Eastern Rite Catechisms?

[Vico]

Here’s an example of how the CCC overlooks the Eastern perspective. In the Latin perspective, the eschatological end of man in the beatific vision. In the Byzantine perspective, the eschatogical end of man is theosis, the process by which we are united to God by participating in God’s divine energies. In the CCC, there are five references in the CCC to the beatific vision. There are no references to theosis, deification, or divinization. There are also no references to participation in God’s divine energies. One cannot have an appreciation of the Byzantine understanding of salvation apart from theosis and God’s divine energies, yet the CCC makes no mention of either. This is just one example of why many Easterners, including me, view the CCC as Latin, and not universal in perspective.

Another example is that there are far more references from Western Fathers and ecclesiastical writers than there are from Eastern Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. One of the traditional Greek Doctors of the Church, St. Basil the Great, isn’t even referenced at all, and St. Augustine is referenced far more times than Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom all three combined.

Having said this, I’m not anti-CCC. I do think it is a great resource. I have not infrequently used it to demonstrate Catholic teaching. But I reject the mentality that Eastern Catholics have no need of their own catechisms, because all they need is the CCC, which I do not view as being universal. On the contrary, it is very Western in perspective.

The CCC uses the word divinization rather than theosis, for example:

398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36

[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

 

[Vico]

So when the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch are standing together, the Pope is just fooling around and not recognizing the 2nd place of honor of the EP in a future united Church?

It was at the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869 A.D.) that recognition of Constantinople occurred by Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia has:The papal legates signed its decrees, but with reservation of the papal action. Here, for the first time, Rome recognized the ancient claim of Constantinople to the second place among the five great patriarchates. Greek pride, however, was offended by the compulsory signature of the aforesaid Roman formulary of reconciliation, and in a subsequent conference of Greek ecclesiastical and civil authorities the newly-converted Bulgarians were declared subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and not to Rome.

Shahan, T. (1908). Fourth Council of Constantinople. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/04310b.htm

 

[Peter_J]

The Orientale Lumen Conference XVIII last month in DC was on the topic “Ecumenical Dimensions of Marriage” The plenary sessions are all available on Ancient Faith Radio. You might find they help with your confusion, or not. I would suggest listening to Met. Kallistos first but not only to his.

Nice! I knew that the OLC took place a few weeks ago, but I didn’t realize that the talks have already been posted. Thanks for the link.

 

[steve_b]

Here’s an example of how the CCC overlooks the Eastern perspective. In the Latin perspective, the eschatological end of man in the beatific vision. In the Byzantine perspective, the eschatogical end of man is theosis, the process by which we are united to God by participating in God’s divine energies. In the CCC, there are five references in the CCC to the beatific vision. There are no references to theosis, deification, or divinization. There are also no references to participation in God’s divine energies. One cannot have an appreciation of the Byzantine understanding of salvation apart from theosis and God’s divine energies, yet the CCC makes no mention of either. This is just one example of why many Easterners, including me, view the CCC as Latin, and not universal in perspective.

Theosis isn’t a term used, but sharing in the “Divine nature” is.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=divine+nature&xsubmit=Search&s=SS
R:

Another example is that there are far more references from Western Fathers and ecclesiastical writers than there are from Eastern Fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

All I said in providig the index was, both East and West contributed richly. It wasn’t one sided.
R:

Having said this, I’m not anti-CCC. I do think it is a great resource. I have not infrequently used it to demonstrate Catholic teaching. But I reject the mentality that Eastern Catholics have no need of their own catechisms, because all they need is the CCC, which I do not view as being universal. On the contrary, it is very Western in perspective.

I’m cool with the East making their own Catechisms.

Would you agree, Re: your opening point on “theosis”

The term “Divine nature” and Theosis, are pretty much synonymous? It’s just that the scriptures use “Divine Nature” not “Theosis.”

would you agree with that?

 

[5Loaves]

I found Fr Nicholas gave broad even vague answers to those questions and I was looking for specifics. So what I found lacking in those interviews, is how general he was, and non specific.

I find Abbot Nicholas’ responses complete. What you consider “general” and I consider “complete” I suspect it’s related to a differences in mind set.

We’re asked to fit our round theology into the square Latin tradition. Many things the Latin Church has defined are not within our theological tradition, they are just foreign to us.

 

[steve_b]

I find Abbot Nicholas’ responses complete. What you consider “general” and I consider “complete” I suspect it’s related to a differences in mind set.

We’re asked to fit our round theology into the square Latin tradition. Many things the Latin Church has defined are not within our theological tradition, they are just foreign to us.

Now THAT’s a vague response.

Oaky I’ll take a guess at trying to make something specific

perhaps you’re thinking of theosis ?

see #64 . was the issue answered? Ryan hasn’t responded yet

Unless you’re specific, this round / square analogy doesn’t work for me. Using different terms for the same reality (theosis vs divine nature) is not a square / round analogy in reference to either theology or tradition.

Here’s another example as you know, we in the West hear over and over again from the East. “scholasticism”

Do you know where the East got it’s prejudice and animus towards scholasticism from?

#131 link to Bp Ware’s book “Orthodox Church”
in Bp Wares book, “Orthodox Church” the section titled “Church under Islam” education as he said suffered as a result of Muslim rule over Orthodoxy. THAT’'s where anti scholasticism came from within Orthodoxy and in extension what those Orthodox churches brought with them who returned to Catholicism… For the captives under Islam, to get an education, they had to leave the East and come West. There the Orthodox studied under Catholic AND Protestant schools. My question to you, to follow up Regarding your "tradition"that you talk about, what did Eastern prelates who studied under Protestant teachers take back home with them as a result of Protestant teachers and teachings? For sure there are going to be authority issues where there might not have been those issues before, as well as all sorts of other issues important to Protestants. And let’s not forget, Protestants aren’t big on saints, Western OR Eastern. Fat chance Eastern prelates are going to learn about Eastern saints under that format.

Either way, being under Islam is where anti scholasticism in the East came from. So don’t blame the West, Latins, Romans, etc etc etc for an anti scholastic tradition in the East.

And I point out, that answer doesn’t come from me. It comes from an Orthodox Bishop and scholar assessing Orthodox history on the matter.

 

[RyanBlack]

Theosis isn’t a term used, but sharing in the “Divine nature” is.
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=divine+nature&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

All I said in providig the index was, both East and West contributed richly. It wasn’t one sided.

I’m cool with the East making their own Catechisms.

Would you agree, Re: your opening point on “theosis”

The term “Divine nature” and Theosis, are pretty much synonymous? It’s just that the scriptures use “Divine Nature” not “Theosis.”

would you agree with that?

Where does scripture use ‘beatific vision?’

Theosis, or divinization, or deification, or partaking of the divine nature is both an Eastern and Western teaching. However, there are distinctions. In the West, the end of theosis is the beatific vision. In the East, at least in the Byzantine East, theosis does not involve the beatific vision of the divine essence, but participation in the divine energies. The fact that the CCC makes no use of the word “theosis,” or of the divine energies, but several references to the beatific vision shows its overall Latin orientation.

Yes, East and West have contributed richly, but the West much more so. There are far, far more references from Western figures than Eastern. The CCC simply isn’t universal in its perspective. That’s not meant as a criticism; rather, it is a statement of what to me, an Eastern Catholic who has a great deal of contact with the West and has completed five years of graduate theological study in Western institutions, is obvious.

 

[Richca]

For example, Byzantines don’t use the term Assumption to describe St. Mary’s Dormition, both the same event, but different emphasis. Orientals generally use both terms interchangeably. Purgatory - carries Latin scholastic baggage which Easterners don’t necessarily need to believe. The Bishop of Rome’s role as Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the Latin Church - these, other than being acknowledged, need no real mention in an Eastern Catechism. The theology of marriage is vastly different between Latins and Easterners. etc…

Catholics where ever they are in the world cannot pick and choose what they want to believe or not want to believe out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. As Saint Pope John Paul II said when he promulgated the catechism, the catechism " is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine…a sure norm for teaching the faith…it is offered to every individual who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes…It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine"

 

[Peter_J]

I wonder if other ECs are as troubled as I am by the Sola Catechism stance that many LCs seem to embrace.

(Wait, did I say that outloud?)

 

[steve_b]

Where does scripture use ‘beatific vision?’

If you’ll recall, I was responding to “theosis”. Kudos to you for getting specific Now we can start talking

BTW did you find that those paragraphs in the CCC shows that theosis and divine nature, are pretty much synonomous?
R:

Theosis, or divinization, or deification, or partaking of the divine nature is both an Eastern and Western teaching.

So then, are theosis, and divine nature pretty much synonomous in understanding them together?
R:

However, there are distinctions. In the West, the end of theosis is the beatific vision.

Where does it say in the CCC paragraphs I gave, that “divine nature” ends, or that it ends at the beatific vision?

There’s only 4 entries in the CCC for the beatific vision ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=beatific+vision&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I gave you the CCC paragraphs specifically on “divine nature”. Your comment is attacking a strawman. Did you even read the paragraphs I gave you?

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=%22divine+nature%22&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

adding to 1988, one of the above internal links for “divine nature”, 'll add the following paragraphs as well 2670

Does that clear it up?
R:

In the East, at least in the Byzantine East, theosis does not involve the beatific vision of the divine essence, but participation in the divine energies.

I think you’re arguing against a strawman.

1. • Define “divine energies”
   • Define “divine essence”
   • Define “divine nature” from a Catholic perspective.
   R:
   

   The fact that the CCC makes no use of the word “theosis,” or of the divine energies, but several references to the beatific vision shows its overall Latin orientation.

   • How are divine energies and “theosis” different from divine nature as described in the paragraphes from the CCC I gave? Please answer that
   • is “divine energies” ≠ “divine nature” as the Church defines “divine nature”? Please answer that
   If they are not equal, then please explain why not. This is what I’ve been asking for all along…SPECIFICS. If we end up talking past each other because the differences, if one really exists, is sooooo miniscule or nuanced as to not be a big deal at all, then we have what amounts to a tempest in a tea pot.
   R:
   

   There are far, far more references from Western figures than Eastern.

   • I posted the Western & Eastern doctors of the Church who were referenced as contributors to the CCC. It wasn’t one sided
   • I often defend the Eastern Church and Western Church as being equals and united as one voice. For example#19 , #17 , #6 , . I do that because tooooo many people outside the Church are burdened with miscaracterizations that need to be corrected.
   R:
   

   The CCC simply isn’t universal in its perspective. That’s not meant as a criticism; rather, it is a statement of what to me, an Eastern Catholic who has a great deal of contact with the West and has completed five years of graduate theological study in Western institutions, is obvious.

   Well then give specifics, on what you mean by “Eastern perspective” and I stress with specifics. i.e. give details not just make accusations, that the CCC is not universal.
   
   keping in mind I’ve already said I’m cool on the East making their own Catechisms #67

 

[RyanBlack]

So then, are theosis, and divine nature pretty much synonomous in understanding them together?

Theosis and divine nature are not synonymous. Theosis, divinization, and deification are all synonymous terms that refer to our being united to God. Divine nature refers to, well, divine nature.

Where does it say in the CCC paragraphs I gave, that “divine nature” ends, or that it ends at the beatific vision?

It doesn’t. I meant “end” in the sense of the final goal. In the Latin understanding of deification/divinization/theosis, the end is the beatific vision. The Byzantine understanding of theosis is diffferent; the believer eternally grows in union with God by being united to God’s divine energies.

There’s only 4 entries in the CCC for the beatific vision ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=beatific+vision&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

I gave you the CCC paragraphs specifically on “divine nature”. Your comment is attacking a strawman. Did you even read the paragraphs I gave you?

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=%22divine+nature%22&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

adding to 1988, one of the above internal links for “divine nature”, 'll add the following paragraphs as well 2670

Does that clear it up?

I think you’re arguing against a strawman.

There are five references to beatific vision, and that’s five more than there are to divine energies. Again, it’s also five more references than there are to the Eastern term “theosis.” Yes, I have read the five paragraphs that reference “beatific vision.” Their very use of the term “beatific vision” and lack of reference to the divine energies places them squarely within the Latin, rather than the Byzantine, approach to deification/divinization/theosis.

1. • Define “divine energies”
   • Define “divine essence”
   • Define “divine nature” from a Catholic perspective.
   • How are divine energies and “theosis” different from divine nature as described in the paragraphes from the CCC I gave? Please answer that
   • is “divine energies” ≠ “divine nature” as the Church defines “divine nature”? Please answer that
   If they are not equal, then please explain why not. This is what I’ve been asking for all along…SPECIFICS. If we end up talking past each other because the differences, if one really exists, is sooooo miniscule or nuanced as to not be a big deal at all, then we have what amounts to a tempest in a tea pot.

1. 
   In the Byzantine perspective, the divine essence is entirely incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. It is impossible to know or state what it is, and it is impossible for creatures to participate in it. The divine energies are eternal because they are truly God, but they are are knowable, and we can participate in them. The divine energies include God’s love, his grace, his mercy, his goodness, etc. This is a specific example of how the Byzantine perspective is different than that of the Latin perspective.
   

   • I posted the Western & Eastern doctors of the Church who were referenced as contributors to the CCC. It wasn’t one sided
   • I often defend the Eastern Church and Western Church as being equals and united as one voice. For example#19 , #17 , #6 , . I do that because tooooo many people outside the Church are burdened with miscaracterizations that need to be corrected.

   The fact remains that the use of Western Fathers and ecclesiastical figures far outweighs that of Eastern Fathers and ecclesiastical figures. This is a specific example of how the CCC, while not entirely one-sided, leans toward the Latin perspective.
   

   Well then give specifics, on what you mean by “Eastern perspective” and I stress with specifics. i.e. give details not just make accusations, that the CCC is not universal.
   
   keping in mind I’ve already said I’m cool on the East making their own Catechisms #67

   I’ve given a specific example regarding differing perspectives on soteriology.
   
   I think it’s a bit overboard to call my characterization of the CCC as not universal an “accusation.” It’s an observation, not an accusation. The CCC is universal in the sense that it is universally applicable to all expressions of Catholicism in terms of the content of the faith. It is not universal in the sense that it is more reflective of the Latin tradition than of the Byzantine, and I would say far more reflective of the Latin tradition the Alexandrian, West and East Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara traditions. The CCC is largely written with a Latin mindset, from a Latin perspective. That’s not an accusation, it’s an observation. It’s understandable, given that Latins are the overwhelming majority of the Church, and I see no reason to be defensive about it. On the other hand, I fail to see what good is achieved by denying it.

 

[RyanBlack]

1. • Define “divine energies”
   • Define “divine essence”
   • Define “divine nature” from a Catholic perspective.
   • How are divine energies and “theosis” different from divine nature as described in the paragraphes from the CCC I gave? Please answer that
   • is “divine energies” ≠ “divine nature” as the Church defines “divine nature”? Please answer that
   If they are not equal, then please explain why not. This is what I’ve been asking for all along…SPECIFICS. If we end up talking past each other because the differences, if one really exists, is sooooo miniscule or nuanced as to not be a big deal at all, then we have what amounts to a tempest in a tea pot.
   

   Theosis is synonymous with participation in the divine nature. The divine energies are an aspect of the divine nature.

 

[RyanBlack]

1. • Define “divine energies”
   • Define “divine essence”
   • Define “divine nature” from a Catholic perspective.
   • How are divine energies and “theosis” different from divine nature as described in the paragraphes from the CCC I gave? Please answer that
   • is “divine energies” ≠ “divine nature” as the Church defines “divine nature”? Please answer that
   If they are not equal, then please explain why not. This is what I’ve been asking for all along…SPECIFICS. If we end up talking past each other because the differences, if one really exists, is sooooo miniscule or nuanced as to not be a big deal at all, then we have what amounts to a tempest in a tea pot.

1. 
   Theosis is synonymous with participation in the divine nature. The divine energies are an aspect of the divine nature.
   
   Divine energies is a distinctively Byzantine theological idea. They are, if you will, divine attributes by which we know God. They are distinct from the divine essence, which remains eternally transcendent. As a Byzantine Catholic, I understand the divine nature as inclusive of the divine essence and the divine energies, but we partake of the divine nature only by partaking of the divine energies. The Latin tradition makes no such distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies.
   
   I believe that ultimately, the language of beatific vision and that of participating in the divine energies are different approaches to discussing the same reality. However, the language of beatific vision is a Latin approach, while that of divine energies is a Byzantine approach. The CCC leans heavily towards the Latin approach on this central soteriological question. Is the truth conveyed here by the CCC universal? Yes, or course. Is the way in which this truth conveyed universal? No, of course not.

 

[steve_b]

Theosis and divine nature are not synonymous. Theosis, divinization, and deification are all synonymous terms that refer to our being united to God. Divine nature refers to, well, divine nature.

I’m assuming you’re making a distinction that we all make. We don’t become God.

But we are made partakers in His divine nature (look at the Greek)
we become partakers of the Divine nature (γένησθε , θείας , κοινωνοὶ , φύσεως) 2 Peter 1:4
R:

It doesn’t. I meant “end” in the sense of the final goal. In the Latin understanding of deification/divinization/theosis, the end is the beatific vision. The Byzantine understanding of theosis is diffferent; the believer eternally grows in union with God by being united to God’s divine energies.

Latins also believe we continue to grow. We don’t use the term “divine energies”
R:

There are five references to beatific vision, and that’s five more than there are to divine energies.
Again, it’s also five more references than there are to the Eastern term “theosis.” Yes, I have read the five paragraphs that reference “beatific vision.” Their very use of the term “beatific vision” and lack of reference to the divine energies places them squarely within the Latin, rather than the Byzantine, approach to deification/divinization/theosis.

I brought up beatific vision and what the CCC teaches, because the BV is not the end of theosis in Latin teaching.
R:

In the Byzantine perspective, the divine essence is entirely incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. It is impossible to know or state what it is, and it is impossible for creatures to participate in it.
The divine energies are eternal because they are truly God, but they are are knowable, and we can participate in them. The divine energies include God’s love, his grace, his mercy, his goodness, etc. This is a specific example of how the Byzantine perspective is different than that of the Latin perspective.

I didn’t bring up “divine essense”. We all know we don’t nor can we become God.
R:

The fact remains that the use of Western Fathers and ecclesiastical figures far outweighs that of Eastern Fathers and ecclesiastical figures.

Aren’t the father’s all “Catholic”?

This is starting to sound like the hyphenated American issue where certain cultures or races insist THAT comes 1st over American. EVERYTHING is seen through an individual’s race or culture, NOT that they are American.
R:

I’ve given a specific example regarding differing perspectives on soteriology.

Yet I’m not seeing distinctions and differences in doctrine and dogma. Terminology yes but not behind terminology.
R:

I think it’s a bit overboard to call my characterization of the CCC as not universal an “accusation.” It’s an observation, not an accusation. The CCC is universal in the sense that it is universally applicable to all expressions of Catholicism in terms of the content of the faith…I would say far more reflective of the Latin tradition the Alexandrian, West and East Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara traditions.

what makes the Byzantine tradition so different?
R:

The CCC is largely written with a Latin mindset, from a Latin perspective. It’s understandable, given that Latins are the overwhelming majority of the Church, and I see no reason to be defensive about it. On the other hand, I fail to see what good is achieved by denying it.

Hey it’s just you and I having a conversation………right?

Besides, I’ve already said I’m cool on the East making their own Catechisms #67 BTW, how are you doing so far on your version?

 

[steve_b]

Theosis is synonymous with participation in the divine nature. The divine energies are an aspect of the divine nature.

iow, theosis and divine energies are both part of the divine nature
R:

Divine energies is a distinctively Byzantine theological idea.

Is what it describes any different than what we would all agree to in some other term(s)?
R:

They are, if you will, divine attributes by which we know God. They are distinct from the divine essence, which remains eternally transcendent.

yet we both know God’s essence, is also God’s nature.
R:

As a Byzantine Catholic, I understand the divine nature as inclusive of the divine essence and the divine energies,

yes
R:

but we partake of the divine nature only by partaking of the divine energies. The Latin tradition makes no such distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies.

We use different terms that’s all. The distinctions are clear.

When Augustine for example said

“the son of God became son of man, so that sons and daughters of man could become sons and daughters of God.”

That doesn’t mean man becomes God.

Also

if divine energies is distinctively Byzantine, then unless Byzantines mean something completely different from what we already understand about God, then where’s the actual distinction?

also

I gather the distinction you’re making in “divine essence” is the divine eternal God Himself. And yes no creature can become God or made God, regardless of what terms one wants to use.
R:

I believe that ultimately, the language of beatific vision and that of participating in the divine energies are different approaches to discussing the same reality. However, the language of beatific vision is a Latin approach, while that of divine energies is a Byzantine approach.

The reason I quoted the CCC on beatific vision is to correct your understanding. We don’t use the word theosis. Divine nature that we partake in now and continue to grow in when we get to heaven, doesn’t stop/end at the beatific vision. That’s the point I was making.
R:

The CCC leans heavily towards the Latin approach on this central soteriological question. Is the truth conveyed here by the CCC universal? Yes, or course. Is the way in which this truth conveyed universal? No, of course not.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m seeing a contradiction there.

 

[RyanBlack]

I’m assuming you’re making a distinction that we all make. We don’t become God.

But we are made partakers in His divine nature (look at the Greek)
we become partakers of the Divine nature (γένησθε , θείας , κοινωνοὶ , φύσεως) 2 Peter 1:4

I never said otherwise. In fact, in the Byzantine tradition, the distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies was articulated to explain how it is that we truly partake in God’s nature while safeguarding the ultimate transcendence of God.

Latins also believe we continue to grow. We don’t use the term “divine energies”

And the fact that Latins don’t use the term “divine energies” is an example of an important distinction between the Latin approach and the Byzantine approach.

I brought up beatific vision and what the CCC teaches, because the BV is not the end of theosis in Latin teaching.

Actually, it is a Latin teaching that the goal of divinization is the beatific vision. One need look no farther than St. Thomas Aquinas.

I didn’t bring up “divine essense”. We all know we don’t nor can we become God.

You asked me to define “divine essence,” so I did. For us Byzantines, the distinction between God’s divine essence and God’s divine energies how we articulate seemingly contradictory ideas: the ultimate transcendence of God and the Christian’s sharing in the divine life.

Aren’t the father’s all “Catholic”?

This is starting to sound like the hyphenated American issue where certain cultures or races insist THAT comes 1st over American. EVERYTHING is seen through an individual’s race or culture, NOT that they are American.

Yes, all the Fathers are Catholic. However, they approach the faith from different perspectives, using different theological vocabularies, and often having very different emphases.

Yet I’m not seeing distinctions and differences in doctrine and dogma. Terminology yes but not behind terminology.

I never said there are differences in doctrine and dogma. However, the differences go beyond mere terminology. The differences include different emphases in theology and different approaches to theology.

what makes the Byzantine tradition so different?

Different liturgy; different terminology; different emphases in Trinitarian theology, christology, pneumatology, sacramental theology, etc.

 

[RyanBlack]

iow, theosis and divine energies are both part of the divine nature

No. The divine energies are part of the divine nature. Theosis is the salvific process by which we partake of the divine nature.

Is what it describes any different than what we would all agree to in some other term(s)?

That depends on whom you ask. In any case, Latin theology lacks the construct of divine energies as distinct from the divine essence.

yet we both know God’s essence, is also God’s nature.

To me, as a Byzantine Catholic, what God’s essence and God’s nature are not the same. God’s nature includes God’s essence, but God’s nature also includes God’s attributes, or energies.

We use different terms that’s all. The distinctions are clear.

Actually, it’s not that simple. Latin theology makes no distinction between God’s essence and God’s attributes. Latin theology has the construct of God as actus purus, which states that God’s attributes are identical to his essence. Byzantine theology does not identify any attribute or set of attributes with the divine essence.

When Augustine for example said

“the son of God became son of man, so that sons and daughters of man could become sons and daughters of God.”

That doesn’t mean man becomes God.

Of course man doesn’t become God, at least not on the level of nature, and I never said otherwise.

Also if divine energies is distinctively Byzantine, then unless Byzantines mean something completely different from what we already understand about God, then where’s the actual distinction?

also I gather the distinction you’re making in “divine essence” is the divine eternal God Himself. And yes no creature can become God or made God, regardless of what terms one wants to use.

For Latins, God is pure act: his attributes are identical with his essence. For Byzantines, God’s essence cannot be identified, because it is impenetrable to human comprehension and to human participation. We know God and participate in the triune life by participating in the divine energies.

The reason I quoted the CCC on beatific vision is to correct your understanding. We don’t use the word theosis. Divine nature that we partake in now and continue to grow in when we get to heaven, doesn’t stop/end at the beatific vision. That’s the point I was making.

I was not in need of being corrected. The beatific vision, in Latin theology, is the end of theosis, not in the sense of ending in time, but in the sense of the teleological end. Again, one need go no further than St. Thomas Aquinas to find this teaching.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m seeing a contradiction there.

There is no contradiction. Truth is universal, and truth is one. The expression of truth can take on a great multitude of local, particular modes of expression.

 

[steve_b]

No. The divine energies are part of the divine nature. Theosis is the salvific process by which we partake of the divine nature.

and partaking in the divine nature is also a process, part of the salvific process as well.

After all, in a previous post you said “Theosis is synonymous with participation in the divine nature. The divine energies are an aspect of the divine nature.”

you’re not arguing it’s not all part of the same process…are you?
R:

In any case, Latin theology lacks the construct of divine energies as distinct from the divine essence.

As for how Catholics look at “divine essence” look at this article under

part** III, SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION**
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven divine essence is mentioned 12 times in that section, out of 22 times in the entire article. Compare that with divine attributes (as opposed to “divine energies” )

As for God and “divine energies” we use different terms but I think you’ll agree we arrive at the same conclusions
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=God

for example, see part B. The Divine Nature and Attributes
R:

To me, as a Byzantine Catholic, what God’s essence and God’s nature are not the same. God’s nature includes God’s essence, but God’s nature also includes God’s attributes, or energies.

You said in a previous post “As a Byzantine Catholic, I understand the divine nature as inclusive of the divine essence and the divine energies”

So we have so far, with Byzantine understanding, God = divine nature + divine essence + divine energies. Are there any other terms for the attributes of God that Byzantines use that I should know about for this discussion?
R:

Actually, it’s not that simple. Latin theology makes no distinction between God’s essence and God’s attributes.

you have the link. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=God

starting with B. The Divine Nature and Attributes

• essence mentioned 12 times
• attributes mentioned 17 times

Obviously there is some distinction here.
R:

Latin theology has the construct of God as actus purus, which states that God’s attributes are identical to his essence. Byzantine theology does not identify any attribute or set of attributes with the divine essence.

For Latins, God is pure act: his attributes are identical with his essence. For Byzantines, God’s essence cannot be identified, because it is impenetrable to human comprehension and to human participation. We know God and participate in the triune life by participating in the divine energies.

From the Catholic Church perspective, I gave you links on how we identify God and His attributes and the issues we’re discussing. I do that so you know I’m not just shooting from the hip.

In a previous post you wrote

"In the Byzantine perspective, the divine essence is entirely incomprehensible and entirely transcendent. It is impossible to know or state what it is, and it is impossible for creatures to participate in it. The divine energies are eternal because they are truly God, but they are are knowable, and we can participate in them. The divine energies include God’s love, his grace, his mercy, his goodness, etc. "

So, those energies you list, they are not part of God’s essence?
R:

I was not in need of being corrected. The beatific vision, in Latin theology, is the end of theosis, not in the sense of ending in time, but in the sense of the teleological end. Again, one need go no further than St. Thomas Aquinas to find this teaching.

This article mentions Beatific vision 28 times. oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Heaven If you haven’t read it already, see the sections starting with III. SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER OF HEAVEN AND THE BEATIFIC VISION. It doesn’t say theosis (a term we don’t use) but if we switch to a phrase like the “salvific process” which you used earlier, that too doesn’t end at the beatific vision. The reason being, God never stops enlightening us.

 

[Vico]

…

Based upon St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians using moderate realism, the divine attributes apply to God analogically, and are in God formally and eminently, yet there is only a virtual distinction between the attributes and each and the divine essence.

 

[RyanBlack]

Based upon St. Thomas Aquinas and other theologians using moderate realism, the divine attributes apply to God analogically, and are in God formally and eminently, yet there is only a virtual distinction between the attributes and the divine essence.

This fits my understanding of the Thomistic understanding of divine attributes.