image by squeezing Him into categories that are man made. An erroneous and prideful presupposition that is! It is not ours.

Diak, I totally agree with this statement:

"The Latin and Byzantine theological approaches we are discussing here, while very different, are at their very heart complimentary, not opposing. Both need each other to avoid extremes of thought in the Catholic communion."

I guess I wondered why it was necessary to cast the Western Approach in the terms that you did in order to point out the beauty and greatness that is in the Eastern approach. That's what you appeared to be doing in the paragraph from your post that I quoted earlier in my response. Maybe I misunderstood.

I enjoy learning here. Your posts are most informative. Casting our theology in the terms of error and reducing God and His realities to categorization and verbal description gets in the way.

After all, I'm a Latin and it's said to be in our blood try to understand.

Thanks for hearing me out, again!

Steve

Steve, I certainly had no intention of putting down the Angelic Doctor nor denying the rich mystical tradition of the West with such luminaries as St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, etc. etc. And I will always hear you out, friend.

I was speaking (and overgeneralizing, admittedly)more to the eventual development of Western thought into its more pragmatic approach or one tending more towards rationalization, especially during and after the Enlightenment.

Your use of the term "systematic theology" itself shows how in the West the divorce of "theology" occurred from prayer and liturgy. In the Byzantine mind theology, spirituality, and liturgy form one organic whole.

After the Scholastics there came "schools" and "disciplines" which further separated theology into various subcategories for study. Theology and liturgy became themselves different disciplines of study. This approach would have been completely foreign to someone like St. Cyril of Jerusalem or St. John Chrysostom.

Please understand in the Christian East there was not an equivalent of the Enlightenment and its associated "triumph of human reason", nor an equivalent of the Reformation. The East kept its mystical approach while the West tended much more towards a more "rational" and pragmatice approach.

Thus the eventual effects and historical theological development of the Scholastics are seen with mixed feelings in the Byzantine mind. But again, I am not saying in an absolute sense that the Scholastics were inherently wrong or that they somehow deny a Latin mysticism, nor that the Scholastic approach has no merit. After all, St. Thomas is the Angelic Doctor...and I used to use his cosmology quite often when teaching science years ago

St. Peter Moghila, Metropolitan of Kyiv, actually used some aspects of the Scholastic approach in his seminary curriculum and when compiling his Orthodox Catechism. This was one of the most widely distributed Orthodox catechisms.

In the end, as I mentioned above, both Byzantine and Latin theologies are complimentary, not opposite. Both need each other to avoid certain theological/philosophical excesses.

Dear Friends,

This is all well and good.

How is the CCC's mention of theosis, in any way, an outline of the West's belief in it that is comparable to that of the East?

I think some of you Westerners (didn't someone have an avatar of a cowboy hat at one point?) want to "overdo" it in trying to make Theosis an integral part of Western spirituality.

And it certainly is not.

Alex

Dear Diak,

Thanks for your response. I just want to correct a minute but not insignificant point in your posting and to make a couple of comments.

I've reread my postings several times and I don't find the place where I use the term "systematic theology." I don't believe that I did.

I really appreciate your posting. There is a difference in the approaches between the East and West. It is real and has consequences in who we are and how we approach Mystery.

When your say this:

"In the end, as I mentioned above, both Byzantine and Latin theologies are complimentary, not opposite. Both need each other to avoid certain theological/philosophical excesses."

I find the words echo what has come to be my understanding on the issue because of my learning here and my earlier studies.

Theological approaches and traditions among us, in my opinion, are not a matter of better or worse; but rather they are a matter of differences which serve to enrich our meeting with God in His mysteries.

Alex had dream of the temple with many rooms that he shared in a posting quite some time ago. He pointed out the beauty of the various liturgies used among the Churches and how rich and powerful our meeting with God is because of them.

The Majesty and Mystery that is God cannot be contained or captured totally by any of our theological approaches or even by all of them. Each reflects Him in its own way and in the totality of the reflections Him presents a fuller image of Himself.

I am most happy that these differences meet and are available to us through our common communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Thanks again!

Steve

Dear Alex,

I haven't entered the discussion about theosis as it relates to East and West. But, I am not sure that I understand your last posting where you said:

"This is all well and good.

....

"I think some of you Westerners (didn't someone have an avatar of a cowboy hat at one point?) want to "overdo" it in trying to make Theosis an integral part of Western spirituality.

And it certainly is not."

*************

Isn't it integral to Christian thought among all of the Apostolic Church that goal of life is to enter into the very life of God because God made that possible and invited us to do so?

I've been taught all my life that we are to become more and more like Christ. Our priests and teachers said that God makes this possible through the action of the Spirit in Grace as we cooperated with Him. The difference is there in our way of expressing it, but the common truth stands behind it, I think, Transfiguration of who we are in the transfiguring power of Christ.

Isn't that at least on the same range? :rolleyes:

Steve

Dear Steve,

Yes, it is in the same range.

But the Eastern understanding of Theosis is much more involved and developed.

I just don't see how it relates to Western Soteriology.

The very notion of grace being created, as it is in the West, suggests that God's creatures cannot hope to participate in the same experience of divine Transfiguration or the Divine Energies that is so central to Eastern Christian thought.

And it shows in the respective art-forms of both East and West as well.

For the West, participation in uncreated Divine Energies is a shock to the old Latin system.

But that doesn't mean the West can't come to accept more of that Eastern heritage - as it appears to be doing.

Alex

Alex-

I haven't read the entire thread, but let me just reply to what you said here. The way that I was taught was that "grace" was "Gd's unmerited favor." Grace is seen more as a means of Justification rather then Sanctification. Having said that, the West certainly acknowledges our ability to "partake of the Divine Nature" through Theosis. Although the West is more apt to refer to it as Sanctification. Our Justification and Sanctification is all of Grace, as the West and East both rightly teach.

One more thing, and please don't take in the wrong way; in this and other threads you seem to make statements in support of the West taking on a more Eastern understanding of things. Is this not reverse-Latinization? Does not the West have as much right to theologize according to its understanding the way the East does? Does the East consider St. Augustine to be complimentary, not contrary?

With nothing but charity and respect towards you,

Columcille

Dear Columcille,

Well, you've given an excellent basic definition of Western Catholic soteriology, to be sure.

You are right, and this is how I was taught in the RC schools I attended.

As for the reverse-Latinization, that is a point that is certainly integrally related here.

To what extent can the Latin Church borrow and forcibly insert Eastern theological notions into its own integral system without doing damage to that system?

And I don't know!

We in the East know the effects of Latinization on our system - we lost it and began to think like Latins, including the Latinized Orthodox.

I personally would rather see the Latin Church keep to its own theology and develop contemporary explanations of it for us to appreciate, rather than try to be all things to all people in borrowing from the East.

The Jesus Prayer section in the CCC is excellent. But the West has its own tradition of devotion to the Name of Jesus that is not the Jesus Prayer of the East.

This is why it would have been better for an "Eastern CCC" for the Eastern churches to have been published rather than a "one size fits all" CCC.

In this, of course, you are quite correct and I thank you for bringing that important issue to the fore.

Alex

Alex� if you are now or have been a Roman Catholic - I have no idea what has been presented to you - but if, what you seem to understand, is an indication, then they failed miserably. They taught you what they misunderstood - or perhaps you misunderstood. It matters not which - it is the human condition we all suffer from.

The Eastern Church is the roots of the Western church. What theology belongs to the East belongs also to the West. The fathers of the church and early Eastern theology belongs as much to the West as its heritage and root - and it does to the East. What belongs to the East as the theology of theosis - also belongs to the West as its still valuable and still applicable roots. God has not taken it away from the West - it is the foundation of Western theology.

The further development of Western theology - now uses different wording - the cultures, society, history, language - have all developed. Most of the world speaks a different language than was spoken in the first hundred years of the church (the terms of Greek theology). That is clear. That is history. That is undeniable. It has been 1500 years and God has not stood history - still.

The church has the commandment to go out an preach the gospel. It would fail that commandment if she did not go out and speak that gospel in the language that the hearers used. The Orthodox church also now allows the Liturgy in the local language.

There is no one alive today - who would be able to go back in time and speak with the early Greek fathers about theosis, hypostasis, and any number of these terms as they were once used. It is not our natural language as it was theirs. We do not have the cultural experience that gives these words their full meaning as the fathers used them. In as much as you - yourself - know the need to study Jews traditions and ways to get a better meaning of the Old and New Testament - that same applies for the use of these terms that these original Greek fathers used. You know that - you study these terms. You KNOW this study is necessary and you KNOW most people are not equipped for it. And so - the church MUST speak in the words and concepts of the current culture and people - to fulfill her having been commanded �go out and preach this gospel�. You yourself - must first hear the gospel in your native language - in order to know what to even go back into history and study! It is not as if you first heard someone speaking in the Greek language of the early Christians - and understood what was being said - and decided to study it. You first heard it in your own language and concepts - and from THAT decided to research it.

It is the duty of the church to speak to peoples in their own language and culture - the gospel.

This then, is not a fault of the Western church - it is a duty.

It is up to you - to join the two (early Eastern theology and later Western expression of the same). Western theol9ogy and its expression is rooted in and a continuation into modern cultures - of Eastern theology. To pit one against the other - is nonsense.

The Eastern concept of theosis - is the heritage and the continuation - of the West. So right there it is no true that the West does no understand theosis. These West just calls it now by a different name BECAUSE it has the duty to spread the gospel into modern peoples of the West.

This week I have myself returned to reading the personal letters of direction that Padre Pio wrote during his life - and to see what Padre Pio saw as the ongoing hand of God in these peoples lives - is astonishing! To enter into the mind of Padre Poi (who obviously knew well theosis and the ways of santification - how God works and what we are to do) - is awesome. Daily Providence was his bread and it should be ours. ?:jesus is doing this to you ... Jesus has done this to you because... "etc.. and his own ltters regarding his interior life, to his directors. Simply - gold!

If you - yourself - cannot see how theosis (the deification of the individual) is related to Soteriology (The theological doctrine of salvation as effected by Jesus) - that is your personal experience and it is not the condition of the church.

What belongs to the East does not belong exclusively to the East anymore than my childhood no longer belongs - to me. I believed in God as a child - and I believe in God today - but I will use different words and concepts to describe this belief - that has not - itself - changed. The words used are the shell used to express the belief - and not the belief itself.

The Western Church - recognizes and honors - the Eastern church�s Doctors. The Eastern Church is the heritage of the Western church - it is its roots and it remains its roots. The entire Church - is One church that is like a huge tree that has grown and developed through history. Whatever is cut off from its roots - dies - and the Western church is not dead - it remains tied to and feed from its roots.

Theosis - Saint John of the Cross gives such a developed and comprehensive image of theosis and how God works in man and what happens to the individual as he is sanctified - that he is used in Orthodox seminaries! Western civilization and the Western church - has produced more books, studies, histories, etc.. about the early years (Eastern) of the church and her theology and such - that the East has published - and many of these are used in the Orthodox seminaries. Theosis or sanctification - it is your job - to find the continuity under the shell.

It seems to me that your past of current Roman Catholic teachers - have failed you miserably - or - you were too young to understand and mostly likely a mix of both. This - is the human situation. This is one of the fences that God allows everyone to face - and climb - and get past and surmount - if we are to find him.

Having said that, I will say again very publicly� I know your dedication and sincerity - and I admire it. I can guess - the treasures and riches and pearls - that the good Lord has given you by way of your study of Eastern theology. It �speaks to you� like nothing has before. But it is rather that you and God have settled on a �language� between yourselves and it is not that this is the only �language� that God speaks in. He comes down to us all - and speaks in our language and our concepts and our experiences. He becomes - human as we are.

It would be best - of all of us - not to make the assumption that God is only revealed in one way (the way we experience him) but that he reveales himself to the others that the church is commanded to speak the gospel to - in ways that we do not fully understand and He has no need to explain himself regarding.

It is a massive act of humility - to say �Well� I really don�t know much about that.� because, as humans, we desire that we DO know. We WANT an intellectual system to make sense and follow. And we WANT to say �this is the right way and this is the wrong way.�

You remind me of Simon Peter. The steadfastness of your heart and sincerity are certainly not a gift that the Good God gives to everyone. He must have given you - a huge thorn. Something very painful� that He has, in his Goodness - put there to drive you to Himself. He is so Good and works in such effective ways! Without that bloody thorn - you would be indulged with all your sincerity - in economic pursuits - wasting your time down here. Instead - He forces you to seek him. He would not have given you that thorn (stake) unless He already knew you could carry it and you would not fail. He does not give these thorns unless He already knew the loving response you would give him.

As always� I write to you with great respect for the Lord�s ongoing work in you and your response to His loving hand. I do not worry about you a bit because in my eyes, He has you well in tow and you cling to him tighter than a two year old clings to his mother.

Consider what I say above but do not let me trouble you. The graces God gives you refreshes me and I say that in public.

-ray

I appreciate your post, Ray!
C of S

I need to chime in here, because I really think that the Western undertanding of salvation is not being given a fair shake. I certainly agree that the language of theosis is not as dominant in the West as it is in the East, but I see this more a matter of emphasis, culture, and language than anything else.

Underlying Western soteriology is the understanding that life in Christ is transformation and participation in the life of the Holy Trinity. And if this isn't theosis, I don't know what is.

Maybe some words of Georges Florovsky would be helpful here: Augustine would agree with this completely and so would Aquinas, St Catherine of Siena, St John of the Cross, Luther, Calvin, Richard Hooker and the Caroline and Anglo-Catholic Divines, Karl Rahner and von Balthasar, and a host of others. Participation in the life of the Holy Trinity is not peculiarly Eastern. It is just Christian. As St. Augustine proclaimed: What, of course, is missing in Western reflection is the distinction between God's being and energies, but this distinction is also missing for the most part in the early Fathers. Perhaps we might term this distinction a Byzantine theologoumenon.

In the absence of this distinction, the West has found it necessary to say both that we particpate in the divine nature and that there is also something called created grace, i.e., that we are actually changed as God sanctifies us in the Holy Spirit.

What do we receive at Holy Baptism? The Holy Spirit! What also happens at Baptism? We are adopted as sons of God by our incorporation into the sanctified humanity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity who now brings us into his relationship with the Father.

What do we receive at the Mass? The whole Christ, human and divine! I mean, you can't get much more into the divine life than to eat the eternal Son of God and to be united to him!

So I guess I keep wondering what the real difference is. Perhaps what we really talking about is a kind of mystical experience, something like the kind of experience some of the monks were enjoying back during the Palamite conflict? Is this a mystical experience that all Orthodox believers actually experience?

So I need to know what the real differnce is. A. N. Williams's The Ground of Union has been cited several times already. She demonstrates that there really does not exist a significant theological difference between Aquinas and Palamas on the theme of deification, though there is of course differences in language and conceptualities.

I'll close with these words of Catherine of Siena:

I agree with Father Kimel and RayK that there is no substantial difference between East and West on theosis. For a good overview of the West's perspective on theosis/deification I highly recommend _The Mystical Evolution by Father Juan Arintero OP:

http://www.tanbooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=66&

For a shorter treatment of this subject there is _Three Conversions in the Spiritual Life_ by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP.

http://www.tanbooks.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=608&

In Christ,
Anthony

Great recommendations Anthony, I was just going to post the link to Father Arintero! I also think that the differences are also sometimes exaggerated. For more western deification one should also see the Rhineland mystics Ekhart, Tauler, Suso, and Ruysbroeck. They speak very eloquently about "The Father begetting the word in your soul" also Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity is a good modern example.

The so-called "new theology" in the 20th century was also permeated with the thought of the Greek Fathers, one may also want to check there.

I think people need to understand that explaining how we particiapate in the divine life (without going into pantheism) is not at all an easy thing to explain. St Thomas and St. Palamas and anyone else who goes down this road will have their hands full

Dear RayK,

Thank you for your comprehensive post!

Under regular circumstances I would love to engage you further, but I'm not really in the mood to - I hope you'll understand.

Alex

Dear RayK,

Thank you for your in depth analysis of my own psychological reasons for believing on Theosis as I do!

I didn't realize I've been carrying so much inner baggage from previous periods of encounters with Roman Catholics.

Yes, I think my age had something to do with so obviously and completely missing the real point of RC theology in this respect.

Unfortunately for your paradigm, however, I still do miss things even today . . .

But keeping all my known and unknown limitations, cultural, psychological, intellectual and spiritual in mind, I would like to make a couple of points.

I never once said that Western and Eastern notions of Theosis/Sanctification were in conflict.

I said they were different and continue to maintain that difference.

Columcille referred to those differences above. I know he is a Tridentine Catholic and very traditional, but I think he makes a good point - keeping in mind, of course, the very real potential sources of trouble that his traditional Catholic background might expose his own intellectual and spiritual development to ( ).

Diak referred to the experiential aspect of Eastern thought. His views are, as well, coloured by his traditional training in both Eastern and Western schools of theology and liturgy.

Look, we all bring to this forum baggage of one sort or another! (That's all I'll say with reference to Diak, I don't need him to be more angry at me . . .)

And Father Kimel, who, given what is going on in the Episcopal church right now, may very well decide to chuck in his Augustine Reader to become Eastern ( ) is quite right when he says that both East and West see our ultimate destiny in our life in the Holy Trinity.

Martin Luther himself referred to Christians as "Little Christs." (You see, I do read a bit of stuff that is outside my tradition. I know one or two other quotes from western figures that I could bring up if this one doesn't convince you).

The difference lies not in the "that" of theosis/sanctification, but in the "how."

And, frankly, I'm really surprised at you Latins on this forum.

You come here all full of dis and vinegar about "unity and diversity" and then get your noses all out of joint when we Easterners emphasize our very real differences.

You guys really do seem to have a need for homogeneity (I should have been more circumspect with my choice of words, Fr. Kimel, I know . . . .

If it's not all "the same" then there is no "unity" - you seem to be saying!

Our participation in the uncreated Energies of God, like our standing in the warming rays of the sun, and its energizing, transfiguring effect on our souls and bodies - yes, that is in Western theology.

But the East truly does emphasize the personal side of this activity, that it is the Holy Spirit Himself that we are to attain (St Seraphim of Sarov). There is a real difference in emphasis, that is all!

And that emphasis is seen, let me reiterate before you go into an even fuller psychological profile on me, even in your religious art.

Lossky rightly points out how later Latin art portrayed the Humanity of Christ and the Saints without the originally Eastern emphasis on depicting their transfigured and deified Humanity.

I can go into any one of your churches and notice the difference in our art - and deduce logical conclusions that extend to our views of theosis/sanctification.

The two are not exactly the same and I think the West would balk at the very notion of "deification" of the apophatic East - as Fr. Kimel did above, although I daresay that issue is the least of his troubles right now . . .

Your Western religious art tells me nothing of the Divinity of Christ and of the deification of the Saints.

Is that merely a matter of historic development divorced from theological a prioris in this respect?

I don't believe so.

There is an emphasis on the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Trinity as well as deification of the Saints that just isn't in the West.

It is a difference in emphasis. No one is saying the West denies theosis.

But it is also true to say that a lot of what you are saying from an RC perspective via the East has come to the West relatively recently.

And I'm still not over what you said a while back about the Prophet Elias!

And I'd say a thing or two about my own vies of your own cultural, psychological and religious background, but I find it to be way to complex for a simpleton like me!

And the fact that Communion of Saints liked your post is not necessarily a good reflection on her!

Alex

Dear Alex,

Ahh, now you're back!

Not always right, but back!

Steve

Dear Steve,

I only came back momentarily for another shot at the issue.

And, as I've said, it isn't a matter of being "right" but "rite."

God bless you always and perhaps we'll see each other one day.

Take care!

Alex

Dear Alex,


I hope that you will come back momentarily for anything that you like.

You know of course that I was playing. You are usually right.

I ask God's blessings on you and yours also. It would be a blessing for me to share time together with you some day.

I pray that that comes to pass. (Perhaps passing through Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International on the way to another cruise?)

Peace my friend.

Come back often!

Steve


Posted by Alex:

"Dear Steve,

I only came back momentarily for another shot at the issue.

And, as I've said, it isn't a matter of being "right" but "rite."

God bless you always and perhaps we'll see each other one day.

Take care"