How do teachings on Theosis differ in EC, RC, and EO?

[MattofTexas]

Hi all,
I was curious- how do teachings on theosis differ in Eastern and Roman Rite Catholicism, and then in either from Eastern Orthodoxy? As I understand it, theosis is pretty much one of the most important doctrines in Orthodoxy and I was wondering how it’s understood by Catholics, and exactly what it means in each church?
Thanks and God bless,
Matt

 

[BVMFatima]

That is a very good question. I would think that Roman Rite theology would differ from the East where it comes to the point where we as Roman Rite Catholics believe in a purification through fire as 1 Cor 3:15 states. The east would probably reject this due to there difference in theology. I would think the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox would have lots in common on this subject when it comes towards theology.

God bless,
BVMFatima

 

[chimo]

Hi all,
I was curious- how do teachings on theosis differ in Eastern and Roman Rite Catholicism, and then in either from Eastern Orthodoxy? As I understand it, theosis is pretty much one of the most important doctrines in Orthodoxy and I was wondering how it’s understood by Catholics, and exactly what it means in each church?
Thanks and God bless,
Matt

Theosis is the same in each Church since the Holy Spirit operates at this with the same synergy and force. The question of theosis while it is done the same by the Holy Spirit can be interpreted differently by different Churches. As I understand Theosis from both Eastern and Western perspectives the Holy Spirit tends to raise diginty, sanctity and holiness in men and women as in the same levels as He would with anyone else. It is not what He gives for that is always the same but the qiuckness and giving of Himself that counts. The Holy Spirit goes into a person like He does to everyone of us but in order for Him to quicken His presence and to fill up a person much quicker than it is usually done there must be another process to enact this.

This process is the great teaching from the Church of Rome and it is through Redemptive Suffering. Redemptive Suffering can allow the person God has chosen to give incredible amount and deposits of the Holy Spirit in much higher degree than through the usual deposits for instance through much ascetical exercises. Ascetical exercises is the normal process for growth into the Holy Spirit and everyone can do this. But God who can use sufferings to speed up the process can give to certain individuals incredible sanctity at an earlier age so this saint can be still young and youthful. Ths is why the Church of Rome has so many young saints. God had speed up the process through Redemptive Suffering. While Orthodox saints tend to be older than the Catholic Saints because ascetical exercises and struggles is always determined by time, the Lord may help Orthodoxy by giving His Holy Spirit in the same manner as He does to the younger Catholic saints and to give Redemptive Suffering a chance to produce these much younger Orthodox saints.

 

[PatrickC]

Theosis is the same in each Church since the Holy Spirit operates at this with the same synergy and force. The question of theosis while it is done the same by the Holy Spirit can be interpreted differently by different Churches. As I understand Theosis from both Eastern and Western perspectives the Holy Spirit tends to raise diginty, sanctity and holiness in men and women as in the same levels as He would with anyone else. It is not what He gives for that is always the same but the qiuckness and giving of Himself that counts. The Holy Spirit goes into a person like He does to everyone of us but in order for Him to quicken His presence and to fill up a person much quicker than it is usually done there must be another process to enact this.

This process is the great teaching from the Church of Rome and it is through Redemptive Suffering. Redemptive Suffering can allow the person God has chosen to give incredible amount and deposits of the Holy Spirit in much higher degree than through the usual deposits for instance through much ascetical exercises. Ascetical exercises is the normal process for growth into the Holy Spirit and everyone can do this. But God who can use sufferings to speed up the process can give to certain individuals incredible sanctity at an earlier age so this saint can be still young and youthful. Ths is why the Church of Rome has so many young saints. God had speed up the process through Redemptive Suffering. While Orthodox saints tend to be older than the Catholic Saints because ascetical exercises and struggles is always determined by time, the Lord may help Orthodoxy by giving His Holy Spirit in the same manner as He does to the younger Catholic saints and to give Redemptive Suffering a chance to produce these much younger Orthodox saints.

I’ve never heard such a thing. You just came up with that on you own, didn’t you?

 

[Vico]

H. H. Bl. Pope John Paul II, on the teachings from the eastern traditions:

1. Certain features of the spiritual and theological tradition, common to the various Churches of the East mark their sensitivity to the forms taken by the transmission of the Gospel in Western lands. The Second Vatican Council summarized them as follows:
   “Everyone knows with what love the Eastern Christians celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the Eucharistic mystery, source of the Church’s life and pledge of future glory. In this mystery the faithful, united with their bishops, have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh who suffered and was glorified, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And so, made ‘sharers of the divine nature’ (2 Pt 1:4) they enter into communion with the most holy Trinity.”(11)
   These features describe the Eastern outlook of the Christian. His or her goal is participation in the divine nature through communion with the mystery of the Holy Trinity. In this view the Father’s “monarchy” is outlined as well as the concept of salvation according to the divine plan, as it is presented by Eastern theology after Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and which spread among the Cappadocian Fathers.(12)
   ​

Participation in Trinitarian life takes place through the liturgy and in a special way through the Eucharist, the mystery of communion with the glorified body of Christ, the seed of immortality.(13) In divinization and particularly in the sacraments, Eastern theology attributes a very special role to the Holy Spirit: through the power of the Spirit who dwells in man deification already begins on earth; the creature is transfigured and God’s kingdom inaugurated.

The teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers on divinization passed into the tradition of all the Eastern Churches and is part of their common heritage. This can be summarized in the thought already expressed by Saint Irenaeus at the end of the second century: God passed into man so that man might pass over to God.(14) This theology of divinization remains one of the achievements particularly dear to Eastern Christian thought.(15)

On this path of divinization, those who have been made “most Christ - like” by grace and by commitment to the way of goodness go before us: the martyrs and the saints.(16) And the Virgin Mary occupies an altogether special place among them. From her the shoot of Jesse sprang (cf. Is 11:1 ). Her figure is not only the Mother who waits for us, but the Most Pure, who - the fulfillment of so many Old Testament prefigurations - is an icon of the Church, the symbol and anticipation of humanity transfigured by grace, the model and the unfailing hope for all those who direct their steps towards the heavenly Jerusalem.(17)

Although strongly emphasizing Trinitarian realism and its unfolding in sacramental life, the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.(18)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html
​

 

[chimo]

I’ve never heard such a thing. You just came up with that on you own, didn’t you?

No for these teachings are contained in both traditions of East and West. Have you not heard of Redemptive Suffering before? Why do you think God does when He gives up the Holy Spirit to us? If God wants to give to the Church much younger saints so they can witness for Him to the younger generation where do you think all this holiness is coming from when any such young person is growing quickly to be His saint? God qiuckens sanctity in such people especially where there is Redemptive Suffering involve. It is a teaching of the Church of Rome. Let me explain how it works. A girl askes her father for $5 to purchase green seedless grapes. He gives to her what she asks. Then she gets into an accident and she is in a hospital bed and will be there for a very long time. She asks for her father and again she asks for $5 worth of grapes. Her father out of pity for her daughter goes out and purchases $50 worth of grapes. This same principal applies to us and to God when undeserved sufferings comes to someone. God can apply whatever sufferings are there and in response will give Graces either to the one who is suffering or to another person. Here God will give to someone a larger deposit of the Holy Spirit.

This same principal applies for instance to Jesus Christ. He dies a terrible death. We killed Him but this undeserved suffering won us Redemption. Again this same principal applies when you go to Mass or the Divine Liturgy. Jesus suffers for our Redemption yet we sin constantly. When we offer His sufferings and sacrifice at every Mass and Divine Liturgy the Eternal Father grants us more. More of what but this acquisition of the Holy Spirit. You get more because someone is suffering for you.

 

[chimo]

Patrick I saw from your post that you are Orthodox. I apologize for not noticing this before because the teaching of Redemptive Suffering is only from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has not this teaching suscribed into her life. Hopefully one day she will. I will tell you that this teaching even though was developed by Rome was actually a teaching that was first developed by an Orthodox Church Father, St. John Chrysostom. He said that if someone is granted a miracle then this person owes God. He also said if someone is granted the gift of suffering then God owes you. It is interesting that it was an Eastern Church Father that had this teaching first. But somehow down the line it was not developed in the East but more in the West. When someone suffers undeservingly that this can act out like a loan with God in your debt.

 

[RobbyS]

Theosis is the same in each Church since the Holy Spirit operates at this with the same synergy and force. The question of theosis while it is done the same by the Holy Spirit can be interpreted differently by different Churches. As I understand Theosis from both Eastern and Western perspectives the Holy Spirit tends to raise diginty, sanctity and holiness in men and women as in the same levels as He would with anyone else. It is not what He gives for that is always the same but the qiuckness and giving of Himself that counts. The Holy Spirit goes into a person like He does to everyone of us but in order for Him to quicken His presence and to fill up a person much quicker than it is usually done there must be another process to enact this.

This process is the great teaching from the Church of Rome and it is through Redemptive Suffering. Redemptive Suffering can allow the person God has chosen to give incredible amount and deposits of the Holy Spirit in much higher degree than through the usual deposits for instance through much ascetical exercises. Ascetical exercises is the normal process for growth into the Holy Spirit and everyone can do this. But God who can use sufferings to speed up the process can give to certain individuals incredible sanctity at an earlier age so this saint can be still young and youthful. Ths is why the Church of Rome has so many young saints. God had speed up the process through Redemptive Suffering. While Orthodox saints tend to be older than the Catholic Saints because ascetical exercises and struggles is always determined by time, the Lord may help Orthodoxy by giving His Holy Spirit in the same manner as He does to the younger Catholic saints and to give Redemptive Suffering a chance to produce these much younger Orthodox saints.

very interesting.

 

[Vico]

The Latin Church maintains that it is necessary for deification to live a Christlike life. We complete the Church, which is the body of Christ.

H.H. Bl. John Paul II, SALVIFICI DOLORIS.The mystery of the Church—that body which completes in itself also Christ’s crucified and risen body—indicates at the same time the space or context in which human sufferings complete the sufferings of Christ. Only within this radius and dimension of the Church as the Body of Christ, which continually develops in space and time, can one think and speak of “what is lacking” in the sufferings of Christ. The Apostle, in fact, makes this clear when he writes of “completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church”.
Collossians 1:24-27:Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past. But now it has been manifested to his holy ones, to whom God chose to make known the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; it is Christ in you, the hope for glory.

 

[PatrickC]

Patrick I saw from your post that you are Orthodox. I apologize for not noticing this before because the teaching of Redemptive Suffering is only from the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has not this teaching suscribed into her life. Hopefully one day she will. I will tell you that this teaching even though was developed by Rome was actually a teaching that was first developed by an Orthodox Church Father, St. John Chrysostom. He said that if someone is granted a miracle then this person owes God. He also said if someone is granted the gift of suffering then God owes you. It is interesting that it was an Eastern Church Father that had this teaching first. But somehow down the line it was not developed in the East but more in the West. When someone suffers undeservingly that this can act out like a loan with God in your debt.

That just sounds legalistic. I’d like to see what other Catholics, Eastern or Latin have to say about this idea that when you suffer unjustly, “God owes you”.

 

[chimo]

That just sounds legalistic. I’d like to see what other Catholics, Eastern or Latin have to say about this idea that when you suffer unjustly, “God owes you”.

But just look to the Cross, Patrick. It is right in front of you. This greatest unjust was given to our Lord Jesus. What do you think the Eternal Father reacts to this? How do you think the Eternal Father reacts to this? When we uplift our Lord Jesus the Eternal Father cannot resist to give to us the Holy Spirit. He delights in the offering of His Son and cannot withhold His Graces to us in virtue of His Son’s Offering and Passion. That should be easy for you to understand. This same principal can also apply to individuals or even communities or Churches. Whenever someone is suffering says St. Peter undeservingly than this person will receive blessings from the Lord. Did not Jesus say if you love those who only love you what credit is that to you? So our Lord Himself is pointing to where a blessing can come to you. Is it not that hard to understand. I believe what is hard for the Orthodox to understand is the wording which Catholics sometimes use. Orthodox tend to have different words to mean the same thing. Probably it is in this area where people from each Church tend to bog down on. They can be arguing over something when in actuality they are saying the same thing! It just different folks use different words to mean the same thing.

 

[Vico]

Latin Church teaching is shown in the Modern Catholic Dictionary:SUFFERING. The disagreeable experience of soul that comes with the presence of evil or the privation of some good. Although commonly synonymous with pain, suffering is rather the reaction to pain, and in this sense suffering is a decisive factor in Christian spirituality. Absolutely speaking, suffering is possible because we are creatures, but in the present order of Providence suffering is the result of sin having entered the world. Its purpose, however, is not only to expiate wrongdoing, but to enable the believer to offer God a sacrifice of praise of his divine right over creatures, to unite oneself with Christ in his sufferings as an expression of love, and in the process to become more like Christ, who, having joy set before him, chose the Cross, and thus “to make up all that has still to be undergone by Christ for the sake of His body, the Church” (I Colossians 1:24). (Etym. Latin sufferre, to sustain, to bear up: sub-, up from under + ferre, to bear.)

EXPIATION. Atonement for some wrongdoing. It implies an attempt to undo the wrong that one has done, by suffering a penalty, by performing some penance, or by making reparation or redress. (Etym. Latin ex-, fully + piare, to propitiate: expiare, to atone for fully.)

REPARATION. The act or fact of making amends. It implies an attempt to restore things to their normal or sound conditions, as they were before something wrong was done. It applies mainly to recompense for the losses sustained or the harm caused by some morally bad action. With respect to God, it means making up with greater love for the failure in love through sin; it means restoring what was unjustly taken and compensating with generosity for the selfishness that caused the jury. (Etym. Latin reparare, to prepare anew, restore.)

**ATONEMENT. **The satisfaction of a legitimate demand. In a more restricted sense it is the reparation of an offense. This occurs through a voluntary performance that outweighs the injustice done. If the performance fully counterbalances the gravity of the guilt, the atonement is adequate. And if the atonement is done by someone other than the actual offender, but in his stead, it is vicarious.

Applied to Christ the Redeemer, through his suffering and death he rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of the whole human race. His atonement is fully adequate because it was performed by a divine person. In fact, it is superabundant because the positive value of Christ’s expiation is actually greater than the negative value of human sin. (Etym. Middle English at one, to set at one, to reconcile; of one mind, in accord.)

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Hi all,
I was curious- how do teachings on theosis differ in Eastern and Roman Rite Catholicism, and then in either from Eastern Orthodoxy? As I understand it, theosis is pretty much one of the most important doctrines in Orthodoxy and I was wondering how it’s understood by Catholics, and exactly what it means in each church?
Thanks and God bless,
Matt

What I say below is from my personal experience in each: Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic & Orthodox Churches and in no way is intended to officially represent either side. I’ve learned that experience in a religion doesn’t necessarily mean a precise knowledge of it’s specific theology.

Catholics Hope is to “See” the Trinity
Orthodox Hope is to “Participate” in the Trinity

The word “Theosis” to describe Salvation isn’t really used in Roman Catholic Church, but I think it is touched on briefly in the CCC as something believed in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Salvation in the Roman Catholic Church is mostly described as “Beatification” - that is the hope of a Christian is to look at/see God.

Theosis in Orthodoxy is used to describe the full & actual participation in the Holy Trinity through the Divine Energies not Essence as opposed to just seeing God.

I didn’t stay long in Eastern Catholicism because I couldn’t understand how/why Eastern Catholic were able to reconcile these two very distinct Hopes. Maybe a practicing Eastern Catholic here will be able to explain that for you

 

[chimo]

Latin Church teaching is shown in the Modern Catholic Dictionary:SUFFERING. The disagreeable experience of soul that comes with the presence of evil or the privation of some good. Although commonly synonymous with pain, suffering is rather the reaction to pain, and in this sense suffering is a decisive factor in Christian spirituality. Absolutely speaking, suffering is possible because we are creatures, but in the present order of Providence suffering is the result of sin having entered the world. Its purpose, however, is not only to expiate wrongdoing, but to enable the believer to offer God a sacrifice of praise of his divine right over creatures, to unite oneself with Christ in his sufferings as an expression of love, and in the process to become more like Christ, who, having joy set before him, chose the Cross, and thus “to make up all that has still to be undergone by Christ for the sake of His body, the Church” (I Colossians 1:24). (Etym. Latin sufferre, to sustain, to bear up: sub-, up from under + ferre, to bear.)

EXPIATION. Atonement for some wrongdoing. It implies an attempt to undo the wrong that one has done, by suffering a penalty, by performing some penance, or by making reparation or redress. (Etym. Latin ex-, fully + piare, to propitiate: expiare, to atone for fully.)

REPARATION. The act or fact of making amends. It implies an attempt to restore things to their normal or sound conditions, as they were before something wrong was done. It applies mainly to recompense for the losses sustained or the harm caused by some morally bad action. With respect to God, it means making up with greater love for the failure in love through sin; it means restoring what was unjustly taken and compensating with generosity for the selfishness that caused the jury. (Etym. Latin reparare, to prepare anew, restore.)

**ATONEMENT. **The satisfaction of a legitimate demand. In a more restricted sense it is the reparation of an offense. This occurs through a voluntary performance that outweighs the injustice done. If the performance fully counterbalances the gravity of the guilt, the atonement is adequate. And if the atonement is done by someone other than the actual offender, but in his stead, it is vicarious.

Applied to Christ the Redeemer, through his suffering and death he rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of the whole human race. His atonement is fully adequate because it was performed by a divine person. In fact, it is superabundant because the positive value of Christ’s expiation is actually greater than the negative value of human sin. (Etym. Middle English at one, to set at one, to reconcile; of one mind, in accord.)

therealpresence.org/dictionary/adict.htm

Thanks Vico. Your well informed definations brings a lot of clarity to what I was saying.

 

[neokarny]

What I say below is from my personal experience in each: Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic & Orthodox Churches and in no way is intended to officially represent either side. I’ve learned that experience in a religion doesn’t necessarily mean a precise knowledge of it’s specific theology.

Catholics Hope is to “See” the Trinity
Orthodox Hope is to “Participate” in the Trinity

The word “Theosis” to describe Salvation isn’t really used in Roman Catholic Church, but I think it is touched on briefly in the CCC as something believed in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Salvation in the Roman Catholic Church is mostly described as “Beatification” - that is the hope of a Christian is to look at/see God.

Theosis in Orthodoxy is used to describe the full & actual participation in the Holy Trinity through the Divine Energies not Essence as opposed to just seeing God.

I didn’t stay long in Eastern Catholicism because I couldn’t understand how/why Eastern Catholic were able to reconcile these two very distinct Hopes. Maybe a practicing Eastern Catholic here will be able to explain that for you

Also, I’ve read that some (e.g. Aquinas) Roman Catholics believe that part of the Beatific Vision is to be united to, and “see” the Essence of God (which accompanies a belief in Divine Simplicity).

And I’ll second that Orthodoxy believes in the full participation in the Holy Trinity. It can be said that we aquire a relationship to the Father by grace that the Son has by nature. However, this necessarily requires the denial of Divine Simplicity.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, I’ve read that some (e.g. Aquinas) Roman Catholics believe that part of the Beatific Vision is to be united to, and “see” the Essence of God (which accompanies a belief in Divine Simplicity).

And I’ll second that Orthodoxy believes in the full participation in the Holy Trinity. It can be said that we aquire a relationship to the Father by grace that the Son has by nature. However, this necessarily requires the denial of Divine Simplicity.

Well, not quite. As Joseph P. Farrell points out in his book Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor, the Orthodox position is not a denial of Divine Simplicity, but rather a denial that simplicity is the definition of the divine essence (as say Plotinus would insist).

 

[Vico]

Also, I’ve read that some (e.g. Aquinas) Roman Catholics believe that part of the Beatific Vision is to be united to, and “see” the Essence of God (which accompanies a belief in Divine Simplicity).

And I’ll second that Orthodoxy believes in the full participation in the Holy Trinity. It can be said that we aquire a relationship to the Father by grace that the Son has by nature. However, this necessarily requires the denial of Divine Simplicity.

We know that H.H. Bl. Pope John Paul II communicated in Orientale Lumen (1995), stating it is a fact that the divine essence is unknowable:Although strongly emphasizing Trinitarian realism and its unfolding in sacramental life, the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

 

[neokarny]

Well, not quite. As Joseph P. Farrell points out in his book Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor, the Orthodox position is not a denial of Divine Simplicity, but rather a denial that simplicity is the definition of the divine essence (as say Plotinus would insist).

Interesting. How would that work? My philosophy professors (staunchly Reformed) would have perceived any distinction (e.g. essence, energy, action, etc.), that was actual, as a necessary denial of simplicity. I suppose I can’t help but think through their Reformed lense when it comes to these topics.

 

[neokarny]

We know that H.H. Bl. Pope John Paul II communicated in Orientale Lumen (1995), stating it is a fact that the divine essence is unknowable:Although strongly emphasizing Trinitarian realism and its unfolding in sacramental life, the East associates faith in the unity of the divine nature with the fact that the divine essence is unknowable. The Eastern Fathers always assert that it is impossible to know what God is; one can only know that he is, since he revealed himself in the history of salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_02051995_orientale-lumen_en.html

Isn’t HH speaking of the East’s view in that excerpt? Either way, I didn’t necessarily know if “seeing” the Essence meant “knowing” in the Western model.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Interesting. How would that work? My philosophy professors (staunchly Reformed) would have perceived any distinction (e.g. essence, energy, action, etc.), that was actual, as a necessary denial of simplicity. I suppose I can’t help but think through their Reformed lense when it comes to these topics.

Basically, there are two understandings of divine simplicity: the philosophical one (used by Neoplatonists and many heretics, like Eunomians, Origenists, etc.), and the more Christian understanding.

In the philosophical understanding of simplicity, simplicity means that all categories which we speak of with respect to God are completely identical, to the point that they differ only conceptually. For the Neoplatonists, for example, simplicity leads to the conclusion that the One was not free to create, but created out of necessity. Similarly, in Origenism, God’s being the Father is the same as being the Creator, and God therefore always begat the Son and always willed creation. With Eunomianism, simplicity is abused in a different fashion, to argue that the Son is not of the same essence with the Father. In fact, in its strictest form, one would have to question whether or not this understanding provides room even for three truly distinct Trinitarian hypostases.

The Orthodox understanding of simplicity is best expressed by Maximus the Confessor, who writes, “every divine energy properly signifies God indivisibly, wholly and entirely and altogether common to all and yet altogether particularly present in each of these realities.” The energies while distinct, are neither divided nor partitioned amongst the three hypostatses, and similarly, no energy is partially God, but is God entire.