Theosis and Theopoiesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLittleFlower
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarysLittleFlower

Guest
I’ve encountered these two terms on this forum and I’m really confused… do we believe that removing sin doesn’t change our nature, but that through sanctification our natures would be changed? I’ve never heard that our natures would be changed. Do Orthodox think so? Do Catholics think so too? would be grateful for any help 🙂
 
For Catholics, deification means being sanctified by the Holy Spirit so that we are able to behold the Beatific Vision (the vision of God’s essence) for all eternity in Heaven.

Benedictus Deus On the Beatific Vision of God - Papal Encyclicals Online

Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority.
www.papalencyclicals.net www.papalencyclicals.net

Eastern Orthodox have a much different, far more complicated concept of “theosis”:
  1. First, the Eastern Orthodox believe God’s essence can never, ever be seen by anyone, not even in Heaven.
  2. Second, they believe an “energy” or “light” eternally proceeds from God’s essence, and this light can be seen by the saints, both in Heaven and now on Earth. They say this is the same light that came from Jesus on Mount Tabor.
  3. Third, they believe this light can be seen only by awakening a mystical “inner eye”. This “inner eye” is different from the normal physical sensory eyes and intellectual eye that everyone has. Their mystical “inner eye” can only be awakened by a strenuous meditation technique called Hesychasm. Hesychasm - Wikipedia
  4. They believe this inner eye can see the divine light of tabor, both now on Earth and in eternity in Heaven. Eastern Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff describes it as follows:
In this vision God becomes all in all; for light is at once the “object” of the vision, and that by which we see (the medium), and indeed, the seeing eye itself (for one must be transfigured oneself into light in order to see God, and to see Him is to be united to Him and to share His glory).
Click to expand...
  1. Whereas Catholics believe Heaven will be a state of rest where we enjoy the Beatific Vision of God, the Eastern Orthodox believe theosis is a literally endless process - we will never, ever stop progressing in the divine light. Meyendorff says:
To attain any peak in our ascent to Him is to open up before the inner eye yet further vistas of knowledge and love.
Click to expand...
Citations of Meyendorff are from Footnotes to Part D of the Triads by Gregory Palamas.
 
How does this relate to human nature changing or not changing?
 
For Catholics, human nature changes by the work of the Holy Spirit so that we become righteous, holy and sinless. Hebrews 12:14 captures this concept:
Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.
Click to expand...
For Eastern Orthodox, the change in human nature consists of the awakening of the inner eye that can behold (and in fact become) the divine light of God. Of course they believe we need to become holy, it’s just that the process is oriented toward the awakening of this inner eye rather than seeing God in His essence.
 
Does eastern Catholic equate to Orthodox thoughts on this regards?
 
I guess what I don’t really understand, is does the human nature actually change? For example human nature didn’t change with the fall.

I read that one of these Greek terms implies no change in nature but another does. I’m trying to figure out if that’s true and if that’s the Catholic teaching or not…
 
The Catholic teaching is that human nature did change with the fall - we became sinful.

And the Catholic teaching is that human nature is changed through sanctification, so that we become sinless and enjoy greater blessing than we had before the fall - the Beatific Vision.

As for the difference between those two words, see this:
40.png
Theosis and Theopoiesis Eastern Catholicism
In the Coptic Orthodox Church, there is a movement to reacquire what has been claimed by some to be the historic soteriological understanding within Coptic Orthodoxy (theopoiesis). In distinction, theosis is a byzantine idea, extraneous to authentic CO’xy. Theopoiesis is also understood to be the proper Western (i.e. Latin) understanding. Have any members here chanced upon this distinction in your studies? Any comments would be appreciated. Blessings, Marduk
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the link,

I’m confused about human nature changing though, because I seem to recall from catechism that our nature was weakened, but not changed? I need to check this… maybe I don’t remember. But from what I understood, our nature didn’t change because it’s still essentially good, not as the Protestants teach with total depravity. But there is original sin.
 
A weakening is a change. The Catechism says:
404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
 
Thanks for the quote, I think what I’m saying is that human nature is weakened but not corrupted…
 
MarysLittleFlower said:
I guess what I don’t really understand, is does the human nature actually change? For example human nature didn’t change with the fall.

I read that one of these Greek terms implies no change in nature but another does. I’m trying to figure out if that’s true and if that’s the Catholic teaching or not…
Click to expand...
Human nature can be restricted, wounded, or disordered, and may be elevated as divinization. St. Thomas Aquinas, S.T. 1,1,8; 2.2: “Grace prefects nature without destroying it.”
 
Can we say that redemption removes sin from our nature and sanctifying grace is added, and theosis perfects it? But the essence of the soul isn’t changed is it? I mean we remain human. But change I mean a change of essence not an accidental or other change… . Not sure what type of a change redemption is - in these terms
 
I think I’ve finally figured out what I’m asking here 🙂

is there an ontological change with the fall and redemption?

I know our natures are still good though and not corrupted, rather weakened… that was taught to me in catechism class
 
Well, I’ve read a lot of the answers. There seems to be some confusion.
do we believe that removing sin doesn’t change our nature,
Click to expand...
Correct. Removing sin is a personal thing. Nature is not. Let me give you an example.

The Blessed Trinity shares one divine nature. That nature is such that there is only one, it is eternal, omnipotent and omniscient.

We also share one human nature with the rest of humanity. That one nature is shared by many persons. And it is such that every individual human is confined to a space in time, not eternal, not omniscient, not omnipotent and imperfect.

Unless you want to say that one human whose sins are forgiven makes humanity better, in general, human nature is not affected when one individual is forgiven by God and He removes our sin, washing it away in the washing of regeneration, which is Baptism. An individual soul is renewed and washed clean of all sin.
but that through sanctification our natures would be changed?
Click to expand...
Sanctification is also a personal thing. Washing of sin, or removal of sin, is a very important part of sanctification. Every time our sins are removed and we are washed of sins, we are sanctified. But we are also sanctified every time that we do a good deed, every time that we pray, and every time that we move closer to God.

But our nature is not affected. Only our soul.
I’ve never heard that our natures would be changed.
Click to expand...
The early church used the metaphor of an iron in the fire. The process of sanctification is like putting an iron rod in the fire. The iron rod will begin to glow and may become almost indistinguishable from the fire. But it is not the fire. The same for human nature, we may become perfect as our Father in heaven, but we will never be God. We will only look like Him:

1 John 3:2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed[a] we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
 
Thank you, that’s exactly along the lines that I was asking!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top