Are the Beautific Vision and Theosis considered to be the same?

[TEX]

Are the Beautific Vision and Theosis considered to be the same?

Not sure if these are to be understood as two different terms for the same experience or not. The Beautific vision seems more passive while the concept of Theosis as I’ve heard it explained seems more active, but maybe I’m not understanding.

 

[mardukm]

Are the Beautific Vision and Theosis considered to be the same?

Not sure if these are to be understood as two different terms for the same experience or not. The Beautific vision seems more passive while the concept of Theosis as I’ve heard it explained seems more active, but maybe I’m not understanding.

Copts don’t speculate as hard and fast as our brother Latins and Easterns. What goes on in the afterlife is all pious understanding IMHO. I do know that a common thread shared by all (Easterns, Latins, Orientals) is that we cannot become what is the Essence of God, and we all reject the Gnostic idea of absorption.

I know that an Eastern objection is that the doctrine of the Beatific Vision states we can behold God as He truly is. Easterns claim we cannot ever comprehend the Essence. Personally, I do not understand the objection. We can certainly behold something without comprehending it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Madaglan]

Are the Beautific Vision and Theosis considered to be the same?

Not sure if these are to be understood as two different terms for the same experience or not. The Beautific vision seems more passive while the concept of Theosis as I’ve heard it explained seems more active, but maybe I’m not understanding.

Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand the Beatific Vision to be an intellectual vision of God that occurs in the advanced unitive state of the spiritual life.

Theosis, in my understanding, is that towards which the whole Christian life is based, or should be based–i.e. restoring the divine likeness of the soul through union with God. Theosis involves ascetic struggle against the passions and recourse to the medicine of the Church–the Mysteries (Sacraments).

Theosis is how Eastern Christians understand salvation. So, it would better approximate the justification/sanctification of the Latin Church.

Now, a bolder question would be: is the Beatific Vision the same as Vision of Uncreated Light?

 

[mardukm]

Theosis is how Eastern Christians understand salvation. So, it would better approximate the justification/sanctification of the Latin Church.

That’s a good explanation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Now, a bolder question would be: is the Beatific Vision the same as Vision of Uncreated Light?

I was just about to make a comment about the comparison between the Beatific Vision and the Eastern concept of Hesychasm. You beat me to it.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bpbasilphx]

The vision of the Uncreated Light is something that can happen in this life, as at the Transfiguration or the story of St. Seraphim of Sarov as related by Nicholas Motovilov.

And I’ve been wondering the last few days if the “glory of the Lord” that shone round about the shepherds at the Nativity was the Uncreated Light.

 

[TEX]

Others can correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand the Beatific Vision to be an intellectual vision of God that occurs in the advanced unitive state of the spiritual life.

Now, a bolder question would be: is the Beatific Vision the same as Vision of Uncreated Light?

So can we have the Beautific Vision while we are still alive here on Earth? I’m not sure I follow what an advanced unitive state is exactly.

What, exactly, is the uncreated light you speak of?

 

[mardukm]

And didn’t Moses have the Beatific Vision? Or is that the Uncreated Light? Or perhaps they really are the same thing?

 

[Diak]

A good discussion can be found in Matthew Tsakanikas’ Reclaiming Deification in the Latin West.

 

[Ghosty]

A good discussion can be found in Matthew Tsakanikas’ Reclaiming Deification in the Latin West.

Is there a source for that article online? I know I read it before, and I recall it being quite good, but I can’t find it anywhere now.

As for the original questions, this area is one of my major focuses of interest. It’s a big one to me because when I entered the Catholic Church I only knew of Latin writings, and I found theosis all over the place in my favorite theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila to name just a few of the most well known. Then I came across the accusation that the West didn’t have this concept of theosis, despite the fact that my Dominican instructors were talking about it every day (though not with the word theosis, obviously). It took me a long time to figure out which “West” was being referred to when these accusations were being made, but I came to realize that what is actually being referred to is the largely Protestant-influenced post-Trent discussions where the focus is on sins and how they are “cleaned up” in an almost accountant-like manner.

I found that prior to, and at, Trent, one of the major dividing lines between the Catholics and the Protestant reformers was precisely over this question of theosis. Are our sins merely transactionally forgiven, or does God fill us with His own Divine Life and therefore obliterate all sin in His purity which fills us? Anyone familiar with the Catholic side of that debate knows that “being filled with the Divine Life” played heavily in the Catholic answer to Protestant notions such as our sins being merely “covered up”, so theosis (or deification, as it is called in Latin-based terminology) is actually quite central to the fundamental Latin theology, it just unfortunately got pushed aside by a lot of other issues, and by the fact that it was almost impossible to dialogue with most Protestants when holding staunchly to such views and terminology.

So here’s my perspective on the matter. The Beautific Vision is not the same as theosis, but does refer to one part of it. Theosis would be better described in Western terms as the filling of people with the Divine Life (Grace) which transforms us into true children of God, and enables us to work in Divine and Holy ways (not necessarily by working miracles, but rather in the sense of us working with God, and as God would work). Theosis in this life would be most comparable to the infusion and growth of the Theological Virtues, which are a share in the Divine Nature (Faith and Hope are a share in the Divine Wisdom, and Charity is the share in Divine Love, for example). This transformation and share of Divine Life is prayed for in many traditional Latin prayers, including the Rosary.

The Beautific Vision, or direct vision and enjoyment of God, is really only the final “part” of theosis, the “end goal”. We must be made like God to see God, and in seeing God we are like God. It’s the reason for theosis, since it’s the highest attainment of it, but it also doesn’t encapsulate the whole meaning of theosis which includes the journey as well as the destination. This doesn’t mean that the journey isn’t discussed in the Latin tradition, it just means that it’s distinguished in terminology. This also explains why the Beautific Vision seems more “passive” than theosis; it is because it refers only to the part of theosis which is the receiving of, and vision of, God Himself. That being said, the Beautific Vision isn’t properly “passive”, as we still must “cling to it” in Grace (something that infallibly occurs to those in Heaven), but it definitely refers to the more “passive” element of sharing the Divine Life.

So to use some Latin terms to summarize, as Madaglan has already hit the nail on the head on the head in this regard, is that though theosis implicitely includes the Beautific Vision in its definition, it’s most akin to justification and sanctification. With that comparison it’s easy to see how it is active, since we Catholics believe that justification and sanctification can’t be merely passive receptions, but are our active approach to God along with God pouring Himself into us. It’s also easy to see how the Beautific Vision is the “end” of sanctification, in the sense of being the ultimate expression and goal; after all, with the Beautific Vision we possess the Divine Life and Holiness as fully as humanly possible.

Incidentally, the Beautific Vision is regarded as something that can happen in this life (in a manner of speaking; it truly goes beyond the normal living we are used to), but it’s a fleeting thing and not the permanent “holding fast to the vision of God” that we will have in Heaven. St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila speak extensively on this, and St. Thomas Aquinas talks about it in reference to Moses and St. Paul (Moses is said to have explicitely seen and spoken to God, while Paul implicitely so when he was “caught up in the clouds and didn’t know if he was living or dead”.

As for the Uncreated Light, that’s a whole other can of worms I’ll delve into in my next post.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Is there a source for that article online? I know I read it before, and I recall it being quite good, but I can’t find it anywhere now.

As for the original questions, this area is one of my major focuses of interest. It’s a big one to me because when I entered the Catholic Church I only knew of Latin writings, and I found theosis all over the place in my favorite theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila to name just a few of the most well known. Then I came across the accusation that the West didn’t have this concept of theosis, despite the fact that my Dominican instructors were talking about it every day (though not with the word theosis, obviously). It took me a long time to figure out which “West” was being referred to when these accusations were being made, but I came to realize that what is actually being referred to is the largely Protestant-influenced post-Trent discussions where the focus is on sins and how they are “cleaned up” in an almost accountant-like manner.

I found that prior to, and at, Trent, one of the major dividing lines between the Catholics and the Protestant reformers was precisely over this question of theosis. Are our sins merely transactionally forgiven, or does God fill us with His own Divine Life and therefore obliterate all sin in His purity which fills us? Anyone familiar with the Catholic side of that debate knows that “being filled with the Divine Life” played heavily in the Catholic answer to Protestant notions such as our sins being merely “covered up”, so theosis (or deification, as it is called in Latin-based terminology) is actually quite central to the fundamental Latin theology, it just unfortunately got pushed aside by a lot of other issues, and by the fact that it was almost impossible to dialogue with most Protestants when holding staunchly to such views and terminology.

So here’s my perspective on the matter. The Beautific Vision is not the same as theosis, but does refer to one part of it. Theosis would be better described in Western terms as the filling of people with the Divine Life (Grace) which transforms us into true children of God, and enables us to work in Divine and Holy ways (not necessarily by working miracles, but rather in the sense of us working with God, and as God would work). Theosis in this life would be most comparable to the infusion and growth of the Theological Virtues, which are a share in the Divine Nature (Faith and Hope are a share in the Divine Wisdom, and Charity is the share in Divine Love, for example). This transformation and share of Divine Life is prayed for in many traditional Latin prayers, including the Rosary.

The Beautific Vision, or direct vision and enjoyment of God, is really only the final “part” of theosis, the “end goal”. We must be made like God to see God, and in seeing God we are like God. It’s the reason for theosis, since it’s the highest attainment of it, but it also doesn’t encapsulate the whole meaning of theosis which includes the journey as well as the destination. This doesn’t mean that the journey isn’t discussed in the Latin tradition, it just means that it’s distinguished in terminology. This also explains why the Beautific Vision seems more “passive” than theosis; it is because it refers only to the part of theosis which is the receiving of, and vision of, God Himself. That being said, the Beautific Vision isn’t properly “passive”, as we still must “cling to it” in Grace (something that infallibly occurs to those in Heaven), but it definitely refers to the more “passive” element of sharing the Divine Life.

So to use some Latin terms to summarize, as Madaglan has already hit the nail on the head on the head in this regard, is that though theosis implicitely includes the Beautific Vision in its definition, it’s most akin to justification and sanctification. With that comparison it’s easy to see how it is active, since we Catholics believe that justification and sanctification can’t be merely passive receptions, but are our active approach to God along with God pouring Himself into us. It’s also easy to see how the Beautific Vision is the “end” of sanctification, in the sense of being the ultimate expression and goal; after all, with the Beautific Vision we possess the Divine Life and Holiness as fully as humanly possible.

Incidentally, the Beautific Vision is regarded as something that can happen in this life (in a manner of speaking; it truly goes beyond the normal living we are used to), but it’s a fleeting thing and not the permanent “holding fast to the vision of God” that we will have in Heaven. St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila speak extensively on this, and St. Thomas Aquinas talks about it in reference to Moses and St. Paul (Moses is said to have explicitely seen and spoken to God, while Paul implicitely so when he was “caught up in the clouds and didn’t know if he was living or dead”.

As for the Uncreated Light, that’s a whole other can of worms I’ll delve into in my next post.

Peace and God bless!

Hi Ghosty,

Have you ever read The Spiritual Life?

 

[Emil3]

Most of you on this thread are well advanced beyond my capabilities/resources, nowever, I am rather surprised that noboby mentioned specifically the concept of Gregory Palamas who taught thay the ‘ENERGIES’ of God can be seen in the afterlife but not his essence as is implicit in the ‘Beatific Vision’—This concept is accepted by the Orthodox.
What about Eastern catholics??

 

[Ghosty]

The Uncreated Light is an expression either developed by, or at least popularized by, the 13th-14th century Byzantine theologian and Saint, Gregory Palamas (feast day is celebrated on the Second Sunday of Lent in many Byzantine-rite Catholic Churches).

It’s a complicated term that refers both to transformitive Grace, i.e. the sharing of Divine Life, and the vision of God that can come with this sharing. It comes out of the debate between Palamas and a theologian named Barlaam over whether or not the mystic monastics (who practiced a prayer life very similar to the Carmelites in the West, if that gives better perspective) really saw God when they experienced what they called the “Divine Light” in prayer. It’s not clear from the arguments whether the monks were actually having a “vision”, or whether they were using “Divine Light” metaphorically for the entire experience of God they had through mystical (contemplative) prayer, but that’s another issue.

Barlaam said that what they were experiencing couldn’t really be God, because God is utterly transcendant and can’t be experienced by humans, much like light transcends the ability of the blind to see, or how abstract ideas and reasoning transcend the nature of an insect. What they were experiencing, according to Barlaam, was merely an effect that God made on their souls, or possibly a vision created by God for them so they could have a “pleasant exposure” and know that they were doing well. Whatever it was, according to Barlaam, it was not a real experience of God.

Palamas argued back, saying that if it was just some creature or effect, then we do not ever experience God, and God is completely removed from us. He pointed out how absurd that was, since we believe that Grace is a sharing of Divine Life, but he also wanted to stress that just because we can see God, we can’t violate His transcendance by “learning our way up to the vision”, as if the vision of God consisted merely of learning all the theological Truths about Him (an idea that Barlaam may have suggested), nor do we comprehend Him when we do see Him (this is where the Essence/Energy distinction comes up, but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary to understand for our purposes). So Palamas stressed that we do really see God, but that this doesn’t violate His transcendance, and this vision of God is generally spoken of as the Uncreated Light. This refers not only to the experience of the monks, but also to the fact that after seeing God, Moses’ face glowed, and also to the fact that the Apostles saw the Glory of God at the Transfiguration as a beaming light coming from Christ. The “Uncreated” aspect is a counter to Barlaam’s claim that it is a creaturely vision, and not a vision of the “Uncreated God”.

The Uncreated Light became a staple of Byzantine thought after the Palamite Debate, sometimes to an unnecessary extreme in my own opinion (I think that there is too much emphasis put on the literal “light” aspect, and not enough on the direct experience of Divinity that can manifest itself in many, many ways beyond an actual experience of “Divine Light”). From my view, however, it is a true account of what in the West might be called “infused Contemplation”, where God puts Himself in us and in contact with us directly. It’s sought after, especially by Byzantine monks, in much the same way Contemplation is sought after by the Carmelites (and many others too, but they are the most obvious and explicit) in the Latin tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Most of you on this thread are well advanced beyond my capabilities/resources, nowever, I am rather surp[rised that noboby mentioned specifically the concept of Gregory Palamas who taught thay the ‘ENERGIES’ of God can be seen in the afterlife but not his essence as is implicit in the ‘Beatific Vision’—This concept is accepted by the Orthodox.
What about Eastern catholics??

As for the Essence/Energies matter, which I had hoped to not have to go into, I think it’s mostly a matter of different theological definitions being used rather than a true conflict. In Latin theology the distinction is made by saying that we contemplate the Divine Essence, but we don’t comprehend the Divine Essence. In Byzantine theology there is no language of “imperfect contemplation” of an Essence, so if you contemplate the Essence, you’re assumed to comprehend it entirely, and this is impossible with the Divine Essence since it’s infinite and transcendant.

So while in Latin theology it would simply be said that one contemplates without comprehending, in Byzantine theology that expression doesn’t work because the nuances of the definitions are slightly different, so a distinction is made between knowing the Divine Essence, and knowing the Divine Energies (which is “God going out”). Both refer to God, they are not two seperate things, but one refers to God being totally and fully as He is (Essence), and the other refers to God reaching out and sharing what is possible to share of Himself (Energies). It’s merely the Byzantine theological way of preserving the same distinction that Latin theology holds, namely that we can know God directly, but we can’t know God fully.

Peace and God bless!
[/quote]

 

[mardukm]

Brother Ghosty, I love your mind.

Blessings

 

[Ghosty]

Wow, thanks.

I assure you it is more from lots of prayer and the Grace of God though, and not my own mind.

Peace and God bless!

 

[TEX]

Is there a source for that article online? I know I read it before, and I recall it being quite good, but I can’t find it anywhere now.

As for the original questions, this area is one of my major focuses of interest. It’s a big one to me because when I entered the Catholic Church I only knew of Latin writings, and I found theosis all over the place in my favorite theologians, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, and St. Theresa of Avila to name just a few of the most well known. Then I came across the accusation that the West didn’t have this concept of theosis, despite the fact that my Dominican instructors were talking about it every day (though not with the word theosis, obviously). It took me a long time to figure out which “West” was being referred to when these accusations were being made, but I came to realize that what is actually being referred to is the largely Protestant-influenced post-Trent discussions where the focus is on sins and how they are “cleaned up” in an almost accountant-like manner.

I found that prior to, and at, Trent, one of the major dividing lines between the Catholics and the Protestant reformers was precisely over this question of theosis. Are our sins merely transactionally forgiven, or does God fill us with His own Divine Life and therefore obliterate all sin in His purity which fills us? Anyone familiar with the Catholic side of that debate knows that “being filled with the Divine Life” played heavily in the Catholic answer to Protestant notions such as our sins being merely “covered up”, so theosis (or deification, as it is called in Latin-based terminology) is actually quite central to the fundamental Latin theology, it just unfortunately got pushed aside by a lot of other issues, and by the fact that it was almost impossible to dialogue with most Protestants when holding staunchly to such views and terminology.

So here’s my perspective on the matter. The Beautific Vision is not the same as theosis, but does refer to one part of it. Theosis would be better described in Western terms as the filling of people with the Divine Life (Grace) which transforms us into true children of God, and enables us to work in Divine and Holy ways (not necessarily by working miracles, but rather in the sense of us working with God, and as God would work). Theosis in this life would be most comparable to the infusion and growth of the Theological Virtues, which are a share in the Divine Nature (Faith and Hope are a share in the Divine Wisdom, and Charity is the share in Divine Love, for example). This transformation and share of Divine Life is prayed for in many traditional Latin prayers, including the Rosary.

The Beautific Vision, or direct vision and enjoyment of God, is really only the final “part” of theosis, the “end goal”. We must be made like God to see God, and in seeing God we are like God. It’s the reason for theosis, since it’s the highest attainment of it, but it also doesn’t encapsulate the whole meaning of theosis which includes the journey as well as the destination. This doesn’t mean that the journey isn’t discussed in the Latin tradition, it just means that it’s distinguished in terminology. This also explains why the Beautific Vision seems more “passive” than theosis; it is because it refers only to the part of theosis which is the receiving of, and vision of, God Himself. That being said, the Beautific Vision isn’t properly “passive”, as we still must “cling to it” in Grace (something that infallibly occurs to those in Heaven), but it definitely refers to the more “passive” element of sharing the Divine Life.

So to use some Latin terms to summarize, as Madaglan has already hit the nail on the head on the head in this regard, is that though theosis implicitely includes the Beautific Vision in its definition, it’s most akin to justification and sanctification. With that comparison it’s easy to see how it is active, since we Catholics believe that justification and sanctification can’t be merely passive receptions, but are our active approach to God along with God pouring Himself into us. It’s also easy to see how the Beautific Vision is the “end” of sanctification, in the sense of being the ultimate expression and goal; after all, with the Beautific Vision we possess the Divine Life and Holiness as fully as humanly possible.

Incidentally, the Beautific Vision is regarded as something that can happen in this life (in a manner of speaking; it truly goes beyond the normal living we are used to), but it’s a fleeting thing and not the permanent “holding fast to the vision of God” that we will have in Heaven. St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila speak extensively on this, and St. Thomas Aquinas talks about it in reference to Moses and St. Paul (Moses is said to have explicitely seen and spoken to God, while Paul implicitely so when he was “caught up in the clouds and didn’t know if he was living or dead”.

As for the Uncreated Light, that’s a whole other can of worms I’ll delve into in my next post.

Peace and God bless!

That was VERY VERY helpful…thanks so much for taking the time to type it all out so clearly.

May the Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Addai]

And didn’t Moses have the Beatific Vision? Or is that the Uncreated Light? Or perhaps they really are the same thing?

It is the light that existed before the Sun and Moon were created. The Light that comes from God himself. EO mystics are said to be able to see this in this liftime when they reach a high degree of theosis. This is one claim that had core RCs consider heresy (it contradicts some basic teachings of the Beatific vision which they consider dogma such as 1) we cannot see God as he really is, and 2) This ultimate step is reached here on earth rather then in the afterlife).

 

[Ghosty]

This is one claim that had core RCs consider heresy (it contradicts some basic teachings of the Beatific vision which they consider dogma such as 1) we cannot see God as he really is, and 2) This ultimate step is reached here on earth rather then in the afterlife).

Actually, point one usually goes the other way around: the Latins are attacked by EOs for claiming that we see God as He really is in the Beautific Vision. In fact, the entire point of the Beautific Vision is that we see God as He is, and this is expressed by saying that we will see God in His Essence, a terminology rejected by the Palamites.

In contrast, the major reason for Latin rejection of Palamism is precisely that it seems to say that we don’t see God as He is, but only “the things around God” (this is the actual language of St. Gregory Palamas).

As for point 2, I’m not sure what you mean. Both the Palamites and the Latins agree that the ultimate step occurs in the afterlife, and both believe that one can still see God in a fleeting way here in this life (it’s called “infused contemplation” in the West, and there’s a LOT of writing on it, especially by Latin Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. John of the Cross; the latter two wrote almost exclusively on this topic).

The major difference with regard to the Latins and the Palamites on the Uncreated Light is that the Latins typically would say that the experience of Light is not actually a direct vision of God, since God is not a light-source. Direct visions of God do occur in this life, and they are real and not merely symbolic, but light is a symbol of Divine Glory, not Divine Glory itself; we may see them both together, but they shouldn’t be confused with eachother. To some Palamites this sounds too much like Barlaam’s argument (and most EO Palamites I’ve read confuse Barlaam’s argument with Latin theology, as it seems you might as well with the points above since those points are pure Barlaamism; perhaps you read these points in EO works?), though in fact it is not the same since Latin theology explicitely teaches that there can be Divine vision in this life, and that such things come from Grace which is the sharing of Divine Life, something Barlaam rejected outright.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Emil3]

Actually, point one usually goes the other way around: the Latins are attacked by EOs for claiming that we see God as He really is in the Beautific Vision. In fact, the entire point of the Beautific Vision is that we see God as He is, and this is expressed by saying that we will see God in His Essence, a terminology rejected by the Palamites.

In contrast, the major reason for Latin rejection of Palamism is precisely that it seems to say that we don’t see God as He is, but only “the things around God” (this is the actual language of St. Gregory Palamas).

As for point 2, I’m not sure what you mean. Both the Palamites and the Latins agree that the ultimate step occurs in the afterlife, and both believe that one can still see God in a fleeting way here in this life (it’s called “infused contemplation” in the West, and there’s a LOT of writing on it, especially by Latin Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. John of the Cross; the latter two wrote almost exclusively on this topic).

The major difference with regard to the Latins and the Palamites on the Uncreated Light is that the Latins typically would say that the experience of Light is not actually a direct vision of God, since God is not a light-source. Direct visions of God do occur in this life, and they are real and not merely symbolic, but light is a symbol of Divine Glory, not Divine Glory itself; we may see them both together, but they shouldn’t be confused with eachother. To some Palamites this sounds too much like Barlaam’s argument (and most EO Palamites I’ve read confuse Barlaam’s argument with Latin theology, as it seems you might as well with the points above since those points are pure Barlaamism; perhaps you read these points in EO works?), though in fact it is not the same since Latin theology explicitely teaches that there can be Divine vision in this life, and that such things come from Grace which is the sharing of Divine Life, something Barlaam rejected outright.

Peace and God bless!

WOW—that is a great explanation and it fits in precisely with a book on the Schism which I am reading.

Palamas espoused his thesis long after the schism----his writings/beliefs DENY that we can see the Beatific Vision–(GOD AS HE IS)!----The RCC CHURCH does not agree with that!; THE ORTHODOX do!- Many a good trusting Catholic soul has uttered their last breath after a religious life praying that they may see God–AS OUR CHURCH PROMISED THEM!

Please shed some light!—Thanks.