What is theosis?

[ByzCathCantor]

This is very fundamental for Orthodoxy and why I find Catholicism belief in Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility not correct.

Yes, it is a fundamental concept in Eastern Christianity (including Eastern Catholicism), and had nothing to do with ecclesiology or dogma. That you believe there is a connection is odd, at best (a charitable conclusion).

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could offer your expertise as an Orthodox Christian to help explain it to those who were not blessed enough to be raised in Eastern Christianity. That might prove more challenging to you and useful to others who have expressed sincere interest in the subject.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is “sanctification” a term the Latin Church uses much? I’ve heard divinization used in a similar way to theosis…

Hello, my friend!

It seems it is the conceptualization of Purgatory that gets in the way.

If one accepts that the challenge of Theosis begins with Baptism and continues after death, and temporarily sets aside the instilled imagery of Prugatory as a place, then it becomes easier to understand.

We don’t believe that wait until the afterlife to begin our sanctification.

And I believe you have rightly pointed out that sanctification and divinization are different, the latter being the ultimate goal.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Divnization roughly equates to theosis; although, in my experience, divinization refers more to the end result rather than the whole journey, plus the end result.

And I believe you have rightly pointed out that sanctification and divinization are different, the latter being the ultimate goal.

I posted before seeing TOG92’s post.

Of course, leave it to our good Lutheran friend to hit the nail on the head, once again!

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I posted before seeing TOG92’s post.

Of course, leave it to our good Lutheran friend to hit the nail on the head, once again!

I do try.

 

[FrKimel]

A couple of thoughts which may (or may not) be helpful to folks in trying to understand theosis. I confess that I have no idea what it means to say that in divinization we share in the divine energies of the Trinity but not in the divine essence; but I understand why this distinction is made. If it were possible for us to actually possess the divine essence, we would in fact become divine hypostases, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine hypostases. Clearly neither Eastern nor Western Christianity wants to say this. In theosis, we do not cease to be creatures, though several of the Eastern Fathers are bold enough to declare that we in fact become uncreated by grace. I personally find the language of essence, energies, nature, and being unhelpful. I don’t know what these words really mean and I suspect most others don’t either. We toss them around easily enough, but the simple fact is that they point us to the mystery of God that surpasses anything we can understand.

The language is used to refer to our incorporation by grace into the inner relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by this incorporation we are radically transformed and transfigured. God is no longer external to us; in Christ we become internal to him, for we share in the divine Sonship of Christ and now live in the Holy Spirit. It’s all personal.

In his book God Matters Fr Herbert McCabe speaks of the difference between God loving a creature and God loving himself in his inner Trinitarian being. God’s love for creatures necessarily involves inequality. As Creator God can beneficently care for the creatures he has made; but precisely as creatures they cannot be loved, for real love is something that takes place between equals. In my judgment theosis is first and foremost about our incorporation to the Trinitarian family of the Triune God. God the Father, by grace, loves us with the same love that he loves his Son Jesus Christ. He gives himself over to us through the Holy Spirit and we in turn give ourselves over to him in the same Holy Spirit.

I’m also tempted to say forget about what it means to participate in the divine nature. Concentrate on what it means to be elevated into the intimate relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to share in this love between equals. And If we are loved as equals, they we are, in the way we have already qualified, gods by grace. As McCabe states:

The Christian gospel is that we are given equality with God. It is important not to lose sight of either of those words: we are given equality. What we are given is the divine life itself, the Holy Spirit–if we lose sight ot that we will be speaking merely of some created gift, like moral excellence or some other human thing, and this could not be the foundation and implication of love it is only we we have quality with God that there can be love between God and us. At the same it is an equality that is givne. To lose sight of that would be to make ourselves God, to divinise ourselves.

"

Personally I find this a helpful way to begin to think about theosis. There’s so much more to say, of course, but at least this is a beginning.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

A couple of thoughts which may (or may not) be helpful to folks in trying to understand theosis. I confess that I have no idea what it means to say that in divinization we share in the divine energies of the Trinity but not in the divine essence; but I understand why this distinction is made. If it were possible for us to actually possess the divine essence, we would in fact become divine hypostases, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine hypostases. Clearly neither Eastern nor Western Christianity wants to say this. In theosis, we do not cease to be creatures, though several of the Eastern Fathers are bold enough to declare that we in fact become uncreated by grace. I personally find the language of essence, energies, nature, and being unhelpful. I don’t know what these words really mean and I suspect most others don’t either. We toss them around easily enough, but the simple fact is that they point us to the mystery of God that surpasses anything we can understand.

The language is used to refer to our incorporation by grace into the inner relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by this incorporation we are radically transformed and transfigured. God is no longer external to us; in Christ we become internal to him, for we share in the divine Sonship of Christ and now live in the Holy Spirit. It’s all personal.

In his book God Matters Fr Herbert McCabe speaks of the difference between God loving a creature and God loving himself in his inner Trinitarian being. God’s love for creatures necessarily involves inequality. As Creator God can beneficently care for the creatures he has made; but precisely as creatures they cannot be loved, for real love is something that takes place between equals. In my judgment theosis is first and foremost about our incorporation to the Trinitarian family of the Triune God. God the Father, by grace, loves us with the same love that he loves his Son Jesus Christ. He gives himself over to us through the Holy Spirit and we in turn give ourselves over to him in the same Holy Spirit.

I’m also tempted to say forget about what it means to participate in the divine nature. Concentrate on what it means to be elevated into the intimate relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to share in this love between equals. And If we are loved as equals, they we are, in the way we have already qualified, gods by grace. As McCabe states:

"

Personally I find this a helpful way to begin to think about theosis. There’s so much more to say, of course, but at least this is a beginning.

Father, bless!

Thank you for this wonderful summary! I greatly appreciate it, and know that others here will as well!

 

[5Loaves]

Father, bless.

A couple of thoughts which may (or may not) be helpful to folks in trying to understand theosis…

…Personally I find this a helpful way to begin to think about theosis. There’s so much more to say, of course, but at least this is a beginning.

Thank you. What you’ve written I “understand”.

Whereas in Western Christianity, the process is broken down:
1) Justification
2) Sanctification

This, I don’t understand. (Speaking of the message, not the messenger. )

I’m sure this is a lousy analogy but hydrogen and oxygen are just those-- they aren’t water unless they’re united. When we’re swimming in water I don’t know how we can be swimming in hydrogen and in oxygen.

 

[rciadan]

Hello, my friend!

It seems it is the conceptualization of Purgatory that gets in the way.

If one accepts that the challenge of Theosis begins with Baptism and continues after death, and temporarily sets aside the instilled imagery of Prugatory as a place, then it becomes easier to understand.

We don’t believe that wait until the afterlife to begin our sanctification.

And I believe you have rightly pointed out that sanctification and divinization are different, the latter being the ultimate goal.

We in the Latin church do not necessarily conceptualize purgatory as a “place”. Also, all the descriptions given for theosis fit the Latin definition of sanctification, which is both, a process and a goal, which leads to holiness. It is believed that holiness can be achieved in this life, but that the majority of course fail.
I would say that “divinization” as defined by the East, and “Holiness” as defined by the West seem to be virtualy the same things.

 

[rciadan]

A couple of thoughts which may (or may not) be helpful to folks in trying to understand theosis. I confess that I have no idea what it means to say that in divinization we share in the divine energies of the Trinity but not in the divine essence; but I understand why this distinction is made. If it were possible for us to actually possess the divine essence, we would in fact become divine hypostases, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine hypostases. Clearly neither Eastern nor Western Christianity wants to say this. In theosis, we do not cease to be creatures, though several of the Eastern Fathers are bold enough to declare that we in fact become uncreated by grace. I personally find the language of essence, energies, nature, and being unhelpful. I don’t know what these words really mean and I suspect most others don’t either. We toss them around easily enough, but the simple fact is that they point us to the mystery of God that surpasses anything we can understand.

The language is used to refer to our incorporation by grace into the inner relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by this incorporation we are radically transformed and transfigured. God is no longer external to us; in Christ we become internal to him, for we share in the divine Sonship of Christ and now live in the Holy Spirit. It’s all personal.

In his book God Matters Fr Herbert McCabe speaks of the difference between God loving a creature and God loving himself in his inner Trinitarian being. God’s love for creatures necessarily involves inequality. As Creator God can beneficently care for the creatures he has made; but precisely as creatures they cannot be loved, for real love is something that takes place between equals. In my judgment theosis is first and foremost about our incorporation to the Trinitarian family of the Triune God. God the Father, by grace, loves us with the same love that he loves his Son Jesus Christ. He gives himself over to us through the Holy Spirit and we in turn give ourselves over to him in the same Holy Spirit.

I’m also tempted to say forget about what it means to participate in the divine nature. Concentrate on what it means to be elevated into the intimate relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and to share in this love between equals. And If we are loved as equals, they we are, in the way we have already qualified, gods by grace. As McCabe states:

"

Personally I find this a helpful way to begin to think about theosis. There’s so much more to say, of course, but at least this is a beginning.

I must say Father, what you are describing is basic Catholic sacramental theology. Through baptism we are made sons and daughters of God, transfigured from mere creatures to actual joint heirs with Christ. We have the divine Christ within us and as long as we remain in a state of grace we are intimate with the blessed Trinity. Our whole lives are all about growing in intimacy with God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…to the point of achieving perfect and eternal unity…
Sounds like theosis to me. I suspect that there are some who want to “mystify” it so the claim can be made that only “orthodox” are capable of understanding it…

 

[Cavaradossi]

I must say Father, what you are describing is basic Catholic sacramental theology. Through baptism we are made sons and daughters of God, transfigured from mere creatures to actual joint heirs with Christ. We have the divine Christ within us and as long as we remain in a state of grace we are intimate with the blessed Trinity. Our whole lives are all about growing in intimacy with God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…to the point of achieving perfect and eternal unity…
Sounds like theosis to me. I suspect that there are some who want to “mystify” it so the claim can be made that only “orthodox” are capable of understanding it…

No, that really isn’t the reason. The Orthodox do not mystify things with the language used any more than Thomas Aquinas “mystified” theology with his appropriation of Aristotelian language.

 

[rciadan]

Theosis (“deification,” “divinization”) is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía (“missing the mark”), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) - “Deification in God’s Essence”, which is imparticipable.

and;

** Theosis in the Christian West **

Although the doctrine of theosis came to be neglected in the Western Church, it was clearly taught in the Roman Catholic tradition as late as the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, who taught that “full participation in divinity which is humankind’s true beatitude and the destiny of human life” (Summa Theologiae 3.1.2).

Both of these are verbatim from www.OthodoxWiki.org

I would put forward the notion that “theosis” is a very “Catholic” concept, meaning “Universal”, meaning that both, Orthodox and Catholics proscribe to this concept even if by a different name . But, alas, a rose is a rose… I also put forward the idea that “Orthodox” and “Orthodox Catholics” have a lot more in common with “orthodox Latin Catholics” (as opposed to “Protestant Latin Catholics”, of which there are many) than many want to admit…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No, that really isn’t the reason. The Orthodox do not mystify things with the language used any more than Thomas Aquinas “mystified” theology with his appropriation of Aristotelian language.

Well said, Cavaradossi.

 

[FrKimel]

For those interested in this topic, I recommend the following books: Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man, Daniel A. Keating, Deification and Grace, and Norman Russell, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Also see A. Williams, The Ground of Union, which compares Aquinas and Palamas on deification.

Here’s a wonderful quotation from St Gregory Palamas.

Since the Son of God, in His ineffable love for mankind, has not only united His divine hypostasis to our nature, and taking a body with a rational soul, has appeared on earth and lived among men; but, more, than this—Oh how splendid a miracle!—He unites Himself to the human hypostases themselves, and mingling Himself with every believer by the communion of His holy Body, becomes one body with us and makes us into a temple of the whole Godhead; for the fullness of the Godhead dwells corporeally in Him; how then should He not enlighten the souls of those who partake worthily, surrounding them with light through the divine splendour of His Body which is in us, just as His light shone on the bodies of the disciples on Thabor? It is true that then the body that possessed the source of the light of grace was not yet mingled with our bodies; it enlightened from outside those who approached worthily and caused the light to enter their souls through the sight of their eyes. But to-day it is mingled with us, it dwells in us and, naturally, it enlightens our souls from within. … One alone can see God; that is, Christ. We must be united with Christ—and how close a union it is—in order to see God.’

In Orthodox understanding, as you have no doubt noted, deification touches not only our souls but also our bodies.

Theosis declares that by the grace of God we are brought into the most intimate and profound communion imaginable with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Greek Fathers did not hesitate to speak of this union as a transcendence of our creaturehood. “God became Man,” St Athanasius proclaimed, so that men might become God." Theosis comprehends sanctification but I also think it surpasses it.

Second millennium Latin Christianity has had difficulty speaking of theosis. Theologians have been preoccupied with the created aspects of grace. All one needs to do is to read Fr John Hardon’s discussion and analysis of grace to see what I mean. I’m sure theosis is in there somewhere, but it’s as if the forest gets lots in the trees. Thanks to the contributions of Karl Rahner, the primacy of uncreated grace has been recovered in Catholic theology. For Rahner grace is nothing less than “God’s self-communication in love.” Rahner writes:

God does not bestow merely a certain kind of saving love and intimacy, or a certain kind of saving presence. … God does not confer on man merely created gifts as a token of his love. God communicates himself by what is no longer simply efficient causality. He makes man share in the very nature of God. He constitutes man as co-heir with the Son himself, called to the eternal life of God face to face, called to receive the direct vision of God, called therefore to receive God’s own life. Here we really reach the heart of the Christian conception of reality.

Latin mystics, of course, have always known this. See, e.g., David Hart’s article on St John of the Cross: “Bright Morning of the Soul.”

 

[Brendan]

To answer your question- sanctification is a term that the Latin Church uses. In fact, most non-Catholic Christians who come out the Reformation use the term.

No, the Latin Church also seperates the concept of theosis from sanctification.

In Western terms, the process is called divinization

 

[Brendan]

Divnization roughly equates to theosis; although, in my experience, divinization refers more to the end result rather than the whole journey, plus the end result.

I would disagree, as in Latin theology, Divinization cannot be an end, as the process is infinte.

In being in the presence of God in the Beatific Vision, we become more like Him. We grow in Love and Understanding.

But we cannot become Love, as God is, or become Omniscient, as God is, as we will never be God.

But as we grow in Love and Understanding, we become more like Him. The process is infinite in nature and God is infinite in Nature.

 

[tarboy]

I searched on this and found quite a few threads in the Apologetics section, where I found these verses from the catechism. I’m appreciate what the CC has to say on topics.

---

CCC 398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

CCC 759: “The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,” to which he calls all men in his Son. “The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ.” This “family of God” is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father’s plan. …

CCC 1988 Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself:36
[God] gave himself to us through his Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.37

CCC 1996. Our justification come from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I would disagree, as in Latin theology, Divinization cannot be an end, as the process is infinte.

In being in the presence of God in the Beatific Vision, we become more like Him. We grow in Love and Understanding.

But we cannot become Love, as God is, or become Omniscient, as God is, as we will never be God.

But as we grow in Love and Understanding, we become more like Him. The process is infinite in nature and God is infinite in Nature.

I apologize that I did not make things clearer. We can never become exactly as God is; I would never suggest such a thing.

When I say “the result”, it is meant in the sense that we become like God. I cannot bring up whether or not the process is endless or not. Because on the one hand we have promises in the Scriptures that God shall complete His work in us. On the other hand, God being infinite, one could always be growing towards Him. I leave such things to God, for I am but a man.

I would also say that while there is the official meaning of divinization (which is obviously important), I was also talking about what happens “on the ground”. In my conversations with most persons who even utilize the terms divinization/deification/theosis (and aren’t saying these are non-Christian teachings that have no place in the Faith), divinization tends to correspond to “sanctification”. Of course, this is again just my experience, and as such mileage will vary.

Blessings on you, Brendan

 

[TrueLight]

Latin mystics, of course, have always known this. See, e.g., David Hart’s article on St John of the Cross: “Bright Morning of the Soul.”

I agree. The mystics have always sought union with God, in other words, the perfect alignment of our will with that of God’s. Ex: St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Faustina, St Catherine of Siena.

So I definitely see a theosis overlap here with both Eastern and Western spirituality.

Is this not considered part of Catholic teaching or am I only viewing things this way because I am very much into the mystics?

 

[rciadan]

I agree. The mystics have always sought union with God, in other words, the perfect alignment of our will with that of God’s. Ex: St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Faustina, St Catherine of Siena.

So I definitely see a theosis overlap here with both Eastern and Western spirituality.

Is this not considered part of Catholic teaching or am I only viewing things this way because I am very much into the mystics?

I agree with you…that this concept of theosis is very much mirrored within Catholic mysticism. The question in my mind is, why does it have to be either/or. I see it as both/and…

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

I agree. The mystics have always sought union with God, in other words, the perfect alignment of our will with that of God’s. Ex: St Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, St Faustina, St Catherine of Siena.

So I definitely see a theosis overlap here with both Eastern and Western spirituality.

Is this not considered part of Catholic teaching or am I only viewing things this way because I am very much into the mystics?

Theosis, referred to as divinization in the CCC, is a teaching of the Catholic Church. It is found specifically in the CCC, 460. If you go look up divinization on Wikipedia, it actually has a good article on the subject, with plenty of quotes from saints and mystics (I tried quoting the pertinent section, but it was too long).

I agree with you…that this concept of theosis is very much mirrored within Catholic mysticism. The question in my mind is, why does it have to be either/or. I see it as both/and…

I am confused? What should be both/and, versus either/or?