Eastern brothers and sisters,
For those of you who are well educated in its implications, is there any substantial difference between the fundamental concept of Beatific Vision in the western Church and Theosis in the eastern Churches? Obviously, we approach it from very different perspectives, but it is my knowledge that they are both direct participations into the blessed life of the most holy Trinity.
I also understand this to be an concept unique to the Catholic Churches (east and west) and the eastern Orthodox churches, seeing as it has no place in monergism.
I am also currently very absorbed in thinking about it.
2 Pt 1:4, 1 Cor 13:12, Heb 11:1, Rev 22:4, etc.
I’m gathering scripture on this also. If you have any to add, feel free to share (even if you’re a latin
)
A closer comparison would be the Eastern(Byzantine) notion of
theosis and the Western notion of
deification. Essentially these two things are the same, and are usually summed up in Irenaeus’ phrase: “God became man so that man might become god.”
With regards to participation in the life of the Trinity, it seems to me that there are two main differences in Eastern and Western thought. First, the West tends to focus on participation in the life of the Trinity as a future event, occurring sometime after death, and most fully after the Second Coming. The (Byzantine)East, on the other hand, focuses on participation in the life of the Trinity as something that is occurring here and now, but is most fully realized in the age to come. So the two, in my opinion, aren’t really in contradiction to one another, but simply focus on different aspects of the same reality - i.e. participation in the Trinitarian life. These different emphases have enabled the two different traditions to work out more-or-less detailed theologies that are perhaps not quite so prominent in the other - i.e. the West on the age to come element, and (Byzantine)East on the here-and-now. These are gross generalizations, and I do recognize that the East certainly has a more “eschatological” theology, while the West also has a more “here-and-now” type theology. I am speaking merely in terms of overall emphasis.
Secondly, the (Byzantine)East, in part because of its emphasis on the here-and-now participation in the Trinitarian life, has developed a theology of God’s essence vs. His energies. It is through God’s divine energies, his actions, that He reveals Himself to us in this world, works in and through us, and makes it possible for us to know Him and participate in His divine life here and now. This participation is seen to reach its fulfillment in the age to come, but generally the (Byzantine)East does not really speak of the nature of that fulfillment.
The West, on the other hand, because of its emphasis/focus on the age to come, has worked out a very detailed theology of what that age will be like in its theology of the “Beatific Vision.” This does not invalidate what the (Byzantine)East teaches about essence vs. energies, but simply focuses on a different aspect of participation in the Trinitarian life.
One final thing to remember is that in both cases we are not talking so much about dogma, but about theological speculation. How exactly it is possible for God, who is ultimately transcendent, to act in this world and in us, and how exactly it is possible for us to participate in the Trinitarian life, is ultimately a mystery that cannot be fully explained. All we can do is use our weak human language to stutter and stammer out a possible explanation, and then move into awe-filled silence when confronted face to face with the mystery itself.
