Salvation Theology of Catholic and Orthodox Christians

[ConstantineTG]

Usual Augustine EO polemics.

Yours are usual polemics as well. You reject anything I put forth as nothing as polemics until it agrees with your position. Discussing with you is pointless. We’re done. Thanks for playing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Another way to view Gods essence is through Scripture which affirms you cannot know Gods essence/existence in the infinite, yet the understanding through God is seeing and knowing though what He allowed or what indeed man was able to comprehend, enter in Jesus Christ. In this sense man was able to come into a deeper understanding, but not in the infinite sense. So seeing and knowing become contingent on the human perspective of understanding what is not of human comprehension. Course the process continues to a different level of understanding for example through the Saints, Angels etc.

There’s another paradox here also in that the intellect trades place’s with the mystic who becomes the intellect through Divine Revelation, not just analytical thinking. So here its much more difficult to coincide all together especially when locutions, visions occur which become descriptive to comprehensive understanding as with fire, etc. At some point its admitting whats known and what may well be true or false, but in fact is not known but believed.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Beatific Vision and Theosis are two different things.

Beatific Vision is one beholding God, seeing His face. That person sees God but is not deified by this experience.

Theosis isn’t about knowledge and vision, but about experience. We cannot fully know God’s essence but only through His energies, and Theosis is a growin participation in God’s energies where we become deified. This is an eternal process, never ending. We forever approach the unapproachable light, but it is not just as if we are staying in place, there is continued growth in experience. We become more and more like God, but we never become totally equal to God because God is infinite and so there is no finish line to this journey.

Thank you for your explanation.

Do you think Catholics believe in Beatific Vision? Catholics on this thread kept going back & forth on whether or not they do. I’ve found it hard to get a straight answer from Catholics on the issue.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yours are usual polemics as well. You reject anything I put forth as nothing as polemics until it agrees with your position. Discussing with you is pointless. We’re done. Thanks for playing.

:flowers:

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you for your explanation.

Do you think Catholics believe in Beatific Vision? Catholics on this thread kept going back & forth on whether or not they do. I’ve found it hard to get a straight answer from Catholics on the issue.

Though all my time as a Catholic, I was always taught that Beatific Vision is the Catholic belief on what the Heavenly state is. I am not aware of anything else. Of course Byzantine Eastern Catholics believe in Theosis. Also, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has borrowed a lot from the theology of Theosis where there is a stronger stress on the importance of the human body as part of our final state, and even deification. But there are still some missing elements, including the understanding of a growing experience in God as opposed to a fixed “Beatific Vision”. If I remember my TotB primer I attended during my last days as a Roman Catholic catechist, the understanding of deification in TofB results in Beatific Vision, not Theosis.

 

[dvdjs]

The problem again is that the Latins believe in a legalist understanding of sin, that Adam committed an offense, and if we are to live in the effects of this offense, then we have to have some sort of offense we carry ourselves.

Post 95 includes some material on what the Catholic church actually teaches on original sin. It is important not to conflate a “transgression” with the lasting effects of, or the propensity toward a transgression - even though all in in some sense “sin”.

… The Prodigal Son is Adam, and the first sin was when he left the father’s house. Where did the Prodigal Son end up living? In the pigpen. That is the effect of his sin (leaving the father’s house). Now, supposed the son didn’t get up and return to the father, as the story went. Supposed he had children with the harlots he paid for in the story. Where are these children born? Are they magically transported into the father’s house just because they didn’t inherit anything from the son, that is his sin of leaving the father’s house? No. But we, being Adam’s children, are born inside the pig pen where he is after committing his sin.

So do we need to inherit anything just to satisfy Romans 5:12? No.

We inherit the pigpen.

 

[dvdjs]

Yours are usual polemics as well. You reject anything I put forth as nothing as polemics until it agrees with your position. Discussing with you is pointless. We’re done. Thanks for playing.

There is a great deal of Orthodox writing that is very critical of the writings of Romanides and followers against Augustine.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Post 95 includes some material on what the Catholic church actually teaches on original sin. It is important not to conflate a “transgression” with the lasting effects of, or the propensity toward a transgression - even though all in in some sense “sin”.

Remember that this emphasis on saying that Original Sin is not a personal fault is new. If you look prior to Vatican II, you will see in unison that Original Sin is a stain on someone’s soul. In fact, earlier Western theologians even assigned sex as the culprit of propagating Original Sin, that the sexual act is always sinful, but less sinful for married couples, that is how OS is passed on.

We inherit the pigpen.

No we do not. It doesn’t make sense, it is not something to be inherited. If we are to carry on with the metaphor, and it is a great one at that, the son doesn’t own the pig pen. He was a slave living in the pig pen. So it is not something we inherit. We are born there because that is where the son is, and our children are born there because that is where we are. It isn’t about inheriting it. If we don’t inherit the pigpen, do we magically get transported to the father’s house? It doesn’t make sense.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Though all my time as a Catholic, I was always taught that Beatific Vision is the Catholic belief on what the Heavenly state is. I am not aware of anything else. Of course Byzantine Eastern Catholics believe in Theosis. Also, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has borrowed a lot from the theology of Theosis where there is a stronger stress on the importance of the human body as part of our final state, and even deification. But there are still some missing elements, including the understanding of a growing experience in God as opposed to a fixed “Beatific Vision”. If I remember my TotB primer I attended during my last days as a Roman Catholic catechist, the understanding of deification in TofB results in Beatific Vision, not Theosis.

Based on the term Beatific Vision it seems as though their only hope is to see God face to face. While that in & of itself is amazing yet it’s no where near the extraordinary hope we have as Orthodox to be really deified.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Though all my time as a Catholic, I was always taught that Beatific Vision is the Catholic belief on what the Heavenly state is. I am not aware of anything else. Of course Byzantine Eastern Catholics believe in Theosis. Also, Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has borrowed a lot from the theology of Theosis where there is a stronger stress on the importance of the human body as part of our final state, and even deification. But there are still some missing elements, including the understanding of a growing experience in God as opposed to a fixed “Beatific Vision”. If I remember my TotB primer I attended during my last days as a Roman Catholic catechist, the understanding of deification in TofB results in Beatific Vision, not Theosis.

Why would Byzantine Eastern Catholics have a different HOPE than other Catholics if they’re in the same Catholic religion?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Based on the term Beatific Vision it seems as though their only hope is to see God face to face. While that in & of itself is amazing yet it’s no where near the extraordinary hope we have as Orthodox to be really deified.

Well, given that I have experienced neither, I can’t really say which is better

Why would Byzantine Eastern Catholics have a different HOPE than other Catholics if they’re in the same Catholic religion?

They’re supposed to conform to Orthodox theology because they were formerly Orthodox. That is why you get a lot of people here saying that the Orthodox and Catholics believe in the same thing, just different emphasis. That is what Eastern Catholics claim. Though my experience in Eastern Catholicism is that their theology is more Latinized, that even though they have elements that resemble Orthodox theology on the surface, the underlying understanding is very Latin.

 

[dvdjs]

Remember that this emphasis on saying that Original Sin is not a personal fault is new. If you look prior to Vatican II, you will see in unison that Original Sin is a stain on someone’s soul. In fact, earlier Western theologians even assigned sex as the culprit of propagating Original Sin, that the sexual act is always sinful, but less sinful for married couples, that is how OS is passed on.

Just to be clear, it is what you are calling the Orthodox take on original sin that is a modern, innovative, and some would say, "revolution: in theology. I think you are wrong on the idea that the matter of personal fault represents an innovation in the West. And again I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia, well before VII, on the idea of the “stain”.

We may add an argument based on the principle of St. Augustine already cited, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”. This principle is developed by St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect” (De conceptu virginali, xxvi). In a child original sin is distinct from the fault of Adam, it is one of its effects. But which of these effects is it? We shall examine the several effects of Adam’s fault and reject those which cannot be original sin:

(1) Death and Suffering.- These are purely physical evils and cannot be called sin. Moreover St. Paul, and after him the councils, regarded death and original sin as two distinct things transmitted by Adam.

(2) Concupiscence.- This rebellion of the lower appetite transmitted to us by Adam is an occasion of sin and in that sense comes nearer to moral evil. However, the occasion of a fault is not necessarily a fault, and whilst original sin is effaced by baptism concupiscence still remains in the person baptized; therefore original sin and concupiscence cannot be one and the same thing, as was held by the early Protestants (see Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v).

(3) The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii). If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this, that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.]

You will find talk of this deficit and its propagation through humanity since the Fall in the early Fathers. Please check out the Moss article, among others.

No we do not. It doesn’t make sense, it is not something to be inherited. If we are to carry on with the metaphor, and it is a great one at that, the son doesn’t own the pig pen. He was a slave living in the pig pen. So it is not something we inherit. We are born there because that is where the son is, and our children are born there because that is where we are. It isn’t about inheriting it. If we don’t inherit the pigpen, do we magically get transported to the father’s house? It doesn’t make sense.

Sure the analogy could be pushed to far on the matter of comparing property to our nature. The former we might inherit, if it were owned. The latterwe do inherit, just by being descendents. Fr. Hopko is not known as a great theologian.

 

[Surnaturel]

Based on the term Beatific Vision it seems as though their only hope is to see God face to face. While that in & of itself is amazing yet it’s no where near the extraordinary hope we have as Orthodox to be really deified.

That’s a misunderstanding. Seeing God in His essence is part of the process of deification in Catholic theology, since we are said to participate in the deifying essence of God. Then, we look forward to the glorification of our resurrection bodies which will allow us to experience God in our fullness as humans; an experience that will progress infinitely into eternity since God’s essence is infinite and can never be fully comprehended. In the sense there is similarity to St. Gregory of Nyssa’s concept of ektasis.

 

[GaryTaylor]

no where near the extraordinary hope we have as Orthodox to be really deified.

straw man

 

[vames]

Though all my time as a Catholic, I was always taught that Beatific Vision is the Catholic belief on what the Heavenly state is. I am not aware of anything else.

Out of curiosity, did anyone mentioned to you that this teaching about Beatific Vision has its roots or has something to do with the Book of Job?
Someone in this thread posted a link to “Life Everlasting” by Garrigou-Lagrange, who had this explanation:

Benedict XII: “The souls of all the saints are in heaven before the resurrection of the body and the general judgment. They see the divine essence by a vision which is intuitive and facial, without the intermediation of any creature in that view. By this vision they enjoy the divine essence, they are truly blessed, they have eternal life and repose.” [499] The Council of Florence [500] says that souls in the state of grace, after being purified, enter into heaven, see God the triune as He is in Himself, but with a degree more or less perfect, according to the diversity of their merits.

catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev29.php

IMO this is strikingly similar to what we hear when we offer a Mass for a departed person, as the final chant usually includes these verses from Job:

For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth.
And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God.
Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another: this my hope is laid up in my bosom.

To me it seems that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have tried delicately to shift the emphasis from Beatific Vision as the ultimate representation of heavenly afterlife to the continuous process of fulfilment of the human being in accordance with “God’s world”, until it will find fullness in God. I’ve posted some relevant quotes in another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10901813#post10901813

 

[Schism_hater]

Fr. Hopko is not known as a great theologian.

Not known by whom to be a great theologian? And frankly I’m not sure I’m looking for a “great theologian”, but rather one who believes and tries to communicate truth. Kung, Schillibeeckx (sp?), et al are considered by many to be “great theologians”. If I were Fr. Hopko, I would glad not to be counted among them.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just to be clear, it is what you are calling the Orthodox take on original sin that is a modern, innovative, and some would say, "revolution: in theology. I think you are wrong on the idea that the matter of personal fault represents an innovation in the West. And again I quote from the Catholic encyclopedia, well before VII, on the idea of the “stain”.

You will find talk of this deficit and its propagation through humanity since the Fall in the early Fathers. Please check out the Moss article, among others.

Sure the analogy could be pushed to far on the matter of comparing property to our nature. The former we might inherit, if it were owned. The latterwe do inherit, just by being descendents.

What else am I to say about this other than what I already have said. Again I’ll say the same thing I told you before, I have explained our position. If you do not agree to it, that is okay. So be it. As long as you are informed of our position.

Fr. Hopko is not known as a great theologian.

You have got to be kidding me. While there are many people on the internet who would voice their disagreements with him, well, you can say that about almost everyone. Hey, many Catholics disagree with the Pope, so there. He is well respected. Even the Metropolitan Sheptytsky Institute, a Ukrainian Catholic institution, invites him for talks. He has been the dean of St. Vlad’s for a long time. He does have some questionable positions (he is very vocal about his support for the restoration of the Female Diaconate, but this is based on very good research on its history within the Church), he is very knowledgeable in many things.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not known by whom to be a great theologian? And frankly I’m not sure I’m looking for a “great theologian”, but rather one who believes and tries to communicate truth. Kung, Schillibeeckx (sp?), et al are considered by many to be “great theologians”. If I were Fr. Hopko, I would glad not to be counted among them.

Haha! Zing!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Haha!

Apparently what the EO believes is Jesus Christ “GOD” was a sinner born in a state other than His perfectly Graced Divinity, mentioned on this thread also, and you’ve mentioned it on another without defense, you have No Response.

What you have by this understanding and of the Trinity so far is the Arian heresy. So how about this sinner Jesus Christ, how is He Divine and God, do you NOT believe he is?

Born of a sinner who according to you was just a women blessed “only” among women, and Jesus born into this fallen state of Death of the Soul, Death of the Flesh.

Hows this work according to the Divinity of Jesus Christ 4th Ecumenical Council

YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE FOR THIS.

To further add complexity the Trinity then becomes of issue which is the basic ARIAN HERESY

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Divinity becomes further attacked by the Arians for “One Reason” the Original Creed which does “NOT” defend the Divinity of Jesus Christ, enter the filioque.

Basil and Ambrose agree and “CONFESS” “WE MUST CONFESS THE FATHER AND SON ARE NOT TWO PRINCIPLES but ONE of the HOLY SPIRIT”

Affirmed at Florence by “John the Theologian” agreed upon by St Mark. The conversation picks up right here where it left off.

This is where Rome is at.