Perpetual change in human nature

[jimmy]

There is a concept in eastern Christianity of the perpetual change of man. Change is natural to our nature, so either a man will change for the better, or he will change for the worse. This change is perpetual. The saint in heaven will continually grow in holiness and likeness to God. In other words, theosis never ends. Theosis isn’t a crowning point at the resurrection, but is a continual process that begins in this life and continues without end in the next.

This concept is supported by many of the Greek fathers including St Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Maximus Netherlands Confessor argues against a form of it which is expressed in Origenism and the preexistence of souls (the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ). I don’t think he is against the concept of perpetual change, but rather that those who have been in communion with God in heaven could fall.

It is also present in the concept of the apokatastasis in Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Those in hell can potentially be saved because change remains a part of their nature. And if they are willing, they could change for the better. This idea is expressed in later Greek theology like that of Mark of Ephesus from what I have heard.

I am curious what westerner a think of the concept of perpetual change. Can the beatific vision be seen in terms of a perpetual change toward union with God. Both in the perception that those in hell could be saved, and that heaven is percieved as running toward something that is never completely reached. I know the concept is present in some degree in the west, atleast in CS Lewis’s Great Divorce. What do you guys think of the concept from a western perspective?

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I have always believed that mankind is always changing, you just need to watch people you know and grew up with! Anyone you’ve known for any length of time changes, some for better some for worse, some in small ways some in big ways. I always believed this without even knowing it had any connections with other religions. I also always believed that mankind will continually grow once we get to Heaven too. That seems obvious and natural to me. Even as adults here on earth we grow more and learn more every year. No one stays the same. They either grow and move forward of make mistakes and move downhill, but we are always changing. I’m different now than I was 3 yrs ago and I know more too. I’ve learned that I can do a lot more than I thought I could and I’m stronger than I thought I was. **No one **stays the same we all change. Our core being and character may stay the same, so that someone who acts like a saint won’t suddenly become a thief, but we do change in other ways.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Western theologians teach that it is possible for us to achieve spiritual perfection while yet on earth. By “perfection” I mean complete aversion to all sin, mortal and venial, of commission or omission. Such persons cannot be tempted in any way, and this is because of their deep love of God and desire to do his divine will in every way.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux was named Doctor of the Church for the teaching she called her “little way,” which teaches that we do not need to live grand lives of heroic virtue to achieve this perfection, but it is possible for ordinary people living ordinary workaday lives.

Offhand, I’m having a hard time thinking of how a person in such a state could continue to grow in holiness.

 

[jimmy]

Is holiness defined simply by not committing sins or not being tempted to sin? So it is a negative quality in as much as it is a lack of something? In Catholicism we speak of sacraments, and sacrememtals; ways in which grace is mediated to men through created matter. What is the end purpose of this Grace? Is it simply to remove temptation and sin from our lives?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is holiness defined simply by not committing sins or not being tempted to sin?

If that is the result of a love of God and a desire to do his will, then I would say yes.

There are some sins that don’t tempt me. Gambling, for example. But I don’t avoid excessive gambling because I love God; I avoid it because I’m good at math (it was my major in college). Not being an excessive gambler surely makes it easier to be holy than if I had a gambling problem, but that alone does not make me holier - it’s just one less pothole on the road to holiness.

 

[tdgesq]

There is a concept in eastern Christianity of the perpetual change of man. Change is natural to our nature, so either a man will change for the better, or he will change for the worse. This change is perpetual. The saint in heaven will continually grow in holiness and likeness to God. In other words, theosis never ends. Theosis isn’t a crowning point at the resurrection, but is a continual process that begins in this life and continues without end in the next.

I can tell you that the west has been fairly resistant to this idea. The Scholastic views I’ve seen generally cast our earthly life as the time of decision-making, with the beatific vision being seen as eternal and, therefore, timeless. Eternity as timelessness is fundamentally a philosophical view, but one that makes some practical sense. Otherwise we would continually be exercising our will to choose (maybe even for the worse), rather than having chosen once and for all.

This concept is supported by many of the Greek fathers including St Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Maximus Netherlands Confessor argues against a form of it which is expressed in Origenism and the preexistence of souls (the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ). I don’t think he is against the concept of perpetual change, but rather that those who have been in communion with God in heaven could fall.

It would surprise me if Maximus the Confessor has anything to say about this, although St. Gregory probably does in that he was somewhat sympathetic to the views of Origen.

It is also present in the concept of the apokatastasis in Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Those in hell can potentially be saved because change remains a part of their nature. And if they are willing, they could change for the better. This idea is expressed in later Greek theology like that of Mark of Ephesus from what I have heard.

Apocatastasis is generally viewed as a heresy in the Latin Church. It was rejected by the 543 local synod of Constantinople. Then again, all of Origen’s views tend to get lumped together, some of which are clearly heretical while others may not be. Then there is the additional complication that Latins divide hell into purgatory and infernus. The former allows for some type of change, but usually only the temporal penalties of sin and not the opportunity for repentance from serious sin. Infernus is the deal-breaker, where no repentance is possible. The RCC doesn’t teach whether any human soul is to be found in the hell of the damned though.

I am curious what westerner a think of the concept of perpetual change. Can the beatific vision be seen in terms of a perpetual change toward union with God. Both in the perception that those in hell could be saved, and that heaven is percieved as running toward something that is never completely reached. I know the concept is present in some degree in the west, atleast in CS Lewis’s Great Divorce. What do you guys think of the concept from a western perspective?

From the above, you can see it’s going to be a hard sell. This is one area where speculative theology is warranted because there is very little western dogma concerning the final things. There is some leeway for ideas.

 

[Nita]

…Those in hell can potentially be saved because change remains a part of their nature. And if they are willing, they could change for the better.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching. Those who are condemned to hell are there eternally.

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM#3N

 

[Nita]

There is a concept in eastern Christianity of the perpetual change of man. Change is natural to our nature, so either a man will change for the better, or he will change for the worse. This** change is perpetual**. The saint in heaven will continually** grow in holiness **and likeness to God. In other words, theosis never ends. Theosis isn’t a crowning point at the resurrection, but is a continual process that begins in this life and continues without end in the next.

It’s hard to conceive of this “change” apart from “merit” - that is, meriting an increase of grace while in heaven.
The concept of being able to merit in heaven (or hell) is contrary to Catholic teaching…

…
(b) **The agent who merits **must fulfil two conditions: He must be in the state of pilgrimage (status viœ) and in the state of grace (status gratiœ). By the state of pilgrimage is to be understood our earthly life; death as a natural (although not an essentially necessary) limit, closes the time of meriting. The time of sowing is confined to this life; the reaping is reserved for the next, when no man will be able to sow either wheat or cockle. Comparing the earthly life with day and the time after death with night, Christ says: “The night cometh, when no man can work [operari]” (John 9:4; cf. Ecclesiastes 11:3; Sirach 14:17). The opinion proposed by a few theologians (Hirscher, Schell), that for certain classes of men there may still be a possibility of conversion after death, is contrary to the revealed truth that the particular judgment (judicium particulare) determines instantly and definitively whether the future is to be one of eternal happiness or of eternal misery (cf. Kleutgen, “Theologie der Vorzeit”, II, 2nd ed., Münster, 1872, pp. 427 sqq.). ….
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

This concept is supported by many of the Greek fathers including St Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Maximus Netherlands Confessor argues against a form of it which is expressed in Origenism and the preexistence of souls (the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ). I don’t think he is against the concept of perpetual change, but rather that those who have been in communion with God in heaven could fall.

It is also present in the concept of the apokatastasis in Gregory of Nyssa and Origen. Those in hell can potentially be saved because change remains a part of their nature. And if they are willing, they could change for the better. This idea is expressed in later Greek theology like that of Mark of Ephesus from what I have heard.

Can you give some actual quotes from early Church fathers (so we can see who said what) with a link to the work so we can see the context. The ECFs and their writings can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[TimothyH]

Is it in Scripture?

 

[jimmy]

It’s hard to conceive of this “change” apart from “merit” - that is, meriting an increase of grace while in heaven.
The concept of being able to merit in heaven (or hell) is contrary to Catholic teaching…

…
(b) **The agent who merits **must fulfil two conditions: He must be in the state of pilgrimage (status viœ) and in the state of grace (status gratiœ). By the state of pilgrimage is to be understood our earthly life; death as a natural (although not an essentially necessary) limit, closes the time of meriting. The time of sowing is confined to this life; the reaping is reserved for the next, when no man will be able to sow either wheat or cockle. Comparing the earthly life with day and the time after death with night, Christ says: “The night cometh, when no man can work [operari]” (John 9:4; cf. Ecclesiastes 11:3; Sirach 14:17). The opinion proposed by a few theologians (Hirscher, Schell), that for certain classes of men there may still be a possibility of conversion after death, is contrary to the revealed truth that the particular judgment (judicium particulare) determines instantly and definitively whether the future is to be one of eternal happiness or of eternal misery (cf. Kleutgen, “Theologie der Vorzeit”, II, 2nd ed., Münster, 1872, pp. 427 sqq.). ….
newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

Can you give some actual quotes from early Church fathers (so we can see who said what) with a link to the work so we can see the context. The ECFs and their writings can be accessed here: newadvent.org/fathers/

I don’t have quotes on my. I know it is common the writings of the Greek fathers like Gregoy Nyssa and Origen. It has become part of Eastern Orthodox theology. Theosis never ends. You can never close the gap between man and God, so there is always potential for change. Gregory portrays change as a natural quality of man, so to be human is to change. He also says that God can’t be comprehended, so you can always grow in knowledge.

 

[TimothyH]

I don’t have quotes on my. I know it is common the writings of the Greek fathers like Gregoy Nyssa and Origen. It has become part of Eastern Orthodox theology. Theosis never ends. You can never close the gap between man and God, so there is always potential for change. Gregory portrays change as a natural quality of man, so to be human is to change. He also says that God can’t be comprehended, so you can always grow in knowledge.

Jimmy, your post is interesting. This is something I have wondered about.

God doesn’t change and so does unity with the trinity imply that we will not change? And since time is a measure of change, will we be outside of time like God? What about after the resurrection of the dead? If we are alive, does that not imply change?

These are things I have thought about.

-Tim-

 

[1ke]

In Western thought, “theosis” is termed “divinization”.

Regarding Hell, that is permanent. So, what you wrote is not compatible with Church teaching.

I don’t think there is anything in theosis per se that contradicts the Western idea of divinization.

 

[jimmy]

In Western thought, “theosis” is termed “divinization”.

Regarding Hell, that is permanent. So, what you wrote is not compatible with Church teaching.

I don’t think there is anything in theosis per se that contradicts the Western idea of divinization.

Regarding hell, several people have mentioned this. I was only referencing that as an expression of the idea of potential for change after death in the Greek fathers. I realize that hell is final within catholic theology. It is also generally understood to be final in the modern EO theology (although there may be some variation and some Orthodox may be open to other ideas).

Another point. How does purgatory differ. It seems that purgatory is an expression of a similar idea. If purgatory exists that implies that change can continue after death. The question is; does purgatory reach a limit, and beyond that limit there is no change? Or is it possible to admit that change continues in heaven?

 

[Nita]

I don’t have quotes on my. I know it is common the writings of the Greek fathers like Gregoy Nyssa and Origen. It has become part of Eastern Orthodox theology. Theosis never ends. You can never close the gap between man and God, so there is always potential for change. Gregory portrays change as a natural quality of man, so to be human is to change. He also says that God can’t be comprehended, so you can always grow in knowledge.

But is he talking about man here on earth only? That’s the context we need. Also, what does he consider “change” to consist of.

 

[Nita]

But is he talking about man here on earth only? That’s the context we need. Also, what does he consider “change” to consist of.

I did find the following entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia which upholds your statement that St. Gregory did believe those in hell could be saved.
(apokatastasis)
A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.
This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his “De animâ et resurrectione” (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed.
…………….
In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

I could not find texts from the 543AD Council of Constantinople online, but did find the 553AD Council texts.

Medieval Sourcebook:
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
………
IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration ( apokatastasis ) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

“Apokatastasis” seems to refer only to those who are in hell. i did not see anything that talked about those in heaven continuing to “change”. (But, I must admit, I did not read all the articles completely. Too late in the day.)

 

[jimmy]

I did find the following entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia which upholds your statement that St. Gregory did believe those in hell could be saved.
(apokatastasis)
A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.
This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his “De animâ et resurrectione” (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed.
…………….
In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.
newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

I could not find texts from the 543AD Council of Constantinople online, but did find the 553AD Council texts.

Medieval Sourcebook:
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553
………
IX. If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration ( apokatastasis ) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

“Apokatastasis” seems to refer only to those who are in hell. i did not see anything that talked about those in heaven continuing to “change”. (But, I must admit, I did not read all the articles completely. Too late in the day.)

I only referenced apokatastasis in relation to perpetual change. The word is epektasis in Greek. I had to find one of my old papers in which I mentioned it. Do a google search for epektasis and Gregory Nyssa, and you will find a lot of discussion on it.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Western theologians teach that it is possible for us to achieve spiritual perfection while yet on earth. By “perfection” I mean complete aversion to all sin, mortal and venial, of commission or omission. Such persons cannot be tempted in any way, and this is because of their deep love of God and desire to do his divine will in every way.

St. Thérèse of Lisieux was named Doctor of the Church for the teaching she called her “little way,” which teaches that we do not need to live grand lives of heroic virtue to achieve this perfection, but it is possible for ordinary people living ordinary workaday lives.

Offhand, I’m having a hard time thinking of how a person in such a state could continue to grow in holiness.

There’s more to growing and changing than just becoming Holy and sinless. That’s just 1 way in which a person can grow, a person can grow and change in many ways that has nothing to do with sin or sinlessness. Our minds can and will grow and understand things more than we do now. Just look at how mankind’s understanding and knowledge of technology has grown and changed and how we understand things now that would totally baffle and confuse someone from 200 years ago even though we’re no more intelligent than they were, we’ve just grown more. Once we get to Heaven, our understanding of things will be like a caveman’s understanding is to us today. We will have a lot of growing and learning to do about things other than just learning to become holier. All the secrets of the universe will be common knowledge up there, like kindergarten and ABCs. I can’t wait to read the books in Heaven’s libraries. There’s so much to learn that we will forever be growing and changing, no matter how much you learn there’s always more to learn. Only God knows everything already. God never changes because He already knows and understands everything there is to know and understand. He doesn’t have to grow. It will take us all eternity just to **begin **to come close to knowing and understanding half of what God already knows and understands.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Once we get to Heaven, our understanding of things will be like a caveman’s understanding is to us today. We will have a lot of growing and learning to do about things other than just learning to become holier. All the secrets of the universe will be common knowledge up there, like kindergarten and ABCs.

That is a VERY interesting opinion. Pardon me for saying so, but it is much more interesting than I would expect from someone whose signature includes Hello Kitty (or some semblance of it), As I type this response, I have pondered your comments for more than an hour.

And this is what I have come up with:

We are taught that, in heaven, we will possess “glorified bodies” (free from death, disease, and corruption of any kind). But there is no Church teaching that I know of that teaches that we will possess “glorified minds” - ie, significantly greater intelligence or learning capacity.

Modern science understands MANY things that most people cannot comprehend. My wife was a biology major in college, and I helped her learn the Krebs Cycle - a “basic” teaching in biology. Fortunately, I had notes and flash-cards to help her learn, because I was utterly incapable of grasping any part of it myself. The ONLY part of it that I remember is that life forms “uptake” oxygen and sucrose.

I was a math major, and my wife helped me master trigonometric integration in a similar fashion. She could not have ever solved even the most simple problem either then or now.

I never learned the Krebs cycle, and my wife never learned advanced math. As I have grown older, I have developed an interest in quantum physics, and have studied the subject extensively. The Standard Model holds up very well, but the Holographic Principle holds up equally well, and both have been put forward by Nobel Laureate physicists. I doubt that one in 1000 people (and I am not among the one) really understand either theory, and I doubt that one in a million understand one or the other AND the Krebs cycle.

I find nothing in Catholic theology that says that we, in heaven, will have such an intellect that we can properly understand even these very basic things. that are known to us on earth RIGHT NOW.

And I find nothing in Catholic theology that suggests we could achieve a greater measure of holiness even if we could understand these (or other, more spiritual) things.

 

[DavidFilmer]

That is a VERY interesting opinion.

It is SO interesting that I have opened a dedicated thread to discuss the topic in particular.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

It is SO interesting that I have opened a dedicated thread to discuss the topic in particular.

Cool thanks! Yes I will have to think about that, I’m going to check that thread out now.