Author Topic: Theosis  (Read 14364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Theosis
« on: October 12, 2006, 01:38:00 PM »
Does one have to experience Theosis to be saved? Or is it strictly for monks, priests and bishops?
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Theosis
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2006, 02:09:14 PM »
Does one have to experience Theosis to be saved? Or is it strictly for monks, priests and bishops?
Is theosis different than divinization?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2006, 02:17:55 PM »
I always took it as the same thing.
Demetrios,
Theosis is being saved in my understanding
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2006, 02:21:54 PM »
Does one have to experience Theosis to be saved? Or is it strictly for monks, priests and bishops?

Theosis is for everyone in the Church (actually, God is calling all of humanity to theosis; however, those outside of His Church do not have the regular contact with the grace and energies of God that is needed for our completion as images and likenesses of God).

I believe you are Orthodox; so you actually are undergoing theosis but the progress is hidden to our earthly vision. Just because you are not (yet) a miracle producing saint like St. Nektarios of Aegina, or cast light from your gaze as St. Seraphim, does not mean that you are not undergoing the process of theosis.

So, yes, theosis is needed for your salvation, because that's what salvation actually is. Some monks, priests, and bishops may be so far along in this process that it is apparent to us, or perhaps God may choose some of those vessels to manifest His Glory for us all to take heart from. However, laity also undergo theosis, sometimes clealry liek those just mentioned but often in a hidden way, just like most of those you mentioned experience it.

+Fr. Chris
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2006, 06:00:34 PM »
Quote
Quote
Theosis is for everyone in the Church (actually, God is calling all of humanity to theosis; however, those outside of His Church do not have the regular contact with the grace and energies of God that is needed for our completion as images and likenesses of God
).
I believe you are Orthodox; so you actually are undergoing theosis but the progress is hidden to our earthly vision. Just because you are not (yet) a miracle producing saint like St. Nektarios of Aegina, or cast light from your gaze as St. Seraphim, does not mean that you are not undergoing the process of theosis.

So, yes, theosis is needed for your salvation, because that's what salvation actually is. Some monks, priests, and bishops may be so far along in this process that it is apparent to us, or perhaps God may choose some of those vessels to manifest His Glory for us all to take heart from. However, laity also undergo theosis, sometimes clealry liek those just mentioned but often in a hidden way, just like most of those you mentioned experience it.

+Fr. Chris


Father Chris,

Theosis, our deification, becoming partakers of the Divine Nature in and through our adoption into Lord Jesus Christ   begins in baptism.  Since the Orthodox Church accepts Trinitarian baptism in other Churches (converts are not re-baptized) then all the baptized begin their theosis in baptism, not just Orthodox. 
Lord Jesus Christ, our God and only Saviour is NOT Orthodox Christian; He is NOT Christian.  He is God become Man, the Divine Jew.
Steve
« Last Edit: October 12, 2006, 06:01:34 PM by Steve Dennehy »

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,547
Re: Theosis
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2006, 06:11:00 PM »
Since the Orthodox Church accepts Trinitarian baptism in other Churches....

Ummm....no....

The Orthodox Church never says any heterdox sacraments are such, but something like "fills in what was lacking" or something else for those that are Chrismated and not Baptized.  I think O-dox here need to get this "Re-"Baptized term out of their heads.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2006, 07:56:47 PM »


Quote
I believe you are Orthodox;
Absolutely Father.

Quote
So, yes, theosis is needed for your salvation, because that's what salvation actually is.


I have read that there are levels of theosis. Let us assume we are stuck at level one for the rest of our lives. Or level one and growing. Are we still saved? Or do we have to see the Vision per say.

BTW: If anyone knows these levels can they post them here.

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2006, 08:30:42 PM »
Ummm....no....

The Orthodox Church never says any heterdox sacraments are such, but something like "fills in what was lacking" or something else for those that are Chrismated and not Baptized.  I think O-dox here need to get this "Re-"Baptized term out of their heads.

"Heterodox sacraments"--no.  If they were such then those converts would have to be re-baptized.  They are not.  You can't get around this.  Obviously the Orthodox Church does recognize the baptism of Catholic and Protestant Churches if the person is baptized with water in the Name of the Trinity.  Therefore they are saying those baptisms are valid.  Are the unbapized chrismated ? No.  Are the unbaptized admitted to Holy Communion ?  No.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2006, 08:33:20 PM »
"Heterodox sacraments"--no.  If they were such then those converts would have to be re-baptized.  They are not.  You can't get around this.  Obviously the Orthodox Church does recognize the baptism of Catholic and Protestant Churches if the person is baptized with water in the Name of the Trinity.  Therefore they are saying those baptisms are valid.  Are the unbapized chrismated ? No.  Are the unbaptized admitted to Holy Communion ?  No.

You are very ignorant of Orthodox teaching. Do you know what economy is? Do you have any familiarity with the canonical tradition of Orthodoxy? And no, not all Catholic and Protestant baptisms are "recognized"--when I and many other Catholics became Orthodox, we were baptized.  The Antiochians chrismate RC's--does that mean it recognizes their baptism but not their confirmation as valid? Hardly.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Theosis
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2006, 09:26:12 PM »
"Re-baptism" is a big misnomer. One can't redo what was not done (or MAY not have been done) before (echoing Elisha's thought above).
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2006, 09:30:36 PM »
You are very ignorant of Orthodox teaching. Do you know what economy is? Do you have any familiarity with the canonical tradition of Orthodoxy? And no, not all Catholic and Protestant baptisms are "recognized"--when I and many other Catholics became Orthodox, we were baptized.  The Antiochians chrismate RC's--does that mean it recognizes their baptism but not their confirmation as valid? Hardly.

Anastasios

Anastasios,

If I remember correctly aren't you an Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?
If you were re-baptized then your Church is not Orthodox.  From my exposure to that group, they tend to regard most of the Orthodox as heretical.  I pay no attention to such nonsense.
Yes, the Antiochian  Church does recognize the baptism but not the confirmation of Roman Catholics.  That's the general policy.
You can become Orthodox Christian; you cannot become Greek.  Whatever your ethnicity is, that's  an important aspect of who you are, as God created you ,and you can't change it anymore than you can change your gender.
Steve

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2006, 10:07:31 PM »
Steve,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of the Orthodox mysteries.  For example, I am a member of ROCOR and I was baptizied into the Church.  I have a few friends who are members of the Moscow Patriarch and they were baptized into it.  In fact, I believe that the Ecumenical Patriarch had a few Old Calendrists rebaptized into his jurisdiction.  I guess Antioch is the only true see of Orthodoxy on the planet. 
The thing is that baptism is a mystery of the Church.  It is the Holy Spirit work grace internally into an Orthodox Christian's soul.  There are no mysteries outside the Church.  Now a bishop can extend economy to some people to allow them to enter the Orthodox Church.  However, that is simply filling the substance into the form.  My RCC baptisim had the correct form, but my bishop did not extend economy to fill the baptism with grace.  That is the norm.
Daniel
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Theosis
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2006, 10:09:43 PM »
Steve,
You seem to misunderstand the concept of the Orthodox mysteries.  For example, I am a member of ROCOR and I was baptizied into the Church.  I have a few friends who are members of the Moscow Patriarch and they were baptized into it.  In fact, I believe that the Ecumenical Patriarch had a few Old Calendrists rebaptized into his jurisdiction.  I guess Antioch is the only true see of Orthodoxy on the planet. 
The thing is that baptism is a mystery of the Church.  It is the Holy Spirit work grace internally into an Orthodox Christian's soul.  There are no mysteries outside the Church.  Now a bishop can extend economy to some people to allow them to enter the Orthodox Church.  However, that is simply filling the substance into the form.  My RCC baptisim had the correct form, but my bishop did not extend economy to fill the baptism with grace.  That is the norm.
Daniel
I have heard that there are differing oppinions through out the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Is that true?
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2006, 10:18:39 PM »
Steve,

You are being obtuse. The Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Church of Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in some locations, the ROCOR, etc., all baptize converts from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

To call my Church unOrthodox because it baptizes converts is asenine. If you want to argue about the canonicity of my Church, fine, but don't say it's unOrthodox because it baptizes when baptism of converts is ALWAYS an allowable option and is often PREFERRED.

I can only assume that you are a) not really Orthodox yourself but really just joking around with all of us or b) you were never catechized properly or c) you just believe in Steveodoxy.  Have you ever even heard of the book, "I Confess One Baptism" by Fr George Metallinos (Church of Greece, not Old Calendarist)? He makes the argument that all Catholics and Protestants should be baptized and cites the canons to prove it.  Now, his book is his opinion but my point is: you can say that it is not your preference that converts be baptized but to say that Churches that baptize converts are not Orthodox is untrue, unhistorical, ignorant, offensive, and heretical.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2006, 10:19:51 PM »
Quote
You can become Orthodox Christian; you cannot become Greek.  Whatever your ethnicity is, that's  an important aspect of who you are, as God created you ,and you can't change it anymore than you can change your gender.

That part Steve is totally irrelevant to my point.
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2006, 10:25:58 PM »
Different on what?
It is not different on reception of converts.  It is Orthodox practice to baptize converts.  Only through economy are they received otherwise.  Now there is debate on some instances (i.e. is a Non-Chalcedonian a convert or a schismatic) but other wise it is pretty unanimous.  Some bishops just choose to exercise their right of economy more liberally than others.
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
    • Iglesia Ortodoxa de los Santos Apóstoles
Re: Theosis
« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2006, 03:43:01 AM »
Since the Orthodox Church accepts Trinitarian baptism in other Churches (converts are not re-baptized) then all the baptized begin their theosis in baptism, not just Orthodox.

Chiming in with the rest: wrong, wrong, wrong!  I am a reader in the OCA, and have spoken one-on-one with Archbishop DMITRI on this matter, and he's said (and I quote) that "there are no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church."  He is a new-calendarist bishop and dictates that converts from other confessions be chrismated and not baptized, yet here he is saying that there are NO SACRAMENTS outside the Orthodox Church.  We DO NOT ACCEPT heterodox baptisms as valid in and of themselves.  We only "accept" them as empty shells which we can then fill with the grace of the Holy Spirit, "making up for that which is lacking"--and this grace is ONLY found within the Orthodox Church.  A so-called "baptism" outside the Church is seen as an empty shell, a farce of a sacrament, and nothing more.
 
Lord Jesus Christ, our God and only Saviour is NOT Orthodox Christian; He is NOT Christian.  He is God become Man, the Divine Jew.

And?  He established one Church: the Orthodox Church.  Your disagreement with this is directly in conflict with your bishop and the teaching of the entire Church you profess to be a part of.

If they were such then those converts would have to be re-baptized.  They are not.  You can't get around this.  Obviously the Orthodox Church does recognize the baptism of Catholic and Protestant Churches if the person is baptized with water in the Name of the Trinity.  Therefore they are saying those baptisms are valid.

I'm going to repeat myself, since we very much can "get around this": We DO NOT ACCEPT heterodox baptisms as valid in and of themselves.  We only "accept" them as empty shells which we can then fill with the grace of the Holy Spirit, "making up for that which is lacking"--and this grace is ONLY found within the Orthodox Church.  A so-called "baptism" outside the Church is seen as an empty shell, a farce of a sacrament, and nothing more.

Are the unbapized chrismated ? No.  Are the unbaptized admitted to Holy Communion ?  No.

Because not even a shell of anything similar to those things was done in their former confessions.  Honestly: who did your catechism, may I ask?

If you were re-baptized then your Church is not Orthodox.

You have just declared that 95% of the bishops in this world that claim to be Orthodox are, in fact, not.  Who do you think you are...??

Get your facts straight before spouting off nonsense like this.  Not even informed SCOBA folks believe in the existence of sacraments outside the Church...
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Theosis
« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2006, 05:31:36 AM »
Quote
If I remember correctly aren't you an Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?
If you were re-baptized then your Church is not Orthodox.  From my exposure to that group, they tend to regard most of the Orthodox as heretical.  I pay no attention to such nonsense.
Yes, the Antiochian  Church does recognize the baptism but not the confirmation of Roman Catholics.  That's the general policy.

Before dismissing Anastasios as an "Old Calendarist" consider that he does have a degree from what is often disparged as the most "liberal" Orthodox seminary in America.  He is not some mere idealogue spouting off.  I'd advise reading the book cited by him which was written by a priest in good standing with the State Church of Greece. 

Quote
You can become Orthodox Christian; you cannot become Greek.  Whatever your ethnicity is, that's  an important aspect of who you are, as God created you ,and you can't change it anymore than you can change your gender.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Anastasios has consistently been a proponent of Orthodox missionary activity in the United States.  While respecting cultures that have traditionally had large percentages of Orthodox people, he has never advocated forcing that upon converts. 

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2006, 07:37:58 AM »
he has never advocated forcing that upon converts. 
Absolutely. That's always been my job, and I'm in the EP....
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,696
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Theosis
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2006, 09:07:20 AM »
Chiming in with the rest: wrong, wrong, wrong!  I am a reader in the OCA, and have spoken one-on-one with Archbishop DMITRI on this matter, and he's said (and I quote) that "there are no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church."  He is a new-calendarist bishop and dictates that converts from other confessions be chrismated and not baptized, yet here he is saying that there are NO SACRAMENTS outside the Orthodox Church.  We DO NOT ACCEPT heterodox baptisms as valid in and of themselves.  We only "accept" them as empty shells which we can then fill with the grace of the Holy Spirit, "making up for that which is lacking"--and this grace is ONLY found within the Orthodox Church.  A so-called "baptism" outside the Church is seen as an empty shell, a farce of a sacrament, and nothing more.

Does God answer the prayers of the damned? I am Roman Catholic is there no hope for us? Am I and others lefts in our sins after confession?

Ugh! This is a heavy burden to hear.
 
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2006, 09:12:19 AM »
We recognize a distinction between sacramental grace and charismatic grace. We believe that God bestows his grace in a different (less full) way on non Orthodox in a charismatic way and gently tries to lead him where he wills (which is ultimately Orthodoxy).  Life is a journey and God knows that people are in different stations of life--follow the interior voice and call out to him for his guidance and if you do this with a true heart that will be taken into consideration.  But sacramentally we cannot state there is grace where it has not been revealed to us.

From my experience, I had a genuine basic spiritual progression as a Catholic, but when I was baptized Orthodox it all clicked, came together, was fulfilled, and increased tenfold etc.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2006, 11:04:36 AM »
We recognize a distinction between sacramental grace and charismatic grace. We believe that God bestows his grace in a different (less full) way on non Orthodox in a charismatic way and gently tries to lead him where he wills (which is ultimately Orthodoxy).  Life is a journey and God knows that people are in different stations of life--follow the interior voice and call out to him for his guidance and if you do this with a true heart that will be taken into consideration.  But sacramentally we cannot state there is grace where it has not been revealed to us.

Okay........not to agree with Steve's arguments, but I have to in some ways question a few things that Anastasios and others have asserted here.  First of all, I think that this statement, Anastasios, might be a useful way to explain things in this instance, but it is an opinion, and not Orthodox doctrine.  When have we distinguished between different "types" of grace?  Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this might be a very dangerous path to trod. 

Even though I believe that there are no sacraments outside Orthodoxy, I believe this statement in a different way than some of you.  I believe that we can say with certainty where the Holy Spirit is, but we cannot with certainty say where He is not.  An exception to this would probably be amongst the wilfully heretical or schismatic.    One view held by some Orthodox is that there might be varying degrees of Orthodoxy present in other ecclesial bodies.  It is my personal belief that there is grace present in the Latin Church.  But this is only my personal belief, and other Orthodox are not bound to agree with it.  Nor should they call me heterodox for holding such a belief.  There is no question for me in believing that the Latin and Orthodox Churches are "sister" Churches:  I find such a belief to be unacceptable in the face of an Orthodox understanding of ecclesiology.  For the same reason, we  should not entertain any notions concerning "validity" of sacraments in other ecclesial bodies.  This is a Latin concept foreign to Orthodox beliefs about the nature of the Church.

I don't know about the state of sacraments elsewhere.  I think that the economia approach is a good one to take in terms of saying that the Holy Spriit "heals that which is infirm, and fulfills that which is lacking", but to go so far as to say that all non-Orthodox sacramental actions are merely "empty shells"  might be going too far.  On the other hand,  I have no problem with baptising converts from any other Christian group who convert to Orthodoxy, if this is the route chosen. 

Archbishop Dmitri is perfectly within his rights to forcefully state his opinion that there are no sacraments outside the visible Orthodox communion.  Many saintly Orthodox people have held and continue to hold this view.  However, it is just that , an opinion.  It is not Orthodox doctrine.  I am also completely within my rights as an Orthodox believer to hold to the beliefs that I do.  To back this up, I would like to refer you to The Orthodox Church (1997 edition) by Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, pp. 307-10 and  pp. 245-8.

James Bob
« Last Edit: October 13, 2006, 11:09:52 AM by Pravoslavbob »
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2006, 11:08:26 AM »
Does God answer the prayers of the damned? I am Roman Catholic is there no hope for us?

Ignatius, don't despair or panic. You're not damned yet, and you're doing exactly what you should be doing...exploring Orthodoxy and asking questions, and being willing to go in the direction you need to follow God's call for you.

That being said, if memory serves Steve Dennehy is a convert from Catholicism, and that his past posts (in this thread and others) indicated a fundamental difference in understanding of the Church's Mysteries between his former spiritual home and where he is now.

As I was thinking about this onthe drive to work this morning, it occurred to me that really the big differences between us and the Roman Catholics lies more so in our different understanding of Pneumatology. From this different understanding comes the qualifications over authority, Mysteries, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

This is why the filioque matters---it set the stage for the Pneumatic differences that we have now.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2006, 11:08:46 AM by chris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,547
Re: Theosis
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2006, 11:25:16 AM »
Anastasios,

If I remember correctly aren't you an Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?


Irrelevant.  I attend an OCA parish, and most new converts are Baptized.  I think that the only ones that are not are ones that can honestly and thoroughly explain to the priest that they had a trinitarian baptism with a valid form in their former confession.  None of this carte blanche "Yeah, I was RC/Lutheran/Episcopalian/whatever." and then they are automatically just Chrismated.  My priest is much more on the conservative end of this spectrum, but I think there is WAY too much assuming by the less conservative end about what the new convert's treatment was in their former confession.  I think I may have only seen a couple of non-Baptisms at my parish in the last 5 years and many of these people actually came from traditional backgrounds.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2006, 11:35:20 AM »
Actually, Anastasios' comments basically summarize what you are also pointing out: that while we know that grace is communicated though the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church (Anastasios' term 'Sacramental Grace') we also take note that the Spirit will blow where He will (Anastasios' term 'Charismatic Grace').

Truly this is the doctrine that was drilled into my head at Holy Cross, and I'm certain if that was the understanding there that the other Orthodox seminaries teach the same.

Even though I believe that there are no sacraments outside Orthodoxy, I believe this statement in a different way than some of you.  I believe that we can say with certainty where the Holy Spirit is, but we cannot with certainty say where He is not. 

This is basically what Anastasios has been saying, and I think your understanding of this question is actually quite close to the Church's, only perhaps phrased differently.

Your own reference on this question states on pg. 309 a summarization from a 'rigorist':

Quote
Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace may well be active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in thier present state, be termed members of the Church...

This is an example of potential charismatic grace, where the Spirit may blow among those who He knows.

Your second reference again summarizes the same viewpoint, which is the teaching of the Church that sacraments only exist within the Orthodox Church, but the Spirit may still blow where He will to help in this process of theosis.

Quote
I don't know about the state of sacraments elsewhere.  I think that the economia approach is a good one to take in terms of saying that the Holy Spriit "heals that which is infirm, and fulfills that which is lacking", but to go so far as to say that all non-Orthodox sacramental actions are merely "empty shells"  might be going too far.

Actually the term 'empty shell' is the term I heard most frequently among our professors at school. It is a shell that must be filled with the Spirit for theosis to occur; while we know that the Spirit cooperates with and is conveyed through the Mysteries, perhaps the empty shell will also be filled thorugh the whim of the Spirit Himself, since He knows truly what is in the person's heart, and is merciful.

It is this acquisition of the Holy Spirit that St. Seraphim of Sarov used as the objective of every Christian. As you pointed out, we know the Spirit dwells in the Church and in our Mysteries. We may hope that the Spirit may blow to others, but we cannot determine that he Spirit truly knows that church body, or doesn't know that person.


« Last Edit: October 13, 2006, 11:36:47 AM by chris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline ignatius

  • Baptacathadox
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,696
  • My Son Aidan... :-)
Re: Theosis
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2006, 02:41:27 PM »
Ignatius, don't despair or panic. You're not damned yet, and you're doing exactly what you should be doing...exploring Orthodoxy and asking questions, and being willing to go in the direction you need to follow God's call for you.

That being said, if memory serves Steve Dennehy is a convert from Catholicism, and that his past posts (in this thread and others) indicated a fundamental difference in understanding of the Church's Mysteries between his former spiritual home and where he is now.

As I was thinking about this onthe drive to work this morning, it occurred to me that really the big differences between us and the Roman Catholics lies more so in our different understanding of Pneumatology. From this different understanding comes the qualifications over authority, Mysteries, the Immaculate Conception, etc.

This is why the filioque matters---it set the stage for the Pneumatic differences that we have now.

Okay chris you lost me at these two points. I don't even know what Pheumatology is so any differences are going to be difficult to grasp. Can you explain this for me please?
St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2006, 04:52:56 PM »
I believe my question was overlooked. Please feel free to comment.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2006, 05:38:11 PM »
I believe my question was overlooked. Please feel free to comment.

Demetrios G---

I have never heard of a codified 'system' indicating the number of levels present in theosis. We have St. Paul referring to being in the 'Third Heaven', which may or may not refer to this.

But what is important is this: think about what you are asking. Developing a system of 'levels' indicates that there is a definate beginning and end point for whatever has been divided.

So, to develop these 'levels' for theosis one will also have to indicate where God begins and where He ends. So, while I believe that there are levels in that many are closer to God than I, and so it is possible to say that many are therefore at a higher 'level' than I, I would argue it is impossible to have a system similar to indicating that I am at Level 1 stage of theosis, while Anastasios is at Level 5 and Nektarios is at level 3. Therefore, theosis is more like a continuum in my view.

But that's just my opinion. There may be a monastic elder somewhere who has adopted some kind of 'theosis level meter' indicating that certain saints are at certain levels due to certain behaviors or events that are made manifest through them. However, we're talking about infinity here, so any system of levels will always be incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

But more importantly, why do you ask?
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2006, 05:52:55 PM »
Okay chris you lost me at these two points. I don't even know what Pheumatology is so any differences are going to be difficult to grasp. Can you explain this for me please?

Ignatius---

Pneumatology is the study of the Holy Spirit.

It is interesting because the RC understanding of the Spirit really is different from the Orthodox---as an example, the RC is of the opinion that Orthodox Mysteries are fully 'valid' (their definition) despite the fact that we are not in communion with each other. However, it sounds absurd to us Orthodox to think that any Sacraments are 'valid' outside of Orthodoxy, mainly because the RCs are not in communion with us. This is despite the fact that the Roman Catholic church will still maintain that a Sacrament is  dependant on the operation of the Spirit.

Similarly, at least from the discussions I've had with Roman Catholic priests, the majority of masses said by them are when they are alone. The host is still considered to be Christ, even though they are alone. For us Orthodox, because we depend upon the descent of the Spirit to sanctify the bread and wine, no Liturgy can be conducted solely by an Orthodox priest---other Orthodox are needed since the guarantee of the Spirit's presence is to have 'two or three gathered in His name'.

This is also why we Orthodox cannot agree that any individual is infallible, yet we state that infallibility actually exists within the Church. Both churches hold that infallibility is guaranteed by the Spirit, but the difference lies in pneumatology.

I'm still sorting this one out in my mind, btw...I'm not sure I'm going to say yet that this pneumatology theory is universally correct, but I would say that this makes for an interesting point to contemplate the differences.

+Fr. Chris
« Last Edit: October 13, 2006, 05:54:29 PM by chris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #29 on: October 14, 2006, 10:01:59 PM »
Steve,

You are being obtuse. The Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Church of Greece, the Ecumenical Patriarchate in some locations, the ROCOR, etc., all baptize converts from Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

To call my Church unOrthodox because it baptizes converts is asenine. If you want to argue about the canonicity of my Church, fine, but don't say it's unOrthodox because it baptizes when baptism of converts is ALWAYS an allowable option and is often PREFERRED.

I can only assume that you are a) not really Orthodox yourself but really just joking around with all of us or b) you were never catechized properly or c) you just believe in Steveodoxy.  Have you ever even heard of the book, "I Confess One Baptism" by Fr George Metallinos (Church of Greece, not Old Calendarist)? He makes the argument that all Catholics and Protestants should be baptized and cites the canons to prove it.  Now, his book is his opinion but my point is: you can say that it is not your preference that converts be baptized but to say that Churches that baptize converts are not Orthodox is untrue, unhistorical, ignorant, offensive, and heretical.

Anastasios

Anasstasios,

All those entities you list  together comprise less than  10% of the world's Greek Rite Orthodox.  This is a minority viewpoint and it completely goes against the Fathers of the Church.  In no Father   (up to St John of Damascus d. 749) do you  do you ever hear of converts who were baptized with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, being re-baptized.  You read the exact opposite all over.  Do you read the New Testament ?  Do you read the Fathers ?

Do you accept Lord Jesus as your God, your Lord, your Saviour ?    I ask this because you never seem to refer to Him .He is NOT Orthodox; He is NOT Christian.  The Church is His Body; He is it's only Head.  The Church is subject to Him, not He to the Church.

Why did you become Orthodox ?
Why did you choose the Greek branch ?
Why did you become Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?
Steve

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2006, 10:20:23 PM »
Archbishop Dmitri is NOT infallible.  No bishop is infallible .  The Roman Catholics claim the Pope of Rome is infallible; they don't claim  any other bishop is.  You can find bishops saying anything; let's be more critical in our thinking.  Let's not get into the heresy of clergy worship.

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Theosis
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2006, 10:47:45 PM »
Why did you become Orthodox ?
Why did you choose the Greek branch ?
Why did you become Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?

Why is it any of your business?  I doubt he's expecting some sort of Stevish Inquisition.
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
    • Iglesia Ortodoxa de los Santos Apóstoles
Re: Theosis
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2006, 01:54:02 AM »
to go so far as to say that all non-Orthodox sacramental actions are merely "empty shells"  might be going too far.

Yes, and forgive me for coming on too strong and not clarifying...we treat the heterodox sacraments as nothing more than that because we can never really know if they are more than that.  We dare not treat them as more than that, yet neither should we dare to decree what God alone can know: that which he's done in the heart of a person.

All those entities you list  together comprise less than  10% of the world's Greek Rite Orthodox.

I'd just like to use this quote to apologize for getting my facts wrong as to who was being talked about (I'm 0 for 2 in this thread!) and throwing out the 90-something percent stat.  Forgive me.

Quote
This is a minority viewpoint and it completely goes against the Fathers of the Church.  In no Father   (up to St John of Damascus d. 749) do you  do you ever hear of converts who were baptized with water in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, being re-baptized.

You hear it as early as St. Cyprian of Carthage, my friend.  He was in a debate against St. Stephen, Pope of Rome at the time.  This conflict is as ancient as they are, and has never been settled in any real manner within the Church.  Some baptize, some chrismate, but NONE see what they're doing as saying, "We do or do not say that non-Orthodox sacraments are valid in and of themselves."  We just know that we're the Church, so we're the one's who've got everything you need.

Quote
You read the exact opposite all over.

Not at all.  Greeks have chrismated while Russians have baptized, and vice versa throughout history.  To treat chrismation as THE way the Orthodox receive someone is as silly, imo, as treating baptism as THE way.  Neither is THE norm.

Quote
I ask this because you never seem to refer to Him .He is NOT Orthodox; He is NOT Christian.  The Church is His Body; He is it's only Head.  The Church is subject to Him, not He to the Church.

Why did you become Orthodox ?
Why did you choose the Greek branch ?
Why did you become Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?

You can't have a headless body, that's true.  But neither can you have a disembodied head.

Archbishop Dmitri is NOT infallible.  No bishop is infallible.

I'm aware of this, thank you.  He is, however, in agreement with every other Orthodox bishop I've ever heard talk about this subject that there are no grace-filled sacraments outside the Orthodox Church (that we can know about for sure).

Does God answer the prayers of the damned? I am Roman Catholic is there no hope for us? Am I and others lefts in our sins after confession?

I am not going to make that call.  Please forgive me, ignatius (what a noble name!) for seeming to judge definitively on something that is God's judgement call.

Why is it any of your business?  I doubt he's expecting some sort of Stevish Inquisition.

NOONE expects the Stevish Inquisition!!!  ;D :D ;)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 01:56:06 AM by DavidBryan »
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2006, 02:31:09 AM »
Their cheif weapon is suprise, suprise and fear . . .
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline GOCTheophan

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 147
Re: Theosis
« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2006, 04:00:40 AM »
Anastasios,

If I remember correctly aren't you an Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox ?
If you were re-baptized then your Church is not Orthodox.  From my exposure to that group, they tend to regard most of the Orthodox as heretical.  I pay no attention to such nonsense.
Yes, the Antiochian  Church does recognize the baptism but not the confirmation of Roman Catholics.  That's the general policy.
Steve is right. From my experiance of World Orthodoxy Roman Catholics and Anglicans are generally in Europe and the middle east (Syria and Lebanonn at least) recieved simply by confession, infact in many cases they do not even have to confess Orthodoxy to approach the Mysteries in World Orthodox churches. The EP parish in London allows Roman Catholics and possibly Anglicans to take Communion there without confession.

Things might be different in the USA due to the "convert zeal" of former protestants but world wide Steve is right. When I was in the MP even "conservitives" accepted that RCs and more Traditional protestants have the Grace of Baptism and marriage, the liberbals of course thought that their agnostic friends should be allowed access to the mysteries, I know things are not that different through most of the Orthodox world.

Anyway all members of the WCC offically accept each others Baptisms. If people take an Orthodox stand on this than they should not be in organizations that are in the WCC or confess that they share the same faith as members of it- anything else is simply playing Church. In many cases though this could be the Lord protecting people because due to other heresies such as those regarding evolution and redemption many of World Orthodox anti-ecumenists would be feeding on Him to their condemnation.

Theophan.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2006, 07:50:48 AM by GOCTheophan »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2006, 08:51:04 AM »
World Orthodoxy
There ain't no such animal. There's Orthodox or hetrodox. Nothing in between.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Theosis
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2006, 10:05:00 AM »
There ain't no such animal. There's Orthodox or hetrodox. Nothing in between.

Right on the money...even including 'schismatics'  ;)
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2006, 03:09:49 PM »
Demetrios G---

I have never heard of a codified 'system' indicating the number of levels present in theosis. We have St. Paul referring to being in the 'Third Heaven', which may or may not refer to this.

But what is important is this: think about what you are asking. Developing a system of 'levels' indicates that there is a definate beginning and end point for whatever has been divided.

So, to develop these 'levels' for theosis one will also have to indicate where God begins and where He ends. So, while I believe that there are levels in that many are closer to God than I, and so it is possible to say that many are therefore at a higher 'level' than I, I would argue it is impossible to have a system similar to indicating that I am at Level 1 stage of theosis, while Anastasios is at Level 5 and Nektarios is at level 3. Therefore, theosis is more like a continuum in my view.

But that's just my opinion. There may be a monastic elder somewhere who has adopted some kind of 'theosis level meter' indicating that certain saints are at certain levels due to certain behaviors or events that are made manifest through them. However, we're talking about infinity here, so any system of levels will always be incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

But more importantly, why do you ask?

I'm trying to get an idea of what constitutes being saved.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2006, 03:37:31 PM »
I'm trying to get an idea of what constitutes being saved.

Yes, this is what is known as theosis, which you have hit upon:

You have been saved through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
You are being saved in the present by living your life participating in the divine energies of His Church;
You will be saved in the future during that dread Day because by living your life in the Church you participated inthe Divine Energies imparted through the Mystreies of the Chruch.

I know you used to be Protestant---I think one of the best examples that some segments of Protestantism are basically a different religion of their own is how their understanding of salvation is very different than that historically taught by the Church of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps because your original catechesis was at the hands of these Protestants your initial conception of the understanding of being 'saved' is causing your frustration since you're not getting an answer that translates well into your past 'training'. However, the Church has always taught that salvation is a life-long process of theosis, where you immerse your life in the Church, rather than a single event of 'accepting Jesus as your personal savior', etc.

+Fr. Chris
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 03:37:55 PM by chris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2006, 08:06:19 PM »
Why is it any of your business?  I doubt he's expecting some sort of Stevish Inquisition.

I'm interested and trying to understand him.  He certainly isn't obligated to answer.  Usually converts like to answer those questions.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2006, 08:40:16 PM »
What is the Church ? It is the Body of Lord Jesus Christ.  To know the Church we have to know Him to some degree, though we can never completely know Him; we grow in Him forever.   If we grow In Lord Jesus our minds and hearts expand; they don't contract, so I can wallow in spirtual pride feeling superior to 99% of the human race.   We limit ourselves into increasingly smaller groups:  The Orthodox Church, then my branch of the Orthodox Church, then my sub-branch, until ultimately we end up as the Church and the only member of it. To say that Roman Catholics and Protestants who recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour do not know Him is ridiculous.
Our Lord established His Church.  He did not, as I will repeat till they lower my cold corpse into the ground, establish a Greek Church, nor a Roman, nor a Syrian, Egyptian, etc.  It's His Church, which He established which began to experience ethnic/national breaks in 431.

When do you folks think Roman Catholics ceased being part of His Church ?
 1013 ? 1054 ?  What ? One day they were and the next day or year or whatever, they weren't ?  Did each and every one deny Him ? That doesn't make sense.  Do you really think everyone in the Oriental Churches overnght in 451 ceased being members of His Body ?  Did each and every one deny Him ?
Do you think no Baptist  or Pentecostal ever recieved Him ?   They may lack several means of grace but they have grace; they have Baptism, they have prayer , they have love, faith and hope. His grace is HIS grace; He offers His grace to all continuously.  It is NOT the Church's , any Church's , grace.

This confusion of Church with the Lord is idolatry.  Calling not-God (Church), God (Jesus) is idolatry.  Confusing my Church with the Lord is a form of self-worship.  I may believe my Church has kept a purer understanding of the faith
but I keep distinct realities within their place, I don't confuse them.

Allright, go gather the wood to burn me at the stake.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 08:41:43 PM by Steve Dennehy »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Theosis
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2006, 08:46:28 PM »
What is the Church ? It is the Body of Lord Jesus Christ.  To know the Church we have to know Him to some degree, though we can never completely know Him; we grow in Him forever.   If we grow In Lord Jesus our minds and hearts expand; they don't contract, so I can wallow in spirtual pride feeling superior to 99% of the human race.   We limit ourselves into increasingly smaller groups:  The Orthodox Church, then my branch of the Orthodox Church, then my sub-branch, until ultimately we end up as the Church and the only member of it. To say that Roman Catholics and Protestants who recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour do not know Him is ridiculous.
Our Lord established His Church.  He did not, as I will repeat till they lower my cold corpse into the ground, establish a Greek Church, nor a Roman, nor a Syrian, Egyptian, etc.  It's His Church, which He established which began to experience ethnic/national breaks in 431.

When do you folks think Roman Catholics ceased being part of His Church ?
 1013 ? 1054 ?  What ? One day they were and the next day or year or whatever, they weren't ?  Did each and every one deny Him ? That doesn't make sense.  Do you really think everyone in the Oriental Churches overnght in 451 ceased being members of His Body ?  Did each and every one deny Him ?
Do you think no Baptist  or Pentecostal ever recieved Him ?   They may lack several means of grace but they have grace; they have Baptism, they have prayer , they have love, faith and hope. His grace is HIS grace; He offers His grace to all continuously.  It is NOT the Church's , any Church's , grace.

This confusion of Church with the Lord is idolatry.  Calling not-God (Church), God (Jesus) is idolatry.  Confusing my Church with the Lord is a form of self-worship.  I may believe my Church has kept a purer understanding of the faith
but I keep distinct realities within their place, I don't confuse them.

Allright, go gather the wood to burn me at the stake.

I think what everyone is trying to defend here is the idea that there is only one Church and that those who choose to separate themselves from the Church are not members of the Church. That does not mean that people outside the Church are not Christians. It does not mean that such people do not have some experience of our Lord and Savior. It just means that there is only one Church. Now, as a Catholic, I believe it to be the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthdox believe it to be the Eastern Orthodox Church.  But we are not denying eachother the title of Christian.
Many blessings in Christ.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 08:47:09 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2006, 10:26:01 PM »
Quoted by: Fr. Chris

Quote
You will be saved in the future during that dread Day because by living your life in the Church you participated inthe Divine Energies imparted through the Mystreies of the Chruch.


I don't believe this is all that is needed to be save. Just because we go to church and partake of the mystreies doesn't mean we are instintly transformed into a Christ like figure. My understanding is that one must try to conquer sin and lead a life closely resembling our savior Jesus Christ. Are we not in a spiritual struggle to become like Christ? My question was a simple one. At what point does an orthodox christian know if they are saved or not? Or do we ever know?
One example of saints being saved is their vision of uncreated light. Does one have to see this uncreated light to be saved?

Quote
I know you used to be Protestant

I have bin orthodox since the age of one. That was 36 years ago.




 


 


Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2006, 12:47:32 AM »
Father Chris,

Actually, Anastasios' comments basically summarize what you are also pointing out: that while we know that grace is communicated though the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church (Anastasios' term 'Sacramental Grace') we also take note that the Spirit will blow where He will (Anastasios' term 'Charismatic Grace').

Truly this is the doctrine that was drilled into my head at Holy Cross, and I'm certain if that was the understanding there that the other Orthodox seminaries teach the same.

With all due respect, this is not a doctrine, but an opinion.  As I have already opined myself, Anastasios's categorization might be a useful way to discern different movements of the Spirit, but at this point I am inclined to see it as dangerous, since it seems to be making distinctions between different kinds of grace.  We do not define different kinds of grace.  We know that the grace of God is really God and not created, but beyond this, we do not know much.  I think that we should be very careful when we move to define things not already defined by the Church. 

Quote
This is basically what Anastasios has been saying, and I think your understanding of this question is actually quite close to the Church's, only perhaps phrased differently.

Again, the Church does not have an "understanding" about this issue.  Its members hold various theologoumena about it.  My position is perfectly Orthodox.

Quote

It is this acquisition of the Holy Spirit that St. Seraphim of Sarov used as the objective of every Christian. As you pointed out, we know the Spirit dwells in the Church and in our Mysteries. We may hope that the Spirit may blow to others, but we cannot determine that he Spirit truly knows that church body, or doesn't know that person.

Personally, I agree with this completely.

James
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 01:03:00 AM by Pravoslavbob »
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2006, 01:12:58 AM »
Their cheif weapon is suprise, suprise and fear . . .

(And formerly,) an almost FANATICAL devotion to the Pope! ;)
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2006, 01:35:46 AM »
Yes, and forgive me for coming on too strong and not clarifying...we treat the heterodox sacraments as nothing more than that because we can never really know if they are more than that.  We dare not treat them as more than that, yet neither should we dare to decree what God alone can know: that which he's done in the heart of a person.

No problem, DavidBryan.  I really like what you write here. 
You know, it's weird.  From what I've seen, it seems that in the case of those who are wilfully schismatic or heretical, the Church simply says that none of their sacraments are anything at all.  Some Orthodox, however, also come close to the opinion of Georges Florovsky regarding those who are not wilfully separated from the Church.  I believe that Florovsky thought that, although the schism between Orthodoxy and other bodies was real, God in his grace still acts in these schismatic bodies, anticipating a healing in the rupture! 

James Bob


Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2006, 04:29:57 PM »
Quoted by: Fr. Chris
 

I don't believe this is all that is needed to be save. Just because we go to church and partake of the mystreies doesn't mean we are instintly transformed into a Christ like figure.

Yes, I agree; that's why God gives us our whole lives to work on theosis.

Quote
My understanding is that one must try to conquer sin and lead a life closely resembling our savior Jesus Christ. Are we not in a spiritual struggle to become like Christ? My question was a simple one. At what point does an orthodox christian know if they are saved or not? Or do we ever know?
One example of saints being saved is their vision of uncreated light. Does one have to see this uncreated light to be saved?

We are always in a spiritual struggle, all our lives. No, it is not at all a simple question you asked--how do you 'simply' ask someone to summarize their entire life? We all go through ups and downs, peaks and valleys; God gives us times like those to help us in our journey to know Him.

What assurance do you want of salvation? Christ has given us Baptism and the entire Church. He has promised us He will return. God gives us saints to point us in the correct way. Will we ever know in this lifetime on Earth of our eternal disposition? We have assurances which we can trust upon, and we have the bloom of hope.

Does a person have to see the uncreated light for salvation? Well, we are told that those who see the Uncreated Light in this lifetime are few and far between. We are also told that the numbers of saints are so numerous that we do not know all their names (hence, All Saint's Day). What do you think this means regarding the necessity to see the Uncreated Light?

Quote
I have bin orthodox since the age of one. That was 36 years ago.

My sincere apologies! I remembered you had 'changed' recently, and due to the questions you were asking I thought you had come from Protestantism--as I had. Many of the questions you are asking were those that I wrestled with, and so perhaps I projected some of my identity onto you.

Again, my sincere apologies for making such a grievous error.
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,252
  • Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!
Re: Theosis
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2006, 05:21:01 PM »
With all due respect, this is not a doctrine, but an opinion.  As I have already opined myself, Anastasios's categorization might be a useful way to discern different movements of the Spirit, but at this point I am inclined to see it as dangerous, since it seems to be making distinctions between different kinds of grace.  We do not define different kinds of grace.  We know that the grace of God is really God and not created, but beyond this, we do not know much. 

Well, I must disagree with your contention that the usage of 'Sacramental Grace' vs. 'Charismatic Grace' creates two different kinds of grace. As I understood it,  it points out that there are multiple ways of receiving the grace of God, not that there are multiple kinds of grace and/or of Gods.

Quote
I think that we should be very careful when we move to define things not already defined by the Church

While I share your concern regarding using or developing new terms in the Church, I must point out that 'sacramental grace' and 'charismatic grace' and its rough approximations are terms already in wide use and have been used to discuss this very problem, such as in this article:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/baptism.aspx

Quote
...We may note that several of the great Fathers of the Church (including Sts. Basil, Augustine, and Gregory the Theologian) have implied that the "charismatic," as distinct from the "sacramental," boundaries of the Church may not completely coincide with the canonical ones....

But what I find puzzling is that actually I think we are in agreement here: we know the Orthodox Church provides grace through Her Mysteries. We do not know for sure if other churches convey grace, but we can certainly hope so (after all, this would be my entire family). The Spirit can blow wherever He should choose to do so, and perhaps our petition in the Divine Liturgy where we ask for the stability and unity of all churches may be the cause for this effect.

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2006, 06:27:01 PM »
Unfortunately, these far-right Orthodox are denying any Roman Catholic or Protestant is really Christian.  They are saying there is no grace in those Churches.  The same basic mentally sadly seen among far-right Roman Catholics and  most fundamentalist Protestants.

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,547
Re: Theosis
« Reply #49 on: October 17, 2006, 06:30:22 PM »
While I share your concern regarding using or developing new terms in the Church, I must point out that 'sacramental grace' and 'charismatic grace' and its rough approximations are terms already in wide use and have been used to discuss this very problem, such as in this article:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/baptism.aspx


And before someone says, "...blah blah....Hyperdox website...blah blah", attack the information in the article - not the site.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #50 on: October 17, 2006, 06:32:38 PM »
Unfortunately, these far-right Orthodox are denying any Roman Catholic or Protestant is really Christian.  They are saying there is no grace in those Churches.  The same basic mentally sadly seen among far-right Roman Catholics and  most fundamentalist Protestants.

yeah but Steve, people far holier than you--like St Nikodemos the Haghiorite--said the same thing, and this is enshrined in our canon law, namely that Roman Catholics do not have grace. Who are you to argue with the Holy Fathers and saints of the Church? That is not the same thing as saying they are not Christians, but they are not in the Church of Christ, and need to convert to it.
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #51 on: October 17, 2006, 06:37:19 PM »
Steve, any ecclesiology which says that there is more than one Church cannot be Christian, since it contradicts the Christian Creed which states that there is "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #52 on: October 17, 2006, 06:51:26 PM »
Steve, any ecclesiology which says that there is more than one Church cannot be Christian, since it contradicts the Christian Creed which states that there is "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

There is One Church--Lord Jesus' Church, comprised of all who recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour.  No branch has the whole picture.  Some branches  have more than others.  All branches have apostates and unbelievers,even among clergy, including bishops, patriarchs and popes.  Being a nominal member of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.  Being a participating member of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.  Being a cleric of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #53 on: October 17, 2006, 07:07:24 PM »
There is One Church--Lord Jesus' Church, comprised of all who recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour.  No branch has the whole picture.  Some branches  have more than others.  All branches have apostates and unbelievers,even among clergy, including bishops, patriarchs and popes.  Being a nominal member of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.  Being a participating member of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.  Being a cleric of any Church doesn't mean you are a member of His Church.
So, you seem to hold that:
1) The Church has no visible boundaries, therefore, no one can ever know where the Church is.
2) Sacraments like baptism are not required, all that is required is to "recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour".
3) The Church is divided into "branches".
4) Being in "a Church" doesn't mean you are in "the Church".
5) The Church does not act as a body and has has no authority to cast anyone out of the Church.
6) Schism from the Church does not constitute falling away from the Body of Christ, it merely sets up a new "branch".

In all of these beliefs, you are contradicting the New Testament and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The Body of Christ cannot be "cloned". There is One Lord Jesus Christ, and He has only One Body of which He is the One Head. There is only "One Lord, One Faith, One baptism".
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Theosis
« Reply #54 on: October 17, 2006, 07:34:37 PM »
So, you seem to hold that:
1) The Church has no visible boundaries, therefore, no one can ever know where the Church is.
2) Sacraments like baptism are not required, all that is required is to "recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour".
3) The Church is divided into "branches".
4) Being in "a Church" doesn't mean you are in "the Church".
5) The Church does not act as a body and has has no authority to cast anyone out of the Church.
6) Schism from the Church does not constitute falling away from the Body of Christ, it merely sets up a new "branch".

So, basically, I can believe whatever I feel like, set up my own "branch church," and make vodka drinking and bar-hopping my new sacraments, and I've still got a shot at being in "the Church?"  We'd better keep a lid on this one, folks... ;)

(Just taking Steve's reasoning to its ultimate conclusion...liberal Protestantism)
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #55 on: October 17, 2006, 08:12:07 PM »
"From the time of the apostles and thereafter, many and sundry heresies have crashed against the church, but she has remained undivided and unblemished, and will abide so unto the ages, those aberrant in mind and deed being cut off and separated from her."
--St Thedore the Studite, Epistle I.28

"We know that this salvation belongs to one Church, and that no one outside the Catholic Church and Faith can be saved or participate in Christ."
--St John Chrysostom

"All of the Teachers of the Church, all of the Synods, and all of the Divine Scriptures teach us to flee from heretics and to separate ourselves from communion with them."
--St Mark of Ephesus
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Theosis
« Reply #56 on: October 17, 2006, 08:34:49 PM »
"We know that this salvation belongs to one Church, and that no one outside the Catholic Church and Faith can be saved or participate in Christ."
--St John Chrysostom
I know what your reply to this is but I just felt like being cheeky. LOL :)
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #57 on: October 17, 2006, 09:33:08 PM »

Quote
Again, my sincere apologies for making such a grievous error.

There is no need for an apology. I thank you very much for your  time and effort in responding. Yes. We definately have the saints that god has given us along with clergy like yourself to lead the way. Forgive me if my questions sounded child like.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2006, 08:48:19 PM »
So, you seem to hold that:
1) The Church has no visible boundaries, therefore, no one can ever know where the Church is.
2) Sacraments like baptism are not required, all that is required is to "recieve Him as God, Lord and Saviour".
3) The Church is divided into "branches".
4) Being in "a Church" doesn't mean you are in "the Church".
5) The Church does not act as a body and has has no authority to cast anyone out of the Church.
6) Schism from the Church does not constitute falling away from the Body of Christ, it merely sets up a new "branch".

In all of these beliefs, you are contradicting the New Testament and the teachings of the Orthodox Church. The Body of Christ cannot be "cloned". There is One Lord Jesus Christ, and He has only One Body of which He is the One Head. There is only "One Lord, One Faith, One baptism".

Actually I never said any of the above.

The boundary: Those who recieve Lord Jesus Christ as God, Lord and Saviour.
Not those who claim to, but those who do.  (By the way Liberal Protestants, Revisionist Roman catholics and Revisionist Orthodox don't recieve Him as God, Lord or Saviour.  They very openly deny  Him to be God, Lord and Saviour.).

Baptism  is required for those who come to know Him.  Not required of young children (they are sinless, having the state of original sin but not the guilt; all young children value love and go to Love Himself at death).  There is also the Baptism of desire which any sincere seeker of truth has.  Billions of people have lived on this planet in the past 2000 years who never heard of Lord Jesus or never had the real Jesus presented to them.  God does not hold anyone responsible for situations they have no control over.  We are only repsponsible for what we freely choose to do.

Yes the Church has always been divided into branches.  In 400 you had the  West Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Assyrian (East Syrian), Spanish, Gaulish, Celtic, Indian , etc. branches.


No, being a nominal member, or an apostate member  or an unbelieving member of any Church does not make you a member of the Church.  Let's remember something --there have been Judas  Iscariots since the first one;  95% of heresies were started by bishops and priests.

The Church did act as a body at one time (pre-431) and of course could throw
apostates (those who deny Lord Jesus is God, Lord and Saviour) or heretics (those who  deliberately denied a doctrine of the faith) ,or those who embraced evil and refused to repent (as in promoting abortion or hatred of some group , or persecution or injustice) out of the Church

Schism is difficult.  Sometimes there is an honest disagreement( as in the Old Believers in Russia--a body I recognize as legitimately Orthodox).  If it's a case of some egomaniac deciding to go his own way, that's different.  Schisms have to behandled on a case by base basis.

Yes there is One Lord Jesus Christ; there is One faith (the Nicene Creed--with or without the filioque) and one baptism (by water "In the Name of the Father and  of the Son and  of the Holy Spirit").

Steve

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #59 on: October 18, 2006, 08:56:01 PM »
"From the time of the apostles and thereafter, many and sundry heresies have crashed against the church, but she has remained undivided and unblemished, and will abide so unto the ages, those aberrant in mind and deed being cut off and separated from her."
--St Thedore the Studite, Epistle I.28

"We know that this salvation belongs to one Church, and that no one outside the Catholic Church and Faith can be saved or participate in Christ."
--St John Chrysostom

"All of the Teachers of the Church, all of the Synods, and all of the Divine Scriptures teach us to flee from heretics and to separate ourselves from communion with them."
--St Mark of Ephesus

A heretic is someone who has known and held a doctrine, then denied it.  Someone who has never known or held a doctrine and denies it , is not a heretic; he or she may be ignorant but that's not heresy.  Many of you are way too enamoured of  indiscriminantly throwing that term around.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2006, 09:05:25 PM »
A heretic is someone who has known and held a doctrine, then denied it.  Someone who has never known or held a doctrine and denies it , is not a heretic; he or she may be ignorant but that's not heresy.  Many of you are way too enamoured of  indiscriminantly throwing that term around.

Sorry Steve, that's not the commonly held definition of the word. In fact, to prove my assertion, look at the canons of the Orthodox Church on the reception of heretics--it's talking about people who were not Orthodox but were baptized in other heretical sects (by your definition, not "born heretics.") They are still called heretics by the Fathers of the Church. I agree that there are degrees of heresy (holding a wrong opinion ignorantly, holding a wrong opionion as a result of being born in a false Church, or holding a wrong opinion as a result of leaving the True Church) and that God can deal accordingly, but no Steve, people who hold the wrong ideas about God and the faith are heretics. We're not enamored with throwing the term around; we just follow our teachers in the faith, such as St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and many other Fathers. Are you holier than these God-bearing Fathers Steve? Do you have a more direct contact with the Lord, a more discerning mind that these Fathers? For every time you speak, you offer your opinion, even when confronted with the patristic evidence.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2006, 07:10:03 AM »
Steve, the Church is the Icon of the Holy Trinity. This is the meaning of Christ's prayer for the Church in John 17:20-21: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. " The Oneness of the Church, therefore, bears witness to the Oneness of the Holy Trinity. This is the meaning of the Church being "the Icon of the Holy Trinity". If we say that the Church is "divided into branches" along the schisms which do not Commune with one another, then the Church has ceased to be the Icon of the Holy Trinity, and is therefore no longer the Church. In other words, according to the "Branch Theory", the Church once existed, but currently does not exist until some future date when we will be One and the Church will exist again.

The boundary: Those who recieve Lord Jesus Christ as God, Lord and Saviour.
This can still include the unbaptised then?

Baptism  is required for those who come to know Him.
So infant Baptism is meaningless since infants have not "come to know Him"? Sounds a bit Anabaptist to me.

Yes the Church has always been divided into branches.  In 400 you had the  West Syrian, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, Assyrian (East Syrian), Spanish, Gaulish, Celtic, Indian , etc. branches.
How were they "divided into branches"? Are you saying that a different language or people or different geographical position makes a local Church a "branch" of the Church? Kind of like different suburban branches of KMart? If that is how you define the "Branches of the Church", how can you still say that Churches which have schismed are still "branches" of the same Church? The why do they refuse Communion to one another? If you can't use your KMart Card at a particular branch of KMart, how can it be a true branch of KMart?

No, being a nominal member, or an apostate member  or an unbelieving member of any Church does not make you a member of the Church.  Let's remember something --there have been Judas  Iscariots since the first one;  95% of heresies were started by bishops and priests.
You've misunderstood what I said. What I am saying is that according to yourself, no one can ever know who is or isn't a member of the Church.

The Church did act as a body at one time (pre-431)
So, the Oecumenical Councils after 431 were in fact not Oecumnenical Councils?

Yes there is One Lord Jesus Christ; there is One faith (the Nicene Creed--with or without the filioque) and one baptism (by water "In the Name of the Father and  of the Son and  of the Holy Spirit").
Well, we are in a pickle then, are we not? because so many of the "branches" of the Church are currently in schism and are not in Communion with one another. The "Branch Theory" unavoidably leads to the conclusion that there is not One Church, but many, and that Christ, therefore, has more than one Body. And what's more, no Church can possibly be "katholikos" (catholic) since no Church contains the fullness of Truth and the fullness of Grace in itself, but only the "branches" together do so.


Dear Mods. I think this thread now needs to be split since we are way off the topic of Theosis.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 07:20:48 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2006, 07:09:56 PM »
Sorry Steve, that's not the commonly held definition of the word. In fact, to prove my assertion, look at the canons of the Orthodox Church on the reception of heretics--it's talking about people who were not Orthodox but were baptized in other heretical sects (by your definition, not "born heretics.") They are still called heretics by the Fathers of the Church. I agree that there are degrees of heresy (holding a wrong opinion ignorantly, holding a wrong opionion as a result of being born in a false Church, or holding a wrong opinion as a result of leaving the True Church) and that God can deal accordingly, but no Steve, people who hold the wrong ideas about God and the faith are heretics. We're not enamored with throwing the term around; we just follow our teachers in the faith, such as St Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and many other Fathers. Are you holier than these God-bearing Fathers Steve? Do you have a more direct contact with the Lord, a more discerning mind that these Fathers? For every time you speak, you offer your opinion, even when confronted with the patristic evidence.

Anastasios

Anastasios,

Lord Jesus Christ is the Only authority.  You never quote Him; that frankly bothers me a lot.  Don't focus on anyone more than Him or you will go off.  You emphasize the Fathers more than Lord Jesus or the Apostolic Writers .You also keep referring to obscure people I've never heard of.
No Father is infallible; no one, no matter how saintly they may have been in life, is infallible.  It takes a broad reading of the Fathers--and I mean all the major ones, not just the Greek but also Syrian, Epyptian, Roman, Armenian, Ethiopian, etc.  Don't  limit yourself to the perpsective of one branch; that will distort your understanding.
You start with Lord Jesus, get to know Him; then and only then will the rest fall into place.
Steve

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,496
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Theosis
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2006, 07:30:47 PM »
Steve,

I am at peace buddy. My relationship with the Lord is going well--I'm surprised you think you can ascertain what it is based on internet postings. How can you be Orthodox and not know who these holy God bearing Fathers are that I mentioned? (And the Apostolic Writers are Fathers too!).  Steve, you place yourself higher than the Fathers by judging that you know the mind of Christ better than they. They proved their position. You haven't proven yours. The Lord Jesus is not the only authority--he is the source of authority but he gave authority to the Church, which is the body of Christ. Do you know what the Church is? I suggest you read the book "The Mind of the Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b12.en.the_mind_of_the_orthodox_church.00.htm

I went to an Orthodox seminary and I have read a broad spectrum of writers.  All of the Orthodox writers agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ can't be divided, and so heretics don't have grace--whether they be Latin (like St Cyprian) or Greek or whatever.  If you want me to quote the Lord, then let us quote where he says that not everyone who calls Lord, Lord will be saved, or in Revelation where he says that the lukewarm will be spit out? Or where St Paul says that in the end times many false teachers will arise?

Steve, the Church is a living organism passed down through the generations.  That you think you can decide what is Truth and what is not against the Fathers of the Church you claim to be a member of indicates you think you can skip a step in the chain of faith that brought this faith to you. This is Protestantism.

I can't believe you have never heard of the FAMOUS and VERY INFLUENTIAL Fathers I have mentioned, such as St Nikodemos and St Theodore the Studite.  Even St John Chrystostom whom I am sure you recognize had a quote above that I mentioned.  At any rate Steve, you don't use Orthodox sources or Orthodox arguments to back up your claims; instead you appeal to your own judgment, and you have frankly not given me any reason to trust it. I'll trust the holy monks, bishops, priests, and laymen that I know in this life now who teach the Orthodox faith fully without reservation.

Nothing needs to fall in place, Steve--you really should not make assumptions about others' spiritual lives.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2006, 01:44:01 AM »
Father Chris,

We recognize a distinction between sacramental grace and charismatic grace. We believe that God bestows his grace in a different (less full) way on non Orthodox in a charismatic way and gently tries to lead him where he wills (which is ultimately Orthodoxy).  Life is a journey and God knows that people are in different stations of life--follow the interior voice and call out to him for his guidance and if you do this with a true heart that will be taken into consideration.  But sacramentally we cannot state there is grace where it has not been revealed to us.

I reproduce Anastasio's assertions here for the sake of convenience when referring to them.

I read the article you suggested.  It proposes some interesting ideas.   

The article refers to charismatic grace and sacramental grace by placing them in quotation marks.  You have  done the same thing yourself when you refer to these concepts in previous posts.  Putting them in quotations lets the reader know that the author is fully aware that these are ideas or concepts and that they have only a relative value as an idea put forward, and acknowledges that they are but a proposed understanding of what might be happening with regard to how grace enters the lives of people.  It is quite another matter to emphatically state, as Anastasios does here, that "we recognize a distinction between sacramental grace and charismatic grace."    First of all, the concepts are not presented within quotations to show their relative value.  Secondly, they are presented by Anastasios as being doctrinal fact for the Orthodox: "we recognize a distinction", he says.  My point it that not all Orthodox subscribe to this distinction.   Apparently, even those who do subscribe to this idea recognize the dangers in labelling different types of grace and how they function, and they show their reluctance to do this by placing the words "charismatic" and "sacramental" into quotations. 

James
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #65 on: October 21, 2006, 06:43:03 AM »
Father Chris,

I reproduce Anastasio's assertions here for the sake of convenience when referring to them.

I read the article you suggested.  It proposes some interesting ideas.   

The article refers to charismatic grace and sacramental grace by placing them in quotation marks.  You have  done the same thing yourself when you refer to these concepts in previous posts.  Putting them in quotations lets the reader know that the author is fully aware that these are ideas or concepts and that they have only a relative value as an idea put forward, and acknowledges that they are but a proposed understanding of what might be happening with regard to how grace enters the lives of people.  It is quite another matter to emphatically state, as Anastasios does here, that "we recognize a distinction between sacramental grace and charismatic grace."    First of all, the concepts are not presented within quotations to show their relative value.  Secondly, they are presented by Anastasios as being doctrinal fact for the Orthodox: "we recognize a distinction", he says.  My point it that not all Orthodox subscribe to this distinction.   Apparently, even those who do subscribe to this idea recognize the dangers in labelling different types of grace and how they function, and they show their reluctance to do this by placing the words "charismatic" and "sacramental" into quotations. 

James
James,
Whatever you choose to call it, I would have to say that it is a matter of Orthodox doctrine that Grace is given by God outside of the Sacraments of the Church. And while the Sacraments (Mysteries) of the Church assure us that God's Grace has been given, we cannot (for the most part) be sure of where and whether God has given His Uncreated Energies outside of the Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, there is a difference between Grace administered through the Sacraments, and Grace given by God outside of the Sacraments- one has a visible sign, and the other has not (in most cases). There are, of course, cases where the Grace given outside of the Sacraments do, in fact, have visible signs, like the great noise, toungues of fire and glossolalia which accompanied the Pentecost event and the Uncreated Light eminating from holy people. But for the most part, Grace outside the Sacraments does not have accompanying, visible signs that it has been conveyed.

George
« Last Edit: October 21, 2006, 06:50:03 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2006, 09:31:10 PM »
Steve,

I am at peace buddy. My relationship with the Lord is going well--I'm surprised you think you can ascertain what it is based on internet postings. How can you be Orthodox and not know who these holy God bearing Fathers are that I mentioned? (And the Apostolic Writers are Fathers too!).  Steve, you place yourself higher than the Fathers by judging that you know the mind of Christ better than they. They proved their position. You haven't proven yours. The Lord Jesus is not the only authority--he is the source of authority but he gave authority to the Church, which is the body of Christ. Do you know what the Church is? I suggest you read the book "The Mind of the Orthodox Church" by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos:
http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b12.en.the_mind_of_the_orthodox_church.00.htm

I went to an Orthodox seminary and I have read a broad spectrum of writers.  All of the Orthodox writers agree that the Church is the Body of Christ, Christ can't be divided, and so heretics don't have grace--whether they be Latin (like St Cyprian) or Greek or whatever.  If you want me to quote the Lord, then let us quote where he says that not everyone who calls Lord, Lord will be saved, or in Revelation where he says that the lukewarm will be spit out? Or where St Paul says that in the end times many false teachers will arise?

Steve, the Church is a living organism passed down through the generations.  That you think you can decide what is Truth and what is not against the Fathers of the Church you claim to be a member of indicates you think you can skip a step in the chain of faith that brought this faith to you. This is Protestantism.

I can't believe you have never heard of the FAMOUS and VERY INFLUENTIAL Fathers I have mentioned, such as St Nikodemos and St Theodore the Studite.  Even St John Chrystostom whom I am sure you recognize had a quote above that I mentioned.  At any rate Steve, you don't use Orthodox sources or Orthodox arguments to back up your claims; instead you appeal to your own judgment, and you have frankly not given me any reason to trust it. I'll trust the holy monks, bishops, priests, and laymen that I know in this life now who teach the Orthodox faith fully without reservation.

Nothing needs to fall in place, Steve--you really should not make assumptions about others' spiritual lives.

Anastasios

Anastasios,

To come to know Lord Jesus is to understand that God's love is beyond anything we can understand.  He loves us enough to become one of us and let us reject, condemn, torture and murder Him to save us from our evil -- our hatred of Love Himself and of each other, to share His Divine Life, Love and Joy with us forever, if we choose.    He wants to save us.  It isn't faith that saves; it isn't any Church that saves us. It is Lord Jesus Who saves us. Since the Church we belong is usually an accident of ethnicity and birth, our Church is less important than our relationship with Him. 

I'm only going by what you are showing me.

 I've heard of St. Theodore the Studite butI'ver never heard of Nikodemas of the Holy Mountain.  Was he a monk on Mount Athos ?   Anyone who teaches that believing Christians in other Churches don't have Lord Jesus is teaching you a demonic teaching right out of the mouth of hell.  He is teaching you to worship your Church rather than Lord Jesus.  He is teaching you spiritual pride.

I didn't say the Body of believers has no authority but that authority is dependent on recieving Lord Jesus in heart as God, Lord and Saviour.  Being a bishop, priest , monk doesn't necessarily mean you are  a member of His Church.   Christ is not divided; anyone who recieves Him is a member of His Church.  They may be in ignorance or error (who isn't ?) because of what they were taught but it  is love, not knowledge that is the point.

You want to believe the Greek Church is Christ's Church which it is but it's not all of His Church.  That would lead to the bizarre conclusion that Lord Jesus prefers Eastern Europeans (90 % + of the Greek Church). That makes no sense.  This mentality feeds the nationalism that is the main and most destructive heresy among Greek Rite Orthodox.

You focus way too much on the Church rather than on Lord Jesus.  This is confusing the means witht the end.  The Church exists to bring us to Lord Jesus and to aid our growth in Him, "being conformed to His image by the Holy Spirit" as St. Paul said.

The Church isn't just about Lord Jesus , it's to Lord Jesus.  Anyone who is not focused on Lord Jesus Christ is not yet a Christian, though they may be seeking Him.

By being an Old Calendarist, does that mean that you don't regard Orthodox who follow the necessary Gregorian correction of the Julian Calendar as Orthodox ?  Am I right in assuming you first tried the main body of the Greek Orthodox, found it somewhat secularized and decided the Old Calendarists were purer ?  Which is fine if that's bringing you closer to Lord Jesus; not fine if it's turning you into a loveless Churcholater.

In all Churches the same phenomenon is happening: they are all splitting along 3 lines:
1) to the world (the left)
2) to Lord Jesus (the center)
3) to some aspect of the Church (the right)

I and 3 are apostacy; only 2 is acceptable.

This is because we are in the Great Apostacy; we've been in  it for some time.

No one is going to tell me Mother Theresa of Calcutta was not full of the grace of Lord Jesus.  No one on the world stage in recent history has so beautifluly conveyed the love and reality of Lord Jesus; she imaged Him to us to a greater degree than anyone else. If you can't see Lord Jesus in her, then you don't know Him and have missed the point.  That is a great tragedy.
Steve

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #67 on: October 22, 2006, 01:18:06 AM »
To come to know Lord Jesus is to understand that God's love is beyond anything we can understand.  He loves us enough to become one of us and let us reject, condemn, torture and murder Him to save us from our evil -- our hatred of Love Himself and of each other, to share His Divine Life, Love and Joy with us forever, if we choose.    He wants to save us.  It isn't faith that saves; it isn't any Church that saves us. It is Lord Jesus Who saves us. Since the Church we belong is usually an accident of ethnicity and birth, our Church is less important than our relationship with Him. 

I'm only going by what you are showing me.

 I've heard of St. Theodore the Studite butI'ver never heard of Nikodemas of the Holy Mountain.  Was he a monk on Mount Athos ?   Anyone who teaches that believing Christians in other Churches don't have Lord Jesus is teaching you a demonic teaching right out of the mouth of hell.  He is teaching you to worship your Church rather than Lord Jesus.  He is teaching you spiritual pride.

I didn't say the Body of believers has no authority but that authority is dependent on recieving Lord Jesus in heart as God, Lord and Saviour.  Being a bishop, priest , monk doesn't necessarily mean you are  a member of His Church.   Christ is not divided; anyone who recieves Him is a member of His Church.  They may be in ignorance or error (who isn't ?) because of what they were taught but it  is love, not knowledge that is the point.

You want to believe the Greek Church is Christ's Church which it is but it's not all of His Church.  That would lead to the bizarre conclusion that Lord Jesus prefers Eastern Europeans (90 % + of the Greek Church). That makes no sense.  This mentality feeds the nationalism that is the main and most destructive heresy among Greek Rite Orthodox.

You focus way too much on the Church rather than on Lord Jesus.  This is confusing the means witht the end.  The Church exists to bring us to Lord Jesus and to aid our growth in Him, "being conformed to His image by the Holy Spirit" as St. Paul said.

The Church isn't just about Lord Jesus , it's to Lord Jesus.  Anyone who is not focused on Lord Jesus Christ is not yet a Christian, though they may be seeking Him.

By being an Old Calendarist, does that mean that you don't regard Orthodox who follow the necessary Gregorian correction of the Julian Calendar as Orthodox ?  Am I right in assuming you first tried the main body of the Greek Orthodox, found it somewhat secularized and decided the Old Calendarists were purer ?  Which is fine if that's bringing you closer to Lord Jesus; not fine if it's turning you into a loveless Churcholater.

In all Churches the same phenomenon is happening: they are all splitting along 3 lines:
1) to the world (the left)
2) to Lord Jesus (the center)
3) to some aspect of the Church (the right)

I and 3 are apostacy; only 2 is acceptable.

This is because we are in the Great Apostacy; we've been in  it for some time.

No one is going to tell me Mother Theresa of Calcutta was not full of the grace of Lord Jesus.  No one on the world stage in recent history has so beautifluly conveyed the love and reality of Lord Jesus; she imaged Him to us to a greater degree than anyone else. If you can't see Lord Jesus in her, then you don't know Him and have missed the point.  That is a great tragedy.
Steve

You're definitely either an evangelical troll or someone who was not catechized responsibly.   Did you even consider one smidgen of what Anastasios wrote in his post before coming out with this ill-conceived reply? Since you have absolutely no knowledge or apprectiation of Orthodox ecclesiology, please be good enough to leave Holy Mother Church alone, and don't write about Her anymore.   I can't speak for everyone, but I for one don't appreciate you dragging Her through the mud. 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2006, 01:21:09 AM by Pravoslavbob »
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,204
  • Distressed about my country
Re: Theosis
« Reply #68 on: October 22, 2006, 01:32:15 AM »
James,
Whatever you choose to call it, I would have to say that it is a matter of Orthodox doctrine that Grace is given by God outside of the Sacraments of the Church. And while the Sacraments (Mysteries) of the Church assure us that God's Grace has been given, we cannot (for the most part) be sure of where and whether God has given His Uncreated Energies outside of the Sacraments of the Church. Therefore, there is a difference between Grace administered through the Sacraments, and Grace given by God outside of the Sacraments- one has a visible sign, and the other has not (in most cases). There are, of course, cases where the Grace given outside of the Sacraments do, in fact, have visible signs, like the great noise, toungues of fire and glossolalia which accompanied the Pentecost event and the Uncreated Light eminating from holy people. But for the most part, Grace outside the Sacraments does not have accompanying, visible signs that it has been conveyed.

George

George,

  It's Orthodox doctrine that God asts outside the sacraments?  Really?  I guess that depends on what you mean by sacraments.  Personally, I don't subscribe to the rather Latin "seven sacraments" thing, and I see lots of ways that God acts in little sacramental ways, ie through what some call "sacramentals"....indeed, the whole way in which God interacts with us might be termed "sacramental".....and I'd rather not get into the whole "visible signs" business.....But I guess your argument does have merit, and it adds another way of thinking about this issue.  On the other hand, I don't think it's right of you to dismiss what I say out of hand.  I think clarity when discussing these issues is important.       
  By my way of thinking, It's not alright to just say "whatever, you know what he means" when things like this come up.    Slight differences in how things are worded can lead to vastly different perceptions. 

JB
« Last Edit: October 22, 2006, 01:44:51 AM by Pravoslavbob »
Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Theosis
« Reply #69 on: October 23, 2006, 04:11:07 AM »
THEOSIS* - DEIFICATION AS THE PURPOSE OF MAN'S LIFE
By Archimandrite George
Abbott of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios on Mount Athos

http://www.greekorthodoxchurch.org/theosis_purpose.html

Inside the Church in which we unite with God, we live this new reality which Christ brought to the world: the new creation. This is the life of the Church, of Christ, which becomes ours as a gift from the Holy Spirit.

Everything in the Church leads to deification (gr. theosis). The Holy Liturgy, the Mysteries, divine Worship, the Gospel sermon, the fasting; they all lead to this one thing. The Church is the sole place of deification.

The Church is not a social, cultural, or historical institution, and it does not resemble any other institution in the world. It is not like the different establishments of the world. Perhaps the world has fine establishments, fine organisations, fine institutions and other fine things. But our Orthodox Church is the inimitable, the sole place for the communication of God with man; of man's deification. Only within the Church can man become a god, and nowhere else. Neither in universities, nor in social service foundations, nor in any of the fine and good things that the world has. All these, however good they may be, they are not able to offer what the Church offers.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,428
Re: Theosis
« Reply #70 on: October 23, 2006, 01:06:58 PM »
Bless you Theognosis. What a wonderful website.
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2006, 07:29:51 PM »
You're definitely either an evangelical troll or someone who was not catechized responsibly.   Did you even consider one smidgen of what Anastasios wrote in his post before coming out with this ill-conceived reply? Since you have absolutely no knowledge or apprectiation of Orthodox ecclesiology, please be good enough to leave Holy Mother Church alone, and don't write about Her anymore.   I can't speak for everyone, but I for one don't appreciate you dragging Her through the mud. 

You are a perfect example of the psuedo-Orthodox  I'm talking about.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 07:47:48 PM by Steve Dennehy »

Offline IamSaved

  • Chicago Center for Spiritual Living
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Theosis
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2006, 08:00:11 PM »
You cannot achieve Theosis by drinking chemicals that are not manufactured for human consumption. When I was little... I drank poison and had to go to the hospital and have my stomach pumped. Theosis is like a flower... the poison must not be applied too harshly. Amen, Amen.
http://www.chicagocsl.org/index.html

Prayer, Meditation, Study, Seva, Law of Circulation, Visioning

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Theosis
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2006, 08:21:29 PM »
You cannot achieve Theosis by drinking chemicals that are not manufactured for human consumption. When I was little... I drank poison and had to go to the hospital and have my stomach pumped. Theosis is like a flower... the poison must not be applied too harshly. Amen, Amen.

Um, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? ???
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2006, 08:53:06 PM »
You cannot achieve Theosis by drinking chemicals that are not manufactured for human consumption. When I was little... I drank poison and had to go to the hospital and have my stomach pumped. Theosis is like a flower... the poison must not be applied too harshly. Amen, Amen.

Um, what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 08:53:35 PM by dantxny »
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline IamSaved

  • Chicago Center for Spiritual Living
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Theosis
« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2006, 09:08:07 PM »
Just as drinking too much water can kill you; too close and focused contact with God can also be fatal to the human body. That is why we must physically die before true theosis can be achieved. Like too much pesticide on a plant, too close and focused contact with God can kill our human cells.

It is as the saying goes, my friend: sometimes a cat is better boiled than fried.
http://www.chicagocsl.org/index.html

Prayer, Meditation, Study, Seva, Law of Circulation, Visioning

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Theosis
« Reply #76 on: October 24, 2006, 09:16:58 PM »
Well . . . .
first of all, I'd stay off the analogies, they're not helping
Second, I would disagree as I'd argue at least the Theotokos if not St. John the Forerunner among other saints had achieved Theosis during this life.
Besides, very disturbing analogies what Crhstian Tradition are you backing your claims with.
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
    • Iglesia Ortodoxa de los Santos Apóstoles
Re: Theosis
« Reply #77 on: October 25, 2006, 01:42:56 AM »
You are a perfect example of the psuedo-Orthodox  I'm talking about.

I know this is blunt, brother, but we'd say the same of you...
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #78 on: October 25, 2006, 06:53:13 AM »
Just as drinking too much water can kill you; too close and focused contact with God can also be fatal to the human body. That is why we must physically die before true theosis can be achieved. Like too much pesticide on a plant, too close and focused contact with God can kill our human cells.
You're talking to the wrong folk. We eat God's Flesh and Drink His Blood.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,746
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Theosis
« Reply #79 on: October 25, 2006, 01:05:44 PM »
Isn't Deification/Theosis an Eternal Process? A Russian Orthodox Priest told me that because God's life and nature are eternal, it takes all eternity to participate in that Divine nature.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2006, 01:06:01 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #80 on: October 28, 2006, 09:07:21 PM »
I know this is blunt, brother, but we'd say the same of you...

I'll let Lord Jesus make that call.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #81 on: October 28, 2006, 09:11:24 PM »
I'll let Lord Jesus make that call.
Ummm...not a good answer, because that means that you place yourself on the same level as Lord Jesus, since you "made that call" first.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Steve Dennehy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Theosis
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2006, 08:50:47 PM »
Ummm...not a good answer, because that means that you place yourself on the same level as Lord Jesus, since you "made that call" first.

Kind of easy to do with someone who refers to his neighbors as "Evangelical trolls".  That's not love of neighbor.  Does he regard all Evangelicals as "trolls" ?
That's  my impression.  There wasn't a spark of love in his post.  It's possible to express disagreement withour being insulting.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2006, 08:54:06 PM by Steve Dennehy »

Offline Veniamin

  • Fire for Effect!
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,372
  • St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery
Re: Theosis
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2006, 09:31:59 PM »
Kind of easy to do with someone who refers to his neighbors as "Evangelical trolls".  That's not love of neighbor.  Does he regard all Evangelicals as "trolls" ?
That's  my impression.  There wasn't a spark of love in his post.  It's possible to express disagreement withour being insulting.

Similarly, there's not a spark of love in yours, or at least, that's my impression.  Post after post from you consist of nothing but you sitting in judgment of everyone else here.  Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, not everyone else's.
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Theosis
« Reply #84 on: October 30, 2006, 12:07:04 AM »
Isn't Deification/Theosis an Eternal Process? A Russian Orthodox Priest told me that because God's life and nature are eternal, it takes all eternity to participate in that Divine nature.

If by "Divine nature" you are referring to the ESSENCE of God, I don’t think that's correct.  Union with the ESSENCE of God is impossible for any creature; Theosis only relates to the ENERGIES of God.

http://theosis.riewe.com/theosis_what_theosis_is_not.htm

St. Basil has written, "We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence, for His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable."

Man's knowledge of God can be only of His energies, not of His essence. All of us participate in God's energies, but each one of us differently. Deified humanity is united to God only in grace and energy. George Mantzaridis writes, "Man's deification is not realized through participation in God's essence, but through communion in His divine energy. Man may share in God's glory and brightness, but the divine essence remains inaccessible and nonparticipable. Thus, the deified man is made god in all things, but he neither is identified with the divine essence nor shares it."


As to whether the process of theosis is eternal or not, I believe that it is not.  There's a certain point or criterion by which one can say that he/she has achieved union with the energies of God.  Vladimir Lossky writes:

http://theosis.riewe.com/index.htm

The deification or theosis of the creation will be realized in its fullness only in the age to come, after the resurrection of the dead. This deifying union has, nevertheless, to be fulfilled ever more and more even in this present life, through the transformation of our corruptible and depraved nature and by its adaptation to eternal life.

Also, Theosis is perfection in certain aspects only, i.e. physical, moral, etc.  It's not absolute and encompassing in the sense that we will have perfect knowledge of everything. Hence, even after one is deified, he/she continues to receive the Grace of God which goes on for all eternity.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2006, 03:26:54 AM by Theognosis »

Offline Brian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Theosis
« Reply #85 on: November 05, 2006, 08:00:22 AM »
Ten steps of Theophanis the Monk on "The Ladder of Divine Graces"

The first step is that of purest prayer.
From this there comes a warmth of heart.
And then a strange, holy energy.
Then tears wrung from the heart, God-given.
Then peace from thought of every kind.
From this arises purging of the intellect,
And next the vision of heavenly mysteries.
Unheard-of light is born from this ineffably,
And thence, beyond all telling, the heart's illumination.
Last comes - a step that has no limit though compassed in a single line -
Perfection that is endless.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 08:02:13 AM by Brian »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2006, 08:39:39 AM »
Ten steps of Theophanis the Monk on "The Ladder of Divine Graces"

The first step is that of purest prayer.
From this there comes a warmth of heart.
And then a strange, holy energy.
Then tears wrung from the heart, God-given.
Then peace from thought of every kind.
From this arises purging of the intellect,
And next the vision of heavenly mysteries.
Unheard-of light is born from this ineffably,
And thence, beyond all telling, the heart's illumination.
Last comes - a step that has no limit though compassed in a single line -
Perfection that is endless.


You even read the Philokalia Brian? :o
Here's the rest of it:

The ladder's lowest step prescribes pure prayer alone.
But prayer has many forms: My discourse would be long
Were I now to speak of them:
And, friend, know that always
Experience teaches one, not words.
A ladder rising wondrously to heaven's vault:
Ten steps that strangely vivify the soul.
Ten steps that herald the soul's life.
A saint inspired by God has said:
Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes
That in the world to come you will find life
If you have not tried to find it in this present world.
Ten steps: a wisdom born of God.
Ten steps: fruit of all the books.
Ten steps that point towards perfection.
Ten steps that lead one up to heaven.
Ten steps through which a man knows God.
The ladder may seem short indeed,
But if your heart can inwardly experience it
You will find a wealth the world cannot contain,
A god-like fountain flowing with unheard-of life.
This ten-graced ladder is the best of masters,
Clearly teaching each to know its stages.
If when you behold it You think you stand securely on it,
Ask yourself on which step you stand,
So that we, the indolent, may also profit.
My friend, if you want to learn about all this,
Detach yourself from everything,
From what is senseless, from what seems intelligent.
Without detachment nothing can be learnt.
Experience alone can teach these things, not talk.
Even if these words once said By one of God's elect strike harshly,
I repeat them to remind you:
He who has no foothold on this ladder,
Who does not ponder always on these things,
When he comes to die will know
Terrible fear, terrible dread,
Will be full of boundless panic.
My lines end on a note of terror.
Yet it is good that this is so:
Those who are hard of heart – myself the first –
Are led to repentance, led to a holy life,
Less by the lure of blessings promised
Than by fearful warnings that inspire dread.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
You who have written this, hear, then, and take note:
Void of all these graces,
How have you dared to write such things?
How do you not shudder to expound them?
Have you not heard what Uzzah suffered
When he tried to stop God's ark from falling? 
Do not think that I speak as one who teaches:
I speak as one whose words condemn himself,
Knowing the rewards awaiting those who strive,
Knowing my utter fruitlessness.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 09:13:30 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Brian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Theosis
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2006, 10:27:16 AM »
You even read the Philokalia Brian? :o
Here's the rest of it:

LOL.  Not exactly George, at least not in depth.  Though I have investigated the basics of theosis since it is so central to the whole Orthodox approach.  That includes getting a deeper understanding of the steps and stages of the grace-filled life.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #88 on: November 06, 2006, 08:24:11 AM »
the steps and stages of the grace-filled life.
Do you mean like Jim Fowler's "Life Maps"?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Brian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: Theosis
« Reply #89 on: November 06, 2006, 10:31:12 PM »
Do you mean like Jim Fowler's "Life Maps"?

George,

Can't say I'd ever heard of Jim Fowler until you mentioned him - not really sure what he's about.  By "steps and stages" I meant the usual stages of the Orthodox therapeutic method, you know - purification, illumination, divinization - that sort of stuff.  I've read a bit from the monastic world as you noted, but not in significant depth or anything, not enough that you should be surprised I think.  Just enough to understand the basic outline of Orthodox teachings about the human person, the incarnation, and the path of Christ.

SO I guess I should ask, what is Jim Fowler's work about, and is it worth reading?

Sincerely in Christ,
Brian

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Theosis
« Reply #90 on: November 10, 2006, 06:24:44 AM »
SO I guess I should ask, what is Jim Fowler's work about, and is it worth reading?
Sorry I took so long to get back, but threads tend to get buried very quickly here!

I guess whether it is "worth reading" is relative. I found it worth reading when I worked in Mental Health, because it resonated with the Developmental Psychology which I utilized, and because it helped me understand how patients were cognizing who often turned to religious faith to either deal with their mental illness or as part of it's pathology (eg re-inforcing delusional beliefs).

Fowler describes six stages in the development of Faith:

Stage One: Intuitive/Projective Faith
Statge Two: Mythic/Literal Faith
StageThree: Synthetic/Conventional Faith
Stage Four: Individuative/Projective Faith
Stage Five: Conjunctive Faith
Stage Six: Universalizing Faith

The stages, he says, are the same no matter what religion or creed the person follows. In this sense, I cannot see it as parralleling Theosis which requires Faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, but it was certainly interesting to see some of the examples of actual interviews with persons at the different stages, and I certainly felt he was describing something real in the realm of development of Faith, but it's not theosis IMHO.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2006, 06:25:52 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.