T
ThuriferAcolyte
Guest
Does Catholicism have as defined a theology on theosis (divinization) as the Orthodox Church?
- Status
N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
Byzantine Catholics do. Since much of the “theosis” theology is pre-Schism, the same theologians are liberally sampled from by both EO and ByzRC.
For example:
holyghost-byzantinecatholic.org/theosis.htm
For example:
holyghost-byzantinecatholic.org/theosis.htm
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, it’s called deification, which is the Latin translation of theosis. The Latin Saints who wrote the most eloquently on the subject are St. John of the Cross (Dark Night of the Soul and Ascent of Mt. Carmel) and St. Theresa of Avila (Interior Castles).
Deification is also treated by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Deification is an Apostolic Christian teaching, shared by all Apostolic Churches.
Peace and God bless!
F
FCEGM
Guest
Yes, indeed.
For reading on this, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., presents the Church’s theology in two works: Christian Perfection and Contempation, and the two volume The Three Ages of the Interior Life.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
This was discussed here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=281109 not so long ago. Ok. it was a little while…It was a very good thread.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I would like to add that this teaching of Deification is what lies at the heart of the split between Protestants and Catholics, at least at the time of the Reformation. Martin Luther and the other Reformers denied that we humans could become truly Holy, but that we are saved by Christ’s Holiness “covering us” and hiding our evil nature.
The Catholic belief, on the other hand, was and is that we partake in God’s own Holiness, and therefore become Holy ourselves. These are the terms that were used in the debates, but it’s clear to see that it was ultimately a debate about theosis/deification; the Reformers denied it, the Catholic Church maintained it. All arguments about “working with Grace” become very clear once understood with the notion of theosis/deification.
Peace and God bless!
The Catholic belief, on the other hand, was and is that we partake in God’s own Holiness, and therefore become Holy ourselves. These are the terms that were used in the debates, but it’s clear to see that it was ultimately a debate about theosis/deification; the Reformers denied it, the Catholic Church maintained it. All arguments about “working with Grace” become very clear once understood with the notion of theosis/deification.
Peace and God bless!
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Ghosty, that may be true for Lutherans but not the Reformed. Here is a quote on monergism.com (you can’t get more Calvinist than that!):
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/counciltrent.html
It is unclear to me how this is in conflict with Catholic and Orthodox thoughts on theosis.
N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
Well, the part about “grow[ing] in true holiness” certainly isn’t in conflict. This reminds me about St. John Climacus, about whose book, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Wikipedia notes:
“The Ladder [of Divine Ascent] describes how to raise one’s soul and body to God, as if on a ladder, the goal of which is theosis (mystical union with God). …] Climacus uses the analogy of Jacob’s Ladder as the framework for his spiritual teaching. Each chapter is referred to as a “step”, and deals with a separate spiritual subject. There are thirty steps of the ladder, which correspond with the age of Jesus at his baptism and the beginning of his earthly ministry. The first 23 steps give instruction on overcoming the vices and the remainder speak of building of the virtues. The Ladder holds dispassionateness (apatheia) as the ultimate contemplative and mystical good in a Christian.”
So it seems that Catholic, Orthodox, and non-Lutheran Reformers can comfortably study St. John Climacus together, no?
G
Ghosty
Guest
The problem is right there in the quote you provided:
There is no mention of us truly participating in the Divine Life, but rather in Christ’s life hiding ours. Christ, in this case, is called “our life” in a much different sense than that of theosis. The very fact that it is called monergism (single energy/action of God) indicates that it is a unilateral consideration of God’s Grace, and not a true sharing.
Simply using the language of being “united to Christ” or being “conformed to Christ” is not enough to substantiate the claim of a teaching of theosis/deification. It is necessary to show that the very Divine Life itself is shared with human nature, specifically with human persons. There is nothing to show that John Calvin ever allowed for such a belief.
Peace and God bless!
T
Truthstalker
Guest
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.v.xii.html?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=1&scrV=4#v.xii-p50.1
- Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of Osiander’s calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace, that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and, accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zuinglians[413](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_v.xii-p48.1’)
413 The Latin, “ideo Zuinglianos odiose nominat;” is in the French simply, “condamne furieusement;”—furiously condemns. to all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures; though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate. This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling. In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first, that God by a gross mixture[414](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_v.xii-p49.1’)
Is this what you are talking about?
G
Ghosty
Guest
If I’m reading Calvin correctly, he’s denying our sharing in Divinity; though we would agree that we don’t share “in essence”, it seems he means more by his words than what the Catholic theological terminology would tend to.
What he means by “mystical union”, if we don’t actually share in God’s Holiness, is not at all clear to me. Did he mean some kind of “merely symbolic” union? I really can’t interpret his words since I can only understand “mystical union” to be precisely what Calvin denies we can possess.
What’s more, I can’t find anything online that clearly explains what Calvin means by “mystical union”. Could someone help me out with this?
Peace and God bless!
I
IAGladfelter
Guest
Keep in mind that with Calvinism, this (a form of theosis) is approached from within the context of double predestination and pertains only to the elect.
When I asked a Greek (language) professor at a Southern Baptist Seminary (who is a Calvinist) about a passage in the Bible which seemed to imply theosis, if theosis was at least acknowledged by the SBC and other Calvinists, he told me, “theosis is not heretical - but we Calvinists don’t understand salvation and sanctification that way.”
By the way, “divine filiation” as taught by St. Josemaria Escriva seems to be a way of explaining theosis in line with St. John of the Cross.
Blessings,
Irl
When I asked a Greek (language) professor at a Southern Baptist Seminary (who is a Calvinist) about a passage in the Bible which seemed to imply theosis, if theosis was at least acknowledged by the SBC and other Calvinists, he told me, “theosis is not heretical - but we Calvinists don’t understand salvation and sanctification that way.”
By the way, “divine filiation” as taught by St. Josemaria Escriva seems to be a way of explaining theosis in line with St. John of the Cross.
Blessings,
Irl
R
rwoehmke
Guest
Doesn’t the Latin Church’s teachings on Sanctifying Grace and Theosis in the eastern Churches amount to about the same thing.? Paragraph 460 in the Catholic Catechism and the reference attached seem to me to pertain to Theosis.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Yes, it does. The two traditions have slightly different ways of talking about the same sharing of Divine Life, and our participation in Divinity.Doesn’t the Latin Church’s teachings on Sanctifying Grace and Theosis in the eastern Churches amount to about the same thing.? Paragraph 460 in the Catholic Catechism and the reference attached seem to me to pertain to Theosis.
Peace and God bless!
G
geekborj
Guest
I believe they are the same. In the end, what is important is that we can all become truly holy from within the very core, not just superficial (not just by covering the sin, as most Protestants believe). Both theosis and sanctification point to the same truth. We must become holy in everything: heart, mind, and body. Everyone however agree that this can only be done through grace of the Holy Spirit and no other way, not our own works which we could boast.Doesn’t the Latin Church’s teachings on Sanctifying Grace and Theosis in the eastern Churches amount to about the same thing.? Paragraph 460 in the Catholic Catechism and the reference attached seem to me to pertain to Theosis.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
I agree. While I fear I may be perceived as trying to hijack this thread into a discussion of Calvinism, which I am not trying to do, sanctification is the process of really becoming holy, after the forensic declaration of justification. Calvinists insist that justification and sanctification are inseparable and discuss them separately only for analytical purposes. I don’t know of any Protestants who insist they will still sin in heaven, nor of any who insist there is no point in trying to live a life pleasing to God.
I don’t know what Calvin meant by “mystical union” beyond what the phrase suggests.
M
mardukm
Guest
I agree with brother Ghosty that the Reformers rejected deification/theosis.
The Reformers of the Reformers, on the other hand, beginning with John Wesley (whose legacy is maintained by the Methodists, the Discplies of Christ, the Mennonites, etc.), began to re-acquire this Catholic teaching.
Blessings
The Reformers of the Reformers, on the other hand, beginning with John Wesley (whose legacy is maintained by the Methodists, the Discplies of Christ, the Mennonites, etc.), began to re-acquire this Catholic teaching.
Blessings
G
Ghosty
Guest
No longer sinning is really something quite different from becoming luminous from within with the very Life and Glory of Divinity. There’s a reason that Catholic and Orthodox art utilizes “halos” around the Saints.
I’ve not found anything in my reading of Calvinist sources that indicates that they believe in a real participation in Divinity, but I may be wrong.
Peace and God bless!
B
brb2
Guest
Let the Reformers, of the Reformers, reform themselves a third time … and rejoin in Unity the Universal Church of Christ.
Afterall, Christ’s one Church - once their starting point and only true heritage, should be their greatest desire & final destiny.
- Status