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

[Ghosty]

Addai: If you wanted a demonstration of the error of point #1 in your post, Emil3 is a perfect example. The Latin tradition in general tends to be downright vehement in its insistance that we can truly see God as he is. It’s the perception that St. Gregory denied this vision which makes accepting him so difficult for many Latins.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Emil3]

To Ghosty:

Thanks for your responses; you are very well-read in these matters. I had no idea that the PALAMAS ‘issue’ led to problems before but I can see EASILY how it could via several venues.

I want to read for myself a bit more on this matter but I must tell you that I still have some difficulty accepting the ‘equivalency’ of Palamas and Thomistic interpretations and relegating them to mere intense theological/philosophical semantics; so I shall not question that matter until when & if I find any concrete evidence to the contrary.

 

[Ghosty]

To Ghosty:

Thanks for your responses; you are very well-read in these matters. I had no idea that the PALAMAS ‘issue’ led to problems before but I can see EASILY how it could via several venues.

I want to read for myself a bit more on this matter but I must tell you that I still have some difficulty accepting the ‘equivalency’ of Palamas and Thomistic interpretations and relegating them to mere intense theological/philosophical semantics; so I shall not question that matter until when & if I find any concrete evidence to the contrary.

I just want to clarify that I don’t think the differences are merely semantic, but I do think that the differences are more complementary than oppositional. In other words, the two different theological approaches come at the same question differently, and their answers are both orthodox and not at all in contradiction. Add on top of this the very different uses of terms (and different languages for that matter) and you have an easy set-up for confusion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Shin]

Beatific Vision to be an intellectual vision of God that occurs in the advanced unitive state of the spiritual life.

Actually, AFAIK this is incorrect. The beaitific vision is defined as the vision achieved by the saints in Heaven, distinctly not the end of the unitive path on this earth.

IE, in Heaven, once you have achieved this, you can no longer sin, etc.

What theosis is precisely defined as I have no idea…

 

[MGLechner]

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?

I love the Orthodox teaching on Theosis. I think Paul held to an understanding of Theosis when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 3.18: “And we all, with unveiled faces, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

The doctrine of Theosis is one of the key doctrines of the Eastern Church that is moving me ever closer to a conversion to Orthodoxy!

 

[Ghosty]

I love the Orthodox teaching on Theosis. I think Paul held to an understanding of Theosis when he wrote in 2 Corinthians 3.18: “And we all, with unveiled faces, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.”

The doctrine of Theosis is one of the key doctrines of the Eastern Church that is moving me ever closer to a conversion to Orthodoxy!

That teaching is found in the Catholic Church as well, especially in the Latin Church. I recommend checking out some in-depth Latin theology, especially the Doctors of the Church. Theosis is hardly unique to the Eastern Orthodox; it’s quite deeply entrenched in the Latin tradition, and of course it is brought out in the various Eastern Catholic traditions as well.

You won’t find it discussed much in the theology that is geared towards a modern “Protestant-by-osmosis” audience, since it’s so far outside the usual debates Catholics and Protestants have (which is odd, since it is fundamental to the original debate between Protestants and Catholics), so you won’t find it discussed in apologetic works. Read the writings of the Saints and you’ll see it all over the place though.

I recommend starting with “Interior Castles” by St. Theresa of Avila. It’s the least theologically heavy, in terms of terminology, and it deals with God dwelling in our souls by Grace (setting up His throne in the center of our interior castle, and shining outwards, to use her imagery), and how we grow in our experience of God through prayer and good works.

St. John of the Cross is also very good, but he uses a bit more technical terminology, so some experience with the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas is good to have before delving into “The Ascent of Mt. Carmel” and “Dark Night of the Soul”, which are both explicitely about theosis. Here’s one of my favorite passages from “Ascent of Mt. Carmel”:

1. In order that both these things may be the better understood, let us make a comparison. A ray of sunlight is striking a window. If the window is in any way stained or misty, the sun’s ray will be unable to illumine it and transform it into its own light, totally, as it would if it were clean of all these things, and pure; but it will illumine it to a lesser degree, in proportion as it is less free from those mists and stains; and will do so to a greater degree, in proportion as it is cleaner from them, and this will not be because of the sun’s ray, but because of itself; so much so that, if it be wholly pure and clean, the ray of sunlight will transform it and illumine it in such wise that it will itself seem to be a ray and will give the same light as the ray. Although in reality the window has a nature distinct from that of the ray itself, however much it may resemble it, yet we may say that that window is a ray of the sun or is light by participation. And the soul is like this window, whereupon is ever beating (or, to express it better, wherein is ever dwelling) this Divine light of the Being of God according to nature, which we have described.
2. In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God’s sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness.

This work is by a Doctor of the Church, and is a fundamental part of Latin theology which shapes every aspect of the tradition, yet is so often overlooked in theological discussions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[wynd]

That teaching is found in the Catholic Church as well, especially in the Latin Church. I recommend checking out some in-depth Latin theology, especially the Doctors of the Church. Theosis is hardly unique to the Eastern Orthodox; it’s quite deeply entrenched in the Latin tradition, and of course it is brought out in the various Eastern Catholic traditions as well.

You won’t find it discussed much in the theology that is geared towards a modern “Protestant-by-osmosis” audience, since it’s so far outside the usual debates Catholics and Protestants have (which is odd, since it is fundamental to the original debate between Protestants and Catholics), so you won’t find it discussed in apologetic works. Read the writings of the Saints and you’ll see it all over the place though.

Hi Ghosty,

I always see you make this claim, that the Latin church teaches theosis just as much as the Eastern churches. I am not disputing your claim, but I do have a question: How and when did the concept fall so far to the wayside of modern Roman Catholicism?

Btw, just curious: are you officially a Melkite now?

 

[Ghosty]

Hi Ghosty,

I always see you make this claim, that the Latin church teaches theosis just as much as the Eastern churches. I am not disputing your claim, but I do have a question: How and when did the concept fall so far to the wayside of modern Roman Catholicism?

Btw, just curious: are you officially a Melkite now?

Still in the process of making the Melkite thing “official”, but my entire spiritual life is Melkite now.

As for “when” theosis fell by the wayside, I don’t think there’s really a specific time that can be pin-pointed. It was clearly still around in the period just after Trent, as that’s when St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross were writing and their works were gaining notoriety, and the Council of Trent itself deals with the issue in a manner when it discusses justification. It was also being taught by major theologians at the Vatican after the turn of the 20th century, as Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explained it in his treatise on Grace.

That being said, the concept just seems to fall into the background somewhere between the 17th and 19th centuries, and other focuses came up. Reading the writings from that time period and you’ll find the major concern being that of Grace and Free Will (the Jansenist heresy exploded during that time, being a Catholic version of Calvinism) and other Protestant errors creeping into the Catholic Church. The understanding of theosis/deification seems to be coming back into popular Latin conciousness, though, perhaps in part due to the Catechism which teaches it, and the zeal that many have had for rediscovering the writings of the Saints and Doctors of the Church rather than simply memorizing the Baltimore Catechism.

I don’t think any major studies of this tide in Catholic thinking has been done, and I’m certainly not the one to do it. I’m just stating my layman’s observations, certainly nothing concrete and well-studied.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother wynd,

Hi Ghosty,

I always see you make this claim, that the Latin church teaches theosis just as much as the Eastern churches. I am not disputing your claim, but I do have a question: How and when did the concept fall so far to the wayside of modern Roman Catholicism?

Btw, just curious: are you officially a Melkite now?

Before I entered the Catholic Church, my inquiries led me to believe that the Council of Trent was THE standard of the Church on the issue. From what I read at Trent regarding sanctification/divinization, the Latin Church had always believed in what Easterns/Orientals call “theosis.”

Is it at all possible (forgive me if this sounds insulting) that you have read a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that normally seeks to create a chasm between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Is it possible that what you perceive as a “falling to the wayside” is not the result of the Latins actually doing so, but the result of anti-Catholic propaganda that merely claims that the Latins have done so?

Here is a possible reason. As you know, the West does not exactly accept the essence/energies distinction that Easterns and Orientals do (they simply have a different way of expressing the Truth that “God is other”). Since theosis is inherently connected to the theology on essence/energies, is it possible that amidst all the rhetoric and polemic over the issue, Easterns somehow concluded that because the Latins don’t accept the distinction, then the Latins don’t accept theosis?

Here is an excerpt from the article “Sanctifying Grace” from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia:
“To the difficult question: Of which special attribute of God does this participation partake? Theologians can answer only by conjectures. Manifestly only the communicable attributes can at all be considered in the matter, wherefore Gonet (Clyp. thomist., IV, ii, x) was clearly wrong when he said that the attribute of participation was the aseitas, absolutely the most incommunicable of all the Divine attributes. Ripalda (loc. cit., disp. xx; sect. 14) is probably nearer the truth when he suggests Divine sanctity as the attribute, for the very idea of sanctifying grace brings the sanctity of God into the foreground.”

This sounds pretty much identical to the essence/energies distinction AND theosis without the terminology. I certainly can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a time when the Latins ever divested themselves of this teaching, especially as the Council of Trent is so important to the Latins.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Mardukm:

This sounds pretty much identical to the essence/energies distinction AND theosis without the terminology. I certainly can’t p(name removed by moderator)oint a time when the Latins ever divested themselves of this teaching, especially as the Council of Trent is so important to the Latins.

The teaching was certainly never dropped by any stretch, but I think it may have fallen a bit out of the “public eye” due to other pressing matters, like the rise of Jansenism, Rationalism, and Modernism. Of course I could be wrong on this, as my exposure to that time period of Latin theology is rather limited.

Peace and God bless!

 

[wynd]

Before I entered the Catholic Church, my inquiries led me to believe that the Council of Trent was THE standard of the Church on the issue. From what I read at Trent regarding sanctification/divinization, the Latin Church had always believed in what Easterns/Orientals call “theosis.”

Is it at all possible (forgive me if this sounds insulting) that you have read a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda that normally seeks to create a chasm between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Is it possible that what you perceive as a “falling to the wayside” is not the result of the Latins actually doing so, but the result of anti-Catholic propaganda that merely claims that the Latins have done so?

Here is a possible reason. As you know, the West does not exactly accept the essence/energies distinction that Easterns and Orientals do (they simply have a different way of expressing the Truth that “God is other”). Since theosis is inherently connected to the theology on essence/energies, is it possible that amidst all the rhetoric and polemic over the issue, Easterns somehow concluded that because the Latins don’t accept the distinction, then the Latins don’t accept theosis?

Hi marduk,

I attended the Newman Center (student Catholic church) at my university for a number of years, during which time I started to learn more about Eastern Christianity and theosis. I brought up this topic to many of the lay leaders and priests there hoping to get more info, but the response was that it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches and I would be wise not to continue reading about it or Eastern Christianity. This certainly squared with what some (not all) Eastern Christians said about Latin theology, so I assumed it was true. Ghosty was the first person I’ve ever seen that makes the claim that Latin Christianity teaches theosis too, so I’m just curious

 

[mardukm]

I attended the Newman Center (student Catholic church) at my university for a number of years, during which time I started to learn more about Eastern Christianity and theosis. I brought up this topic to many of the lay leaders and priests there hoping to get more info, but the response was that it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches and I would be wise not to continue reading about it or Eastern Christianity. This certainly squared with what some (not all) Eastern Christians said about Latin theology, so I assumed it was true. Ghosty was the first person I’ve ever seen that makes the claim that Latin Christianity teaches theosis too, so I’m just curious

Ahhh! Now I understand. It seems the Latins too have been guilty either of ignorance or outright propaganda against the Easterns. I have experienced that myself from Protestants - it is a misunderstanding that theosis signifies actually becoming deity. Perhaps that was the rejection you experienced - not a rejection of theosis per se, but a rejection of a caricature of theosis. I’m thankful that we have a forum where we can clear all this up.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Hi marduk,

I attended the Newman Center (student Catholic church) at my university for a number of years, during which time I started to learn more about Eastern Christianity and theosis. I brought up this topic to many of the lay leaders and priests there hoping to get more info, but the response was that it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches and I would be wise not to continue reading about it or Eastern Christianity. This certainly squared with what some (not all) Eastern Christians said about Latin theology, so I assumed it was true. Ghosty was the first person I’ve ever seen that makes the claim that Latin Christianity teaches theosis too, so I’m just curious

It’s right there in the Catechism, paragraph 460.

Show these folks the writings of Aquinas, John of the Cross, and Theresa of Avila too. If they’re really up for some heavy theology, have them check out Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange’s writings on Grace, where he wrote:

Therefore Deity as such cannot be partaken of except by some essentially supernatural gift. And, conversely, grace cannot be essentially supernatural unless it is a formal and physical participation in the divine nature as divine, that is, in the intimate life of God, or Deity as Deity, ordaining us to the knowledge of God as He Himself knows Himself immediately and to the love of God as He loves Himself.

Furthermore, sanctifying grace is a participation in Deity as it is in itself and not merely as it is known to us. For it is produced in our soul by an immediate infusion altogether independently of our knowledge of the Deity; and just as Deity as such is communicated to the Son by eternal generation, so Deity as such is partaken of by the just, especially by the blessed, through divine adoption.

And one last example, taken directly from the Old Catholic Encyclopedia (ever popular as it is), from the article on “Supernatural Gift”:

The absolutely supernatural gifts, which alone are the supernatural properly so called, are summed up in the divine adoption of man to be the son and heir of God. This expression, and the explanations given of it by the sacred writers, make it evident that the sonship is something far more than a relation founded upon the absence of sin; it is of a thoroughly intimate character, raising the creature from its naturally humble estate, and making it the object of a peculiar benevolence and complaisance on God’s part, admitting it to filial love, and enabling it to become God’s heir, i.e. a partaker of God’s own beatitude…

…

As a consequence of this Divine adoption and new birth we are made “partakers of the divine nature” (theias koinonoi physeos, 2 Peter 1:4). The whole context of this passage and the passages already quoted show that this expression is to be taken as literally as possible not, indeed, as a generation from the substance of God, but as a communication of Divine life by the power of God, and a most intimate indwelling of His substance in the creature. Hence, too, the inheritance is not confined to natural goods. It embraces the possession and fruition of the good which is the natural inheritance of the Son of God, viz., the beatific vision.

This last citation is especially good, because it directly connects deification/theosis with the Beatific Vision.

I agree with Mardukm that these people’s resistance to the dogma likely comes from a misunderstanding, most likely that deification is in some way connected with the Mormon teaching that we naturally have the same nature as God, and will become Gods ourselves someday. That’s not the teaching of deification, but unfortunately that’s the connotation it carries for some.

I hope these few citations serve to show that this is not a dogma that is unfamiliar to the Latin tradition at all.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Hi marduk,

I attended the Newman Center (student Catholic church) at my university for a number of years, during which time I started to learn more about Eastern Christianity and theosis. I brought up this topic to many of the lay leaders and priests there hoping to get more info, but the response was that it’s not what the Catholic Church teaches and I would be wise not to continue reading about it or Eastern Christianity. This certainly squared with what some (not all) Eastern Christians said about Latin theology, so I assumed it was true. Ghosty was the first person I’ve ever seen that makes the claim that Latin Christianity teaches theosis too, so I’m just curious

Theosis, as a term, is not used in Latin theology; Sanctification and Deification* are part of the theologies of both sides. In the west, it’s wrapped in purgatorial fire as much as sanctifying graces; in the east, it’s wrapped almost exclusively in sanctifying grace, as a process called theosis.

Theosis is the process of becoming like God, so that we may be in the presence of God (which is the Beatific vision of Latin terms). It’s the journey; it parallels Latin Purgation. The beatific vision is the end result of theosis and purgation: to see the face of God and live!

• becoming like God, not becoming God.

 

[antgaria]

Enjoying the discussion…

 

[rqdsb250]

Now that is a lot of brass air fittings liangdianup.com/subpages/airfitting_1.htm there is just about every type
of air fitting that you could want. Wholesale prices too. I guess these could be used as small water pipe fitting also. I
used some of the parts to make my babington wvo burner.

 

[Eucharisted]

To some Palamites this sounds too much like Barlaam’s argument

Ahh, so that’s why I was attacked for saying no creature can shine with the Inaccessible Light of God.