B
bolinstephen
Guest
What is the difference between Traditional Western Catholicism’s view on deification, the Eastern rite Catholic view of deification and the Orthodox view on deification? 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
sowinskija
Guest
Not sure i understand your question…
B
BillyT926
Guest
Gosh, this sounds like an essay question.
There’s no difference between Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox views of theosis, they’re the same.
It’s ultimately a difference in focus, really based on Christology. The East has the highest Christology, with a focus on the Divinity of Christ, Who condescended Himself to become man. Easter Sunday is paramount in Eastern Christianity. Christ Transformed into the Resurrected Body is the model for humanity. And Eastern Liturgies focus on the people sharing in the Divinity and nourishing themselves to pilgrimmage toward the Divine.
The West is more Augustinian, and Thomistic in nature and has focused on Christ’s Sacred Humanity. If the Divine Liturgy favors Easter, Holy Mass favors (in the EF) Good Friday, and (in the OF) Holy Thursday. The Sacrifice on Calvary and the Sacred Banquet in the Upper Room. So Theosis is more implicit in the West, and explicit in the East.
Actually I feel the Last Gospel in the EF probably was the closest “Eastern” component, since St. John’s Gospel references the Logos being with God and God.
The EF is a bit more focused on the Divinity of Christ than the OF.
There’s no difference between Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox views of theosis, they’re the same.
It’s ultimately a difference in focus, really based on Christology. The East has the highest Christology, with a focus on the Divinity of Christ, Who condescended Himself to become man. Easter Sunday is paramount in Eastern Christianity. Christ Transformed into the Resurrected Body is the model for humanity. And Eastern Liturgies focus on the people sharing in the Divinity and nourishing themselves to pilgrimmage toward the Divine.
The West is more Augustinian, and Thomistic in nature and has focused on Christ’s Sacred Humanity. If the Divine Liturgy favors Easter, Holy Mass favors (in the EF) Good Friday, and (in the OF) Holy Thursday. The Sacrifice on Calvary and the Sacred Banquet in the Upper Room. So Theosis is more implicit in the West, and explicit in the East.
Actually I feel the Last Gospel in the EF probably was the closest “Eastern” component, since St. John’s Gospel references the Logos being with God and God.
The EF is a bit more focused on the Divinity of Christ than the OF.
B
BillyT926
Guest
For example, Deus is used quite a bit more often in the EF than the OF, but not as much as in the DL.
The Coptic Cyrillian (Miaphysite) Christology stresses the unity of Christ’s Divinity and Humanity. This union is emphasized in the Coptic view of theosis.
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14
“But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? …] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron.” - Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria
Hermias: Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?
Cyril: But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man. - St Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One
Hermias: But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as Incarnate, all needs there to confess that confusion and commixture take place the nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the excellency of Godhead?
Cyril: In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talker who says that confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired Scripture… - St Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14
“But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? …] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron.” - Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria
Hermias: Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?
Cyril: But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man. - St Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One
Hermias: But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as Incarnate, all needs there to confess that confusion and commixture take place the nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the excellency of Godhead?
Cyril: In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talker who says that confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired Scripture… - St Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One
- Status
- Not open for further replies.