Salvation Theology of Catholic and Orthodox Christians

[1Tim215Mommy]

Beatific Vision and Theosis

What are the similarities? and What are the differences?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Beatific Vision and Theosis

What are the similarities? and What are the differences?

Between Catholic soteriology and Orthodox? I’m not sure if there is any. Through faith and the sacraments we undergo an inner regeneration and renewal of the spirit. By this we are justified and through further participation in the sacramental life, through works of love, and through prayer, we are further sanctified by grace and the Holy Spirit.

There may be slight differences in terminology, but not in intent or meaning.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Traditionally? It has to do with whether the gifts of the Spirit are created or uncreated, and whether man is deified or merely becomes deiform.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Between Catholic soteriology and Orthodox? I’m not sure if there is any.

It is actually polar opposites.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

It is actually polar opposites.

Please, enlighten me…don’t we go by the same data?(The Bible)

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please, enlighten me…don’t we go by the same data?(The Bible)

Yes, but the understanding and emphasis are completely different. For example, the concept of corruption seems to be largely lost in the West today. Soteriology is focused on the forgiveness of sins and getting your slate wiped clean. In the East the issue of soteriology still revolves around corruption and death, and salvation is life. While forgiveness of sins plays a great role in the East, the main focus is acquisition of the Holy Spirit and transforming our very mind and heart and life into the life of God. The soteriological question in the West is one of legality, while in the East it is ontological. That is, the West believes we have offended God and must repay our debts. In the East we believe that sin has changed our very nature and we must fight the corruption that corrodes are nature so that we are able to accept the grace of God to transform our lives into the new creation.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Ok, this is what I meant by differences in terminology.

Yes, but the understanding and emphasis are completely different. For example, the concept of corruption seems to be largely lost in the West today. Soteriology is focused on the forgiveness of sins and getting your slate wiped clean.

No, no. This sounds more like protestantism than Catholicism. Yes, there is the knowledge that by baptism our sins are forgiven, but it means much more than that to us. We understand it as a real ontological change in our being. An indelible seal on our souls. We see justification as real regeneration and renewal. Its protestants who relegate soteriology to only a legal declaration.

In the East the issue of soteriology still revolves around corruption and death, and salvation is life. While forgiveness of sins plays a great role in the East, the main focus is acquisition of the Holy Spirit and transforming our very mind and heart and life into the life of God.

Again, we have the same emphasis. To us the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church.

The soteriological question in the West is one of legality, while in the East it is ontological. That is, the West believes we have offended God and must repay our debts. In the East we believe that sin has changed our very nature and we must fight the corruption that corrodes are nature so that we are able to accept the grace of God to transform our lives into the new creation.

Again, that’s nowhere near Catholic teaching but instead more like protestantism. We believe that life in the Church is the acceptance in faith of the divine life granted through the sacraments. That through a life of grace and prayer in the Holy Spirit that we further conform our lives to that of Christ, from glory to glory.

I’m terribly sorry if that’s the impression that you have of the West.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Beatific Vision and Theosis

What are the similarities? and What are the differences?

Its misunderstanding by large. Its often suggested that St Thomas Aquinas taught you can see Gods essence. Its the usual misunderstanding of individuals within the Church’s who more than likely only have a great deal of zeal for their Faith. They forget Scripture, “be slow to speak and quick to listen”.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Its misunderstanding by large. Its often suggested that St Thomas Aquinas taught you can see Gods essence. Its the usual misunderstanding of individuals within the Church’s who more than likely only have a great deal of zeal for their Faith. They forget Scripture, “be slow to speak and quick to listen”.

Beatific Vision is a misunderstanding and not Catholic theology?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Beatific Vision is a misunderstanding and not Catholic theology?

Well, what do you mean by it?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Well, what do you mean by it?

Beatific Vision, per the dictionary, literally means “Seeing Blessedness”. But if it’s not really a Catholic belief, but a misunderstanding as you said, then it doesn’t really matter what it means. If not Beatific Vision, what does the Catholic Church teach awaits those who will be saved?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Beatific Vision, per the dictionary, literally means “Seeing Blessedness”. But if it’s not really a Catholic belief, but a misunderstanding as you said, then it doesn’t really matter what it means. If not Beatific Vision, what does the Catholic Church teach awaits those who will be saved?

If it means beholding the beatific vision after death for eternity, then yes, we believe. We also believe it possible to have divine “communications” while in this life as well, but only for those truly advanced in prayer.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Ok, this is what I meant by differences in terminology.

No. Anyone who claims that the difference is only in terminology does not know the other side enough.

No, no. This sounds more like protestantism than Catholicism. Yes, there is the knowledge that by baptism our sins are forgiven, but it means much more than that to us. We understand it as a real ontological change in our being. An indelible seal on our souls. We see justification as real regeneration and renewal. Its protestants who relegate soteriology to only a legal declaration.

But aside from such declarations, there is no tangible manifestation of any ontological change, at least in current popular Catholic understanding. In Orthodoxy, the ontological change isn’t something that cannot be perceived by the senses, it isn’t purely spiritual.

Again, we have the same emphasis. To us the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church.

No we do not. Even though we both believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of how this happens and how it affects us in our daily lives is different.

Again, that’s nowhere near Catholic teaching but instead more like protestantism. We believe that life in the Church is the acceptance in faith of the divine life granted through the sacraments. That through a life of grace and prayer in the Holy Spirit that we further conform our lives to that of Christ, from glory to glory.

I’m terribly sorry if that’s the impression that you have of the West.

I will admit my explanation is a bit simplistic and the intrinsic differences are not outlined properly. It’s just hard to compress such a big amount of information into a forum post. I do not wish to write a book or a big essay here, I’m just outlining the areas where the OP can go and look further into the topic. The fact is this cannot be simply covered by forum posts if we are expecting an in-depth discussion of all the issues. But I have already outlined the things I have learned to be major differences. I have been Roman Catholic for 33 years, and I did make it a point to compare the differences when I explored Orthodoxy. I mean, we can go further into the topic, like the fact that Original Sin as defined by Sts. Augustine and Aquinas does not exist in Eastern belief, much less Eastern soteriology. We do not have a concept of “State of Grace”. We do not believe the same things about all of the Sacraments, even how many there are actually. The list goes on and on.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

No. Anyone who claims that the difference is only in terminology does not know the other side enough.

That may be true, or it may not. My limited understanding on EO is that the emphasis is placed more on the mystery of God. But because we emphasize one aspect and you emphasize another by no way means that we’re diametrically opposed or that one emphasis is more or less important than the other. I think we can find goodness and beauty in both, without relativising the heart of the deposit of faith.

But aside from such declarations, there is no tangible manifestation of any ontological change, at least in current popular Catholic understanding. In Orthodoxy, the ontological change isn’t something that cannot be perceived by the senses, it isn’t purely spiritual.

I think you need to clarify because I’m seeing a double negative in your statement. Are you saying that the change from justification is sensible to the person or not?

No we do not. Even though we both believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of how this happens and how it affects us in our daily lives is different.

If you’re speaking about the filioque controversy, you’re right, there is a difference. But I wouldn’t call it an insurmountable one.

I will admit my explanation is a bit simplistic and the intrinsic differences are not outlined properly. It’s just hard to compress such a big amount of information into a forum post. I do not wish to write a book or a big essay here, I’m just outlining the areas where the OP can go and look further into the topic. The fact is this cannot be simply covered by forum posts if we are expecting an in-depth discussion of all the issues. But I have already outlined the things I have learned to be major differences. I have been Roman Catholic for 33 years, and I did make it a point to compare the differences when I explored Orthodoxy. I mean, we can go further into the topic, like the fact that Original Sin as defined by Sts. Augustine and Aquinas does not exist in Eastern belief, much less Eastern soteriology.

I would have to look into the eastern ECFs to see what they said on the matter. I do know that their methods were more nuanced than in the west, but again I don’t think that its a thing that is insurmountable. Are you saying that it’s an impossibility to find a synthesis?

We do not have a concept of “State of Grace”. We do not believe the same things about all of the Sacraments, even how many there are actually. The list goes on and on.

Well, I don’t think it’s beyond reasonable to begin with one thing and then move on afterwards. Do you?

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

If it means beholding the beatific vision after death for eternity, then yes, we believe.

“beholding the beatific vision”, gazing at God, regardless of how amazing that would be, is very impersonal compared to Theosis. It’s like the difference between a man looking at a lady compared to a man become one with a lady through marriage.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

“beholding the beatific vision”, gazing at God, regardless of how amazing that would be, is very impersonal compared to Theosis. It’s like the difference between a man looking at a lady compared to a man become one with a lady through marriage.

Well, then again I wish you could define it so that I could understand. The Catholic teaching on this is by no means impersonal, not to my estimation. In fact I consider it quite profound.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That may be true, or it may not. My limited understanding on EO is that the emphasis is placed more on the mystery of God. But because we emphasize one aspect and you emphasize another by no way means that we’re diametrically opposed or that one emphasis is more or less important than the other. I think we can find goodness and beauty in both, without relativising the heart of the deposit of faith.

The world of difference starts with Soteriology. We don’t even agree how sin affected creation at The Fall. Our theology doesn’t even fit together, it doesn’t work together. There are many things in our faith that are just opposites, and this goes back to the difference in the basics of our faith.

I think you need to clarify because I’m seeing a double negative in your statement. Are you saying that the change from justification is sensible to the person or not?

It is. The change happens in all levels of the person, from spiritual to physical.

If you’re speaking about the filioque controversy, you’re right, there is a difference. But I wouldn’t call it an insurmountable one.

No, I am not talking about the Filioque. I’m talking about how we understand how the Holy Spirit acts within us and how He facilitates our salvation.

I would have to look into the eastern ECFs to see what they said on the matter. I do know that their methods were more nuanced than in the west, but again I don’t think that its a thing that is insurmountable. Are you saying that it’s an impossibility to find a synthesis?

Yes, at this point of history, they are just two completely different things. The West believes in Original Sin, the East does not. How do you resolve that? Other than having to redefine the faith of one side or both.

Well, I don’t think it’s beyond reasonable to begin with one thing and then move on afterwards. Do you?

If you want to start focusing on one topic, then propose one.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

The world of difference starts with Soteriology. We don’t even agree how sin affected creation at The Fall. Our theology doesn’t even fit together, it doesn’t work together. There are many things in our faith that are just opposites, and this goes back to the difference in the basics of our faith.

It is. The change happens in all levels of the person, from spiritual to physical.

No, I am not talking about the Filioque. I’m talking about how we understand how the Holy Spirit acts within us and how He facilitates our salvation.

Yes, at this point of history, they are just two completely different things. The West believes in Original Sin, the East does not. How do you resolve that? Other than having to redefine the faith of one side or both.

If you want to start focusing on one topic, then propose one.

Then I would suggest we start from how the EO perceives the Fall and maybe we can go from there?

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Original Sin in the western Church is not that much of a mystery. I have opened this topic with the intent of trying to reconcile, or if possible to find some common ground, on the matter of how the Fall effects soteriology.

I would ask if any EO would like to clarify what their tradition means by the Fall and what were it’s consequences?

And I pray that God grant us all the gift of charity as we do our best to pursue His will.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Good topic.