OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 11:44:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?  (Read 14084 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #225 on: January 19, 2012, 06:08:14 PM »



Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Absolutely false witness to Catholic teaching concerning divinization.



What's your attitude to divine filiation?   Magisterial teaching?  Junk?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #226 on: January 19, 2012, 06:13:35 PM »



Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Absolutely false witness to Catholic teaching concerning divinization.



Catholic dogma is that in heaven you will enjoy the Beatific Vision and gaze unhindered upon the Divine Essence.

Not even theosis can offer that .... so maybe Catholics should hold to their own teaching which appears to be the better option.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #227 on: January 19, 2012, 06:20:12 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.

 Huh  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #228 on: January 19, 2012, 06:24:04 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.

 Huh  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 

I was agreeing with you. laugh
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #229 on: January 19, 2012, 06:25:15 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #230 on: January 19, 2012, 06:26:00 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.

 Huh  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 

I was agreeing with you. laugh

Break open the champagne!!! Grin Grin laugh laugh
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #231 on: January 19, 2012, 06:29:32 PM »

 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".

Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.

Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #232 on: January 19, 2012, 06:38:51 PM »



But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

Nonsense.  Please as an example see the teachings of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross...and all subsequent teachings of the reformed Carmels...which is also the teachings of the Dominicans and Franciscans, uninterrupted to the present day, as well as the Benedictines who had some interruption from about the 1760's to the beginning of the 20th century.  Any good Catholic history of spirituality will give you that history...

Try Dom Jordan Aumann: www.domcentral.org/study/aumann/st/default.htm
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #233 on: January 19, 2012, 06:38:51 PM »

 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".

Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.

Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #234 on: January 19, 2012, 06:44:52 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis?  

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.

I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

Catholic teach that we shall know only the Divine Energies**

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


** This would be heresy for Catholics since Catholic dogma says we may see and enjoy the Divine Essence.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 06:46:39 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #235 on: January 19, 2012, 06:48:23 PM »


What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. 


What I project here can readily be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of saints and doctors of the Church and in the Holy Fathers of the Church, east and west.  

You seem to deny that the Holy Fathers of the east are also the patrimony of the Catholic Church.  They are not the sole property of Orthodoxy.


I think you've hit on something here.  Some Orthodox tend to restrict theology to the eastern tradition, whereas Catholic theology tends to encompass east as well as west, i.e., it's more catholic in the "universal" sense.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different.  Maybe they are in philosophical terms, but to the average layman and to potential converts, it sounds a lot like "tomayto" vs. "tomahto".  The experience of God is what really counts, and that's clear in both traditions.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #236 on: January 19, 2012, 08:02:18 PM »


What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. 


What I project here can readily be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of saints and doctors of the Church and in the Holy Fathers of the Church, east and west.  

You seem to deny that the Holy Fathers of the east are also the patrimony of the Catholic Church.  They are not the sole property of Orthodoxy.


I think you've hit on something here.  Some Orthodox tend to restrict theology to the eastern tradition, whereas Catholic theology tends to encompass east as well as west, i.e., it's more catholic in the "universal" sense.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different.  Maybe they are in philosophical terms, but to the average layman and to potential converts, it sounds a lot like "tomayto" vs. "tomahto".  The experience of God is what really counts, and that's clear in both traditions.


Here is an interesting start on things:

http://erud-awakening.blogspot.com/2008/01/aristotle-east-and-west-energeia-in_11.html

From the close of this article we move forward to the respective saints, Aquinas in the west and Palamas in the east, who employ the works of Dionysius the Aeropagite in their understandings of God's essence and grace or energies.

Fast forward to the present:  It is my poor understanding that neither St. Denis, nor St. Thomas are well understood in the present...by many.

M.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #237 on: January 19, 2012, 08:56:21 PM »

....I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different. 

Orthodox Theosis..... an ever increasing participation in the divine energies.

Catholic Beatific Vision...... a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence.

These seem two different concepts of the afterlife.

Orthodox theosis is a train journey.

Catholic Beatific Vision is static, gazing upon a beautiful painting of a train and enjoying its beauty.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #238 on: January 19, 2012, 09:37:49 PM »

Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".

Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.

Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.

I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 09:38:20 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #239 on: January 19, 2012, 10:29:03 PM »

II. Heaven

1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face:596

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.597

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in Christ,"598 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.599

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.600

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us. the life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."601

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision":

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.602


1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."603





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
596 ⇒ 1 Jn 3:2; cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 13:12; ⇒ Rev 22:4.


597 Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000; cf. LG 49.


598 ⇒ Phil 1:23; cf. ⇒ Jn 14:3; ⇒ 1 Thess 4:17.


599 Cf. ⇒ Rev 2:17.


600 St. Ambrose, In Luc., 10, 121: PL 15, 1834A.


601 ⇒ 1 Cor 2:9.


602 St. Cyprian, Ep. 58, 10, 1: CSEL 3/2, 665.


603 ⇒ Rev 22:5; cf. ⇒ Mt 25:21, ⇒ 23.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2M.HTM#$1BU
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:30:27 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #240 on: January 19, 2012, 10:48:24 PM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?

II. Heaven

1023 Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they "see him as he is," face to face:596

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.597

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." the elect live "in Christ,"598 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.599

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.600

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened" heaven to us. the life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father's house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."601

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. the Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision":

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.602


1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God's will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."603





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
596 ⇒ 1 Jn 3:2; cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 13:12; ⇒ Rev 22:4.


597 Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000; cf. LG 49.


598 ⇒ Phil 1:23; cf. ⇒ Jn 14:3; ⇒ 1 Thess 4:17.


599 Cf. ⇒ Rev 2:17.


600 St. Ambrose, In Luc., 10, 121: PL 15, 1834A.


601 ⇒ 1 Cor 2:9.


602 St. Cyprian, Ep. 58, 10, 1: CSEL 3/2, 665.


603 ⇒ Rev 22:5; cf. ⇒ Mt 25:21, ⇒ 23.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2M.HTM#$1BU
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #241 on: January 19, 2012, 10:53:10 PM »

....I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different.  

Orthodox Theosis..... an ever increasing participation in the divine energies.

Catholic Beatific Vision...... a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence.

These seem two different concepts of the afterlife.

Orthodox theosis is a train journey.

Catholic Beatific Vision is static, gazing upon a beautiful painting of a train and enjoying its beauty.

JOHN MEYERENDORFF/EASTERN ORTHODOXY: THE ESSENCE OF GOD IS INACCESSIBLE

"The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world." (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 133).

AQUINAS/ROMAN CATHOLICISM: THE ESSENCE OF GOD IS SUPREMELY KNOWABLE

"Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is pure act without any admixture of potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable….Hence, it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God." (ST I, Q.12, A.1).

Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".

Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.

Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.
The concept is there.

AQUINAS/ROMAN CATHOLICISM: GRACE TO SEE GOD'S ESSENCE IS A SUPERADDITION TO THE INTELLECT OF MAN
"On the contrary, It is written: In thy light we shall see light (Ps. xxxv. 10).
I answer that, Everything which is raised up to what exceeds its nature, must be prepared by some disposition above its nature; as, for example, if air is to receive the form of fire, it must be prepared by some disposition for such a form. But when any created intellect sees the essence of God, the essence of God itself becomes the intelligible form of the intellect. Hence it is necessary that some supernatural disposition should be added to the intellect in order that it may be raised up to such a great and sublime height. Now since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, as was shown in the preceding article, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination. And this is the light spoken of in the Apocalypse (xxi. 23). The glory of God hath enlightened it – vis. the society of the blessed who see God. By this light the blessed are made deiform – that is, like to God. -Summa Theologica, First part/Art 5 of Q 12

To search further for created grace in Aquinas, click here. [to Christian Classics/Aquinas/ search]
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:17:42 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #242 on: January 19, 2012, 11:05:19 PM »


You [Fr. Ambrose] elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.
Not for you, perhaps. But if so, as it seems, for Fr. Ambrose, then your theosis is his "theosis," and his theosis is your "theosis."

St. Gregory Palamas and hesychasm are paradigmatic for what theosis is for most Eastern Orthodox Christians. Do you affirm these traditions as they are understood and affirmed by most Orthodox Christians or not?

Do you fully and unreservedly agree with John Meyerendorff when he writes Meyendorff writes: "The true purpose of creation is, therefore, not contemplation of divine essence (which is inaccessible), but communion in divine energy, transfiguration, and transparency to divine action in the world." (Byzantine Theology, p. 133).

A related question to the OP regarding the possibility of theosis is the question of the way. Is there a difference of way, as described by Vladimir Lossky? :

"Since the separation, the ways which lead to sanctity are not the same in the West as in the East. The one proves its fidelity to Christ in the solitude and abandonment of the night of Gethsemane, the other gains certainty of union with God in the light of the Transfiguration." -Vladimir Lossky, MTEC (this is but one example of how Lossky considers the ways which lead to sanctity to differ W vs. E; judicial merit theology -dogmatically integral only in the West- also comes to mind among other things).

Also the question of what one might be moving toward along the way is worth discussing, it seems to me, e.g. do Roman Catholics embrace the Orthodox view of union with the uncreated energies of God as affirmed by St. Gregory Palamas? (which is, of course, what theosis is from an Orthodox POV).


Dear Xariskai,

I think you are moving into the heart of the matter...... the question, for Catholics, hinges on whether theosis is seen as possible within their theology.

In fact it does not appear to be possible  since in order for theosis to “work” one must accept several important theological understandings which are strongly denied in classic Roman Catholic theology – the distinction within the Divinity of Essence and Energies being the most crucial.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hesychasm written by Father Adrian Fortescue http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm highlights why Hesychasm (and hence theosis) cannot work in Catholic theology.  It is contrary to the foundational Catholic understanding of the simplicity of God and to Catholic understandings of grace (created vs. uncreated.)

The OP’s question is therefore answered with a No!  - not by the Orthodox but by the theology of Catholicism itself.
Oil and water it seems to me. We could call oil and water by the same name, but one would not work in an engine; the other would taste horrible with Kool Aid mix.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:26:54 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #243 on: January 19, 2012, 11:30:57 PM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that?  Seems like you're just looking for more reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should remain divided.  We're really not all that different.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,907


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #244 on: January 19, 2012, 11:37:48 PM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?


1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

Don't know about the Ukrainian Catechism.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #245 on: January 19, 2012, 11:39:21 PM »

....I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different. 

Orthodox Theosis..... an ever increasing participation in the divine energies.

Catholic Beatific Vision...... a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence.

These seem two different concepts of the afterlife.

In the dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans (LWF) in the late 20th century, it was found that various condemnations of each side against the other actually stemmed from using the same term in different ways. I won't go into great detail -- both because I don't think it would help this conversation much, and because I'm a bit rusty on them -- but I have to wonder if the situation we are discussing might be similar. Is it possible that the RCC means something different then EOs by "divine essence", and thus can speak of "seeing the divine essence" without contradicting EO dogma?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #246 on: January 19, 2012, 11:42:41 PM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?

I don't have any quotes to provide at the moment, but I think what Fr A is saying is the standard EO position. FWMTCIW.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:43:38 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #247 on: January 20, 2012, 12:03:29 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that?  Seems like you're just looking for more reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should remain divided.  We're really not all that different.

Oh yes, it is heresy.  It is in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.  Read the chapters against Barlaam and Akindynus.
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #248 on: January 20, 2012, 12:05:14 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that?  Seems like you're just looking for more reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should remain divided.  We're really not all that different.

The Palamite councils. And it's always been on the list--the Cappadocian Fathers, pseudo-Dionysius, St. Maximus, St. John of Damascus and indeed pretty much any Father who has written more than a couple of pages on the Trinity, not to mention multiple mentions in the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. And I can't think of a single text on Orthodox theology that doesn't put the unknowability of God in His Essence front and center because its axiomatic for our Trinitarian theology. I'm willing to leave the door open for Peter J's suggestion that Aquinas in Latin or modern Roman Catholics are using essence with a different meaning than it holds in the Orthodox Tradition, but if you are unaware of such a basic part of Orthodox thought, I'd strongly suggest reading a little bit about our theology before making claims about what we are or are not different from.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #249 on: January 20, 2012, 12:54:20 AM »


You [Fr. Ambrose] elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Hesychasm is the means of progressing in theosis on this earth. They are not equivalent but they are inseparable.   I do not know about progress in theosis in the afterlife.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #250 on: January 20, 2012, 12:57:59 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that?  Seems like you're just looking for more reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should remain divided.  We're really not all that different.

James, we are not looking for reasons to continue the schism.  Please do not be offended.  We are discussing the question about theosis raised by the OP, the question of theosis outside the Church.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #251 on: January 20, 2012, 01:15:38 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that? 

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy

On those who admit, even against their will, the prophetic visions, but will not accept the making of images of what they saw—O wonder!—even before the Incarnation of the Word, but emptily say that the incomprehensible and unseen essence itself was seen by those who beheld it, or conclude that these things make manifest images, figures and forms of the truth to those who see them, but will not accept that the Word become man, and his sufferings for our sake, may be depicted in icons:

Anathema!


http://www.anastasis.org.uk/synodikon.htm
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #252 on: January 20, 2012, 01:26:36 AM »

we are not looking for reasons to continue the schism.  Please do not be offended.
+∞
Logged

Silly Stars
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #253 on: January 20, 2012, 06:44:45 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?


1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

You are saying that the Roman Catholic teaching that eternity is the contemplation of the divine essence in the Beatific Vision is also the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #254 on: January 20, 2012, 06:55:27 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?


1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

You are saying that the Roman Catholic teaching that eternity is the contemplation of the divine essence in the Beatific Vision is also the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

It's beginning to make sense why Dragani sees Purgatory as the Final Theosis.  The theosis leads to a perfect purgation which makes it possible to enter heaven with the capacity to see and contemplate the Divine Essence.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 06:55:52 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #255 on: January 20, 2012, 08:55:27 AM »

It's beginning to make sense why Dragani sees Purgatory as the Final Theosis.

Tut tut. I've conceded (or at least I meant to) that Dr. Dragani made a mistake by saying that "the transition from death to Heaven" is called "the Final Theosis", and that his later correction of this mistake was rather stingy. But I think it's silly of you to act as though he still persists in his mistake and never corrected it at all.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #256 on: January 20, 2012, 09:40:12 AM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

Heresy?  Really?  When did that get added to the list?  What council says that?  Seems like you're just looking for more reasons that the Orthodox and Catholic churches should remain divided.  We're really not all that different.

James, we are not looking for reasons to continue the schism.  Please do not be offended.  We are discussing the question about theosis raised by the OP, the question of theosis outside the Church.

I'm not offended, but it is not helpful to fling charges of heresy in a matter where, as Peter J has suggested, there may be misunderstandings between east and west due to "using the same term in different ways."  Many EO seem to cut the OO a lot of slack on the semantics of "nature".  We should do the same with Catholics and Protestants on salvation and other theological issues that appear to divide us.  And, quite frankly, whether in the afterlife one will behold the essence of God or communicate with His energies is a matter of speculative theology that has no consequences for how we live in this world.  Both views express the importance of people living in a loving relationship with God, and that's what really counts.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #257 on: January 20, 2012, 10:17:23 AM »

....I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different. 

Orthodox Theosis..... an ever increasing participation in the divine energies.

Catholic Beatific Vision...... a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence.

These seem two different concepts of the afterlife.

Orthodox theosis is a train journey.

Catholic Beatific Vision is static, gazing upon a beautiful painting of a train and enjoying its beauty.

 Tongue  Nonsense...

Follows but a tiny taste of the resources available just on-line...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Treats with love and understanding, the intellect and the will, human nature as static and divine nature as dynamic, with the beatific vision and union with God being dynamic:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f42d87wDafYC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=Is+the+Beatific+Vision+Static+or+Dynamic&source=bl&ots=Doxen_SkX-&sig=YVciuNIMICaQw2LJG5LmoYmYD0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rL4YT8nWLML10gG37tjPCw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Is%20the%20Beatific%20Vision%20Static%20or%20Dynamic&f=false

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Father George Maloney on the dynamism of the beatific vision:

http://books.google.com/books?id=C_tBtPLaT-oC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=Is+the+Beatific+Vision+Static+or+Dynamic&source=bl&ots=der0aprzbw&sig=hFAtFMTgxYPUiN-6MIYKiqhZSx0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rL4YT8nWLML10gG37tjPCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Is%20the%20Beatific%20Vision%20Static%20or%20Dynamic&f=false

+++++++++++++++++

Peter Kreeft on the dynamism of the beatific vision:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qVqJetnPT4QC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Is+the+Beatific+Vision+Static+or+Dynamic&source=bl&ots=f5zk9U7-Kb&sig=7IWF6JNQnnzmt5aXvy6g0VD5afc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rL4YT8nWLML10gG37tjPCw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Is%20the%20Beatific%20Vision%20Static%20or%20Dynamic&f=false

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Father John Hardon on the dynamism of divine essence/nature:

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Grace/Grace_003.htm

Nature. Is an ultimate principle always a nature? The term "essence" is also used to designate an ultimate principle; but the nature of a being is the essence considered as a principle of operation, considered as the ultimate principle in the order of activity. Essence rather connotes something static, nature something dynamic. Will the Beatific Vision, love and enjoyment, ultimately "flow out of" sanctifying grace? Yes. It does not actually "flow out" here and now, because we lack the necessary proximate principle of the Beatific Vision, love and enjoyment, the light of glory. Similarly, in us every thought flows from the soul through the intellect, every will-act through the will, every sensation through the sense-faculties. What thinks? The sup posit, the person, ultimately through the soul and proximately through the intellect. In us, the thinking power must have a properly disposed thinking apparatus: a person with defective material organs or connections in certain areas will find his thinking ability impaired or completely inhibited. Children born with such deficiencies could get sanctifying grace by baptism and (perhaps) by Confirmation got an increase of it; they could not lose sanctifying grace but they could not merit an increase of it or of light of glory.

Deiform Nature. A parallel between our human nature and deiform nature may be helpful. In a human nature, the soul, the form of the body, is the ultimate operative principle. From this ultimate operative principle flow all the powers of the soul, the faculties, which are the proximate operative principles. Instincts we may call proximate or immediate responsive principles. Flowing from all these principles are human acts. Man is made to act, to be more fully man by using his powers; his nature is dynamic, and he becomes more fully man by acting as man. But this is not enough,

For God wanted man to live a deiform life. For this he needs an ultimate deiform principle of operation: sanctifying grace.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

An exceptionally dense article on the dynamism of Faith and the Beatific Visioin:

http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/library/Murray/1937-1.htm
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #258 on: January 20, 2012, 10:17:24 AM »

Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".

Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.

Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?

There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.

I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.

Torrell would agree with you.  I suppose what I was remembering was the text of a lecture where the instructor indicated that the phrase created grace was never used by St. Thomas without the explanation that is offered in Torrell's text below.  I went back and listened to the pertinent section of the lecture and found that I had conflated two ideas and drawn the wrong conclusion.  Nevertheless the notion of created grace is not what Orthodox believers generally say that it is in fact:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9s4qJ78nzW8C&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Does+Aquinas+use+the+phrase+created+grace&source=bl&ots=rfgAVqHU82&sig=JdWlRNi-OYBUbDno6ITjxzUji4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QMcYT6O6JuHx0gGg2rjqCw&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Does%20Aquinas%20use%20the%20phrase%20created%20grace&f=false
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #259 on: January 20, 2012, 11:36:12 AM »


You [Fr. Ambrose] elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Hesychasm is the means of progressing in theosis on this earth. They are not equivalent but they are inseparable.   I do not know about progress in theosis in the afterlife.

In this we are agreed.
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #260 on: January 20, 2012, 12:18:43 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis?  

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.

I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

Catholic teach that we shall know only the Divine Energies**

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


** This would be heresy for Catholics since Catholic dogma says we may see and enjoy the Divine Essence.


You know, I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something that really strikes a discordant note with this "answer".  It's almost as though having asked and been answered you *still* seem to want to try to continue on what Mary terms as a "search and destroy" mission.  You say you "concede" but somehow, and again, I can't put my finger on it, it *seems* as though you do not.

You make a list and then, as an Orthodox priest, say "all the above is [Catholic] magisterial teaching".  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny that.  Would that I were.  So, would you mind very much indulging me and providing sources/references for each of them?  I think Deacon Lance's reply in #188 covers the fact that the Catholic Church does, indeed, teach "theosis", albeit without using that specific term.

The rest of this thread has moved on into intellectual and theological territory that, quite frankly, is over my head and beyond my educational limits, and I include what you have said above in that.  That's why I've asked you to cite some recognized Catholic sources.

Apologies for being a p.i.t.a.  Wink.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #261 on: January 20, 2012, 02:48:43 PM »

Since the teaching that we can contemplate the divine essence is tantamount to heresy for the Orthodox how do Catholics of the Easterrn rite handle this claim in the universal Catechism?

What says the section on heaven in the new Ukrainian Catechism?  Do they follow Rome and speak of contemplating God's essence?


1 John 3:2 - Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 Cor 13:12 - For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/browse.html

You are saying that the Roman Catholic teaching that eternity is the contemplation of the divine essence in the Beatific Vision is also the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

It's beginning to make sense why Dragani sees Purgatory as the Final Theosis.  The theosis leads to a perfect purgation which makes it possible to enter heaven with the capacity to see and contemplate the Divine Essence.

You and most of the Orthodox that I know treat the beatific vision as though it is a movie on a screen or a lovely sunrise or something to be viewed.  I suppose it is because of the word "vision"...

I've sent several links to this thread where it is clear that the beatific vision refers to our participation in the divine life, in life everlasting...We become both the image and likeness of God and we participate in his essential nature as adopted sons and daughters...greater even than the angels.

You cannot read Aquinas on existence and essence, act and potentiality, nature and being at the level of "See John run...Run John run"  Literal and unschooled readings will simply will lead you to the kinds of stiff and inaccurate conclusions that are in evidence here in this thread.

Mary
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #262 on: January 20, 2012, 04:47:44 PM »

It's beginning to make sense why Dragani sees Purgatory as the Final Theosis.

Tut tut. I've conceded (or at least I meant to) that Dr. Dragani made a mistake by saying that "the transition from death to Heaven" is called "the Final Theosis", and that his later correction of this mistake was rather stingy. But I think it's silly of you to act as though he still persists in his mistake and never corrected it at all.

What Dragani says, in equating the Final Theosis with Purgatory makes sense, somewhat, if he sees it as the final stage of purgation before a man is able to contemplate the Divine Essence in the Beatific Vision.

Btw,  he has not corrected his statement.  It still is there in his webpage.  http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory What he has done is create confusion by adding a footnote.  The essay says Purgatory is the Final Theosis.  The footnote says that theosis is eternal

Essay:
Rather than "Purgatory," we [Eastern Catholics] prefer to call it "the Final Theosis."

Footnote:
Please note: Eastern theology teaches that theosis is an infinite process, and does not cease when a person enters into heaven. The term "final theosis" is not intended to imply otherwise.

Is Dragani telling the truth when he claims that Eastern Catholics prefer to call Purgatory "the Final Theosis"?  No. Eastern Catholics have never heard the term.  Just  remember Mary's reaction to the term.  A competent Eastern Catholic catechist,  she had never encountered it.  Why Dragani had to assert a falsehood is anybody's guess. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #263 on: January 20, 2012, 04:55:33 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.   

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.

I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

Catholic teach that we shall know only the Divine Energies**

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


** This would be heresy for Catholics since Catholic dogma says we may see and enjoy the Divine Essence.

You make a list and then, as an Orthodox priest, say "all the above is [Catholic] magisterial teaching".  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny that.

If it is not magisterial teaching then it is pretty much worthless.

As I have said, time and again on this forum the Orthodox have been rebuked for assuming this or that is Catholic teaching.  We are told,  “It is not.  The Magisterium has not said it is.”

One would expect Catholics to know these magisterial teachings and be able to say which of the above statements are magisterial and which are not.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #264 on: January 20, 2012, 05:05:14 PM »


You and most of the Orthodox that I know treat the beatific vision as though it is a movie on a screen or a lovely sunrise or something to be viewed.  I suppose it is because of the word "vision"...

I've sent several links to this thread where it is clear that the beatific vision refers to our participation in the divine life, in life everlasting...We become both the image and likeness of God and we participate in his essential nature as adopted sons and daughters...greater even than the angels.

The Beatific Vision has been defined de fide as the contemplation and enjoyment of the Divine Essence.  Now you have extended that to participation in the Divine Essence!!?  Of course your additional assertion is not de fide and carries no significance beyond your personal opinion.

All the same it is astounding that we find a Ruthenian Catholic proclaiming something which is heretical in orthodox theology.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #265 on: January 20, 2012, 05:07:31 PM »

I'm going to go out on a limb here.  Perhaps it is because I just got back from four days at a Carmelite retreat house our Diocese rented for our clergy meeting (the nuns there were awesome).  But, it is also because I have been wrestling with this topic for some time now and I think I'm getting a handle on it.  Anyway, you can shoot away afterwards and I won't be offended.

Theosis is the transformation we have when we encounter God.  We cannot encounter God without being transformed by Him.

God is a Person, and so this encounter with God is an encounter with His Person: the Uncreated energy of God, the Body and Blood of His Son, etc.

He is also The Truth, which we begin to approach through truth.  Therefore, wherever truth is found, then we begin to approach God.  Truth changes us, it makes us better.  'Healthy people' are people who spend the most time in the truth.  They do not believe in false images of themselves (therefore they are humble and kind, etc.) nor do they live in emotional chaos driven by fear.

Therefore, all people to some extent experience Theosis as they seek spiritual truth and find it.  They encounter the True God in small glimpses, and they are changed as a result.  Those faiths closer to the Orthodox Faith (Orthodox being a replacement adjective for 'True') are naturally going to bring adherents more of these transformative opportunities.

Does this make sense?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #266 on: January 20, 2012, 05:07:55 PM »

You cannot read Aquinas on existence and essence, act and potentiality, nature and being at the level of "See John run...Run John run"  Literal and unschooled readings will simply will lead you to the kinds of stiff and inaccurate conclusions that are in evidence here in this thread.

How many times have we been told, when we quote Aquinas,  that he is not part of the Magisterium and his opinions are just that.. his opinions.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,111


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #267 on: January 20, 2012, 06:06:55 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.   

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.

I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

Catholic teach that we shall know only the Divine Energies**

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


** This would be heresy for Catholics since Catholic dogma says we may see and enjoy the Divine Essence.

You make a list and then, as an Orthodox priest, say "all the above is [Catholic] magisterial teaching".  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny that.

If it is not magisterial teaching then it is pretty much worthless.

As I have said, time and again on this forum the Orthodox have been rebuked for assuming this or that is Catholic teaching.  We are told,  “It is not.  The Magisterium has not said it is.”

One would expect Catholics to know these magisterial teachings and be able to say which of the above statements are magisterial and which are not.

1.  So you are saying that all Catholic utterances, in word or print, unless part of the magisterium, are worthless?  Kinda sounds that way.  That's quite an assertion!!

2.  I'm not the world's most well-educated or informed Catholic--far, far from it--but I'm workin' on it  Grin.  As such, no, I don't know everything that is included or excluded from magisterial teachings--but I'm workin' on it  Grin.  I'm sure many other Catholics are in the same position--but please don't blast them for their ignorance, okay--I'm sure they're workin' on it, too  Grin.

3.  *You* stated that those were all magisterial teachings.  I'm only asking *you* to substantiate that.  If you can't, just say so.  Then perhaps we could ask Mary Smiley.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
mabsoota
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,504


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #268 on: January 20, 2012, 06:23:58 PM »

i am hearing the sound of hairs being split...
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #269 on: January 20, 2012, 06:33:34 PM »


Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.


Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.   

If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.

Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?

Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.

You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.

I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

Catholic teach that we shall know only the Divine Energies**

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


** This would be heresy for Catholics since Catholic dogma says we may see and enjoy the Divine Essence.

You make a list and then, as an Orthodox priest, say "all the above is [Catholic] magisterial teaching".  Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny that.

If it is not magisterial teaching then it is pretty much worthless.

As I have said, time and again on this forum the Orthodox have been rebuked for assuming this or that is Catholic teaching.  We are told,  “It is not.  The Magisterium has not said it is.”

One would expect Catholics to know these magisterial teachings and be able to say which of the above statements are magisterial and which are not.

1.  So you are saying that all Catholic utterances, in word or print, unless part of the magisterium, are worthless?  Kinda sounds that way.  That's quite an assertion!!

2.  I'm not the world's most well-educated or informed Catholic--far, far from it--but I'm workin' on it  Grin.  As such, no, I don't know everything that is included or excluded from magisterial teachings--but I'm workin' on it  Grin.  I'm sure many other Catholics are in the same position--but please don't blast them for their ignorance, okay--I'm sure they're workin' on it, too  Grin.

3.  *You* stated that those were all magisterial teachings.  I'm only asking *you* to substantiate that.  If you can't, just say so.  Then perhaps we could ask Mary Smiley.

I cannot substantiate it.   The list is a hodgepodge.  Some may be and some won't be.  But it is what I have garnered from the contributions of Catholics in this thread.
Logged
Tags: theosis 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.236 seconds with 72 queries.