Is theosis possible for those in communion with Rome?

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. 
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God.  It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time.  It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.
This too is nonsense.  Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. 
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
Nonsense.  The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it.  Are they scripturally challenged?  It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration.  That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God.  It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time.  It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.
This too is nonsense.  Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.
I invite you to read the work of the great theologian of last century Karl Rahner, a Jesuit theologian who died about 20 years ago. You will discover that he brought back into the Catholic Church the patristic understanding of grace as God.  But you will also discover that this was not a welcome teaching in much of the Catholic Church.  In part the Catholic Church is hampered by a lack of developed knowledge of created and uncreated and it works within the categories of natural, praeternatural, supernatural, God (categories not known in the East.)

As far as I am aware ideas on uncreated grace remain a matter of opinion within RC theological circles and have not been proclaimed as official Catholic doctrine.

For more details please see message 916 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg436474.html#msg436474

It speaks of the "rediscovery" of uncreated grace in the West commencing in the late 1930s and the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
Ortho_cat said:
460  The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis :)
Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful.   Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"   :laugh:
More nonsense.  I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing.  I pray you outgrow the need.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. 
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
Nonsense.  The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it.  Are they scripturally challenged?   It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration.  That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
You elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Father Adrian did not understand that the breathing exercise of hesychasm was not the same thing as the breathing exercise of the oriental monks of Tibet.  His response was culture-bound.

And yes...Your assertion that Catholics do not know that divinization/theosis is our participation in the divine life is indeed nonsense. 

PS: I know a few ignorant priests myself.  I don't evaluate Catholic teaching because of their idiocies.  I remember being told by one that the Church no longer teaches anything about grace because it is too confusing.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. 
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
Nonsense.  The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it.  Are they scripturally challenged?   It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration.  That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
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.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon. 
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
Nonsense.  The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it.  Are they scripturally challenged?   It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration.  That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
You elide hesychasm with theosis as though they are the same thing.  They are not equivalent.

Father Adrian did not understand that the breathing exercise of hesychasm was not the same thing as the breathing exercise of the oriental monks of Tibet.  His response was culture-bound.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07301a.htm

Fortescue:  There was a very faint echo of Hesychasm in the West. Latin theology on the whole was too deeply impregnated with the Aristotelean Scholastic system to tolerate a theory that opposed its very foundation. That all created beings are composed of actus and potentia, that God alone is actus purus, simple as He is infinite — this is the root of all Scholastic natural theology. Nevertheless one or two Latins seem to have had ideas similar to Hesychasm. Gilbertus Porretanus (de la Porrée, d. 1154) is quoted as having said that the Divine essence is not God — implying some kind of real distinction; John of Varennes, a hermit in the Diocese of Reims (c. 1396), said that the Apostles at the Transfiguration had seen the Divine essence as clearly as it is seen in heaven. About the same time John of Brescain made a proposition: Creatam lucem infinitam et immensam esse. But these isolated opinions formed no school. We know of them chiefly through the indignant condemnations they at once provoked. St. Bernard wrote to refute Gilbert de la Porrée; the University of Paris and the legate Odo condemned John of Brescain's proposition. Hesychasm has never had a party among Catholics. In the Orthodox Church the controversy, waged furiously just at the time when the enemies of the empire were finally overturning it and unity among its last defenders was the most crying need, is a significant witness of the decay of a lost cause.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God.  It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time.  It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.
This too is nonsense.  Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.
I thought grace was created according to Catholics?
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Peter J said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
Do Catholics understand theosis in the same way that we do?
If you understand it as a creature's share in the divine life?...yes.
I've never seen any magisterial proclamation on theosis from the Catholic Church.  I suspect that it is not Catholic teaching but something borrowed from the Orthodox by Catholics of the Eastern Rites as a kind of personal theologoumenon.  
Nonsense.  It is Scriptural.
Nonsense.  The ordinary Catholic priest has never heard of it.  Are they scripturally challenged?   It was completely unknown when I went through the Catholic educational system, primary to tertiary.

Father Adrian Fortescue writes (in the Encyclopedia article) of hesychasm/theosis theology as a weird aberration.  That comes with the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

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.

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.    Absent something from the Magisterium it is pie in the sky - and this is what we see here.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
Ortho_cat said:
460  The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis :)
Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful.   Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"   :laugh:
More nonsense.  I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing.  I pray you outgrow the need.
Please be mindful that you are talking to a member of our clergy... :(
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Irish Hermit said:
They will then try to explain to you that eternal life is NOT about participation in Divinity but about the Beatific Vision of God.  And that is indeed the authentic Catholic teaching.

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

"Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

There is no need to point out how entirely antithetical the papal teaching is for the Orthodox.
Wow that is completely opposed to EO thought...so if Catholics believe in theosis, would they believe that they participate in the essence of God (i.e. become God by nature)?  :eek: Sounds like a slippery slope for me...if they can clearly see and "enjoy" the Divine Essence, then what stops them from participating in it?
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Ortho_cat said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
The citations from the Catechism are not entirely apropos since they do not address the Essence-Energy distinction, nor do they explicilty state that grace is God.  It coyly avoids that since this idea only began to be acceptable in the 1940s with the writings of Karl Rahner and was seen as a revolutionary approach at the time.  It is still not welcomed in much of Catholicism.
This too is nonsense.  Grace is God...Grace is the Indwelling in communication with each person individually.

Ask St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross...

Your Catholic formation leaves a great deal to be desired.
I thought grace was created according to Catholics?
"Created grace" is a manner of speaking.  It does not mean that grace is something that is created by God, that is aside from God.  It means that God imparts himself to us in such a way so as we are not burned to a crisp by His gift of grace...so to speak.  Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".  The west does not use the language of essence and energies but he speaks in terms the sun and the sun's rays by analogy.  It became common in the more recent centuries to refer to "created grace"...but the meaning is as I have described it here.

M.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
Ortho_cat said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
Ortho_cat said:
460  The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis :)
Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful.   Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"   :laugh:
More nonsense.  I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing.  I pray you outgrow the need.
Please be mindful that you are talking to a member of our clergy... :(
I am mindful.  That is precisely what upsets me. 
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Ortho_cat said:
Irish Hermit said:
They will then try to explain to you that eternal life is NOT about participation in Divinity but about the Beatific Vision of God.  And that is indeed the authentic Catholic teaching.

"That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expressly defined by Benedict XII (1336):

"We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868)."

"Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

There is no need to point out how entirely antithetical the papal teaching is for the Orthodox.

Wow that is completely opposed to EO thought...so if Catholics believe in theosis, would they believe that they participate in the essence of God (i.e. become God by nature)?  :eek: Sounds like a slippery slope for me...if they can clearly see and "enjoy" the Divine Essence, then what stops them from participating in it?
There we see something clearly defined by the Pope as dogma - the blessed in heaven see and enjoy the Divine Essence.

If theosis is also a dogma we would expect a similar dogmatic statement.  Theosis is, after all. a major truth. As far as I am aware there is no papal or magisterial statement and those promoting it are really flying by the seat of their pants.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
elijahmaria said:
 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".
Heck, I don't think he even spoke English.
 

PJ

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
6,494
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New England
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.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
Ortho_cat said:
elijahmaria said:
Irish Hermit said:
Ortho_cat said:
460  The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

yep, that's theosis :)
Then somebody should announce the glad tidings to the Catholic faithful.  Talk of theosis and becoming "partakers of the divine nature" generally astounds them and they ask, with a glazed look in their eyes "Father, have you become a Buddhist?"  :laugh:
More nonsense.  I am surrounded by tens of thousands of Roman rite Catholics who read Scripture and know that divinization is participation in the divine life...as it is told them in Scripture.

You make yourself look silly when you do this kind of thing.  I pray you outgrow the need.
Please be mindful that you are talking to a member of our clergy... :(
I am mindful.  That is precisely what upsets me. 
What upsets me is that you project, at least on this forum, a piecemeal view of Catholic theology.  Play up theosis as a personal predilicton.  Never mention that the Beatific Vision of the Divine Essence is the authentic Catholic teaching on life after death.  When we were kids the Beatific Vision was a frequent topic in catechism classes. 

The Baltimore Catechism....

420. Q. What is Heaven?

A. Heaven is the state of everlasting life in which we see God face to face, are made like unto Him in glory, and enjoy eternal happiness.


"God face to face,"--that is, as He is. We shall not see Him with the eyes of the body, but of the soul. That we may see with our natural eyes, two things are necessary: first, an object to look at, and secondly, light to see it. Now, to see God in Heaven we need a special light, which is called the "light of glory." God Himself gives us this light and thus enables us to see Him as He is. This beautiful vision of God in Heaven is called the "beatific vision," and thus our whole life in Heaven--our joy and happiness--consists in the enjoyment of the beatific vision.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
elijahmaria said:
 Aquinas, who offers the teaching, never uses the phrase "created grace".
Who would expect him to?

Catholic understanding is...

Natural
Praeternatural
Supernatural
God

There has been no comprehension of the very important orthodox distinction of

Created
Uncreated.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
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.

If you or Mary could claim it, you would have the statement on the table in two seconds flat.
 

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
2
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