Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

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

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. 
What I project here can readily be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of saints and doctors of the Church and in the Holy Fathers of the Church, east and west.  

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

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Absolutely false witness to Catholic teaching concerning divinization.
What's your attitude to divine filiation?  Magisterial teaching?  Junk?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Absolutely false witness to Catholic teaching concerning divinization.
Catholic dogma is that in heaven you will enjoy the Beatific Vision and gaze unhindered upon the Divine Essence.

Not even theosis can offer that .... so maybe Catholics should hold to their own teaching which appears to be the better option.
 

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.
???  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.
???  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 
I was agreeing with you. :laugh:
 

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis? 

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.
You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.
 

J Michael

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Marylan
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.

Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Btw, I see you use "Deacon Lance."  A few days ago I was taken to task for using "Priest Cleenewerck."  It is correct terminology.
???  Of course I use "Deacon Lance"--that's his moniker here, and I know of no other way to address him. 
I was agreeing with you. :laugh:
Break open the champagne!!! ;D ;D :laugh: :laugh:
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".
Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.
Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.
Nonsense.  Please as an example see the teachings of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross...and all subsequent teachings of the reformed Carmels...which is also the teachings of the Dominicans and Franciscans, uninterrupted to the present day, as well as the Benedictines who had some interruption from about the 1760's to the beginning of the 20th century.  Any good Catholic history of spirituality will give you that history...

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

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Peter J said:
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".
Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.
Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?
There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
J Michael said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
Peter J said:

Fr. Ambrose, RCs aren't as united as you seem to believe we are. The fact that Fortescue wrote of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration -- even with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York -- doesn't mean that the Catholic Church officially sees it that way.
Then please give us the official magisterial teaching.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't know if I can.

Irish Hermit said:
As I have mentioned the Orthodox have been rebuked here repeatedly for assuming things are Catholic teaching when in fact there is no basis in magisterial teaching.  
If it makes you feel any better, I have many times witness Catholics making that same assumption.
Exactly.  And that is why we cannot claim that theosis is part of Catholicism's magisterial teaching.
Was Deacon Lance's reply in #188 above from yesterday not sufficient?  If not, how was it deficient?
Insufficient.  How many Catholics understand that as an exposition of the Eastern teaching of theosis?  

But it is a very positive thing, imho, because it is one of the examples of the Vatican slowly and quietly shifting its faithful eastwards in theology.
You asked for magisterial teaching about theosis.  He provided it.  How is it insufficient?  Most Catholics I know, especially Western ones, are not even familiar with the term "theosis".  Many are, however, familiar with what is written in the CCC, which Deacon Lance has quoted.  But you say that is insufficient.  Confusing, really.
I concede....

Catholics teach theosis as the goal for man.

Catholics teach that the Final Theosis takes place in purgatory.

Catholics teach that God is Essence and Energies.

Catholics no longer teach the Divine Simplicity.

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

Catholics teach there is no created grace.

Catholics teach that all grace is God.

All the above is magisterial teaching.


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

James2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 9, 2003
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Points
16
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. 
What I project here can readily be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of saints and doctors of the Church and in the Holy Fathers of the Church, east and west.  

You seem to deny that the Holy Fathers of the east are also the patrimony of the Catholic Church.  They are not the sole property of Orthodoxy.
I think you've hit on something here.  Some Orthodox tend to restrict theology to the eastern tradition, whereas Catholic theology tends to encompass east as well as west, i.e., it's more catholic in the "universal" sense.

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

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
James2 said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology. 
What I project here can readily be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of saints and doctors of the Church and in the Holy Fathers of the Church, east and west.  

You seem to deny that the Holy Fathers of the east are also the patrimony of the Catholic Church.  They are not the sole property of Orthodoxy.
I think you've hit on something here.  Some Orthodox tend to restrict theology to the eastern tradition, whereas Catholic theology tends to encompass east as well as west, i.e., it's more catholic in the "universal" sense.

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

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

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

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

M.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
James2 said:
....I have a hard time grasping how eastern theosis and western beatific vision are so radically different. 
Orthodox Theosis..... an ever increasing participation in the divine energies.

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

These seem two different concepts of the afterlife.

Orthodox theosis is a train journey.

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

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
elijahmaria said:
Peter J said:
Peter J said:
elijahmaria said:
Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".
Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.
Seriously, though, I'm hoping either you are Fr. Ambrose (or both) could clarify this: what was the exact term that Aquinas used? Is "created grace" just a poor translation (wouldn't be the first time), or what?
There is no particular phrase to be translated.  He speaks of grace that comes to us in a manner that we, as God's human creatures, are capable of receiving it.  The phrase "created grace" comes later.
I was under the impression that he did talk about "created grace", so I took a look (not a very thorough look tbh). I managed to find "Is there created grace in Christ?" Now I haven't analysed this very thoroughly, and I can think of a number of possible alternatives (I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that "created grace" is actually a bad translation of something Aquinas said -- just consider situation with the phrase "praying to the saints"). But it appears to go against the idea that 'The phrase "created grace" comes later' than Aquinas.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,177
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
II. Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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





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


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


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


599 Cf. ⇒ Rev 2:17.


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


601 ⇒ 1 Cor 2:9.


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


603 ⇒ Rev 22:5; cf. ⇒ Mt 25:21, ⇒ 23.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2M.HTM#$1BU
 
Top