www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Reclaiming Deification in the Latin West

Reclaiming Deification in the Latin West
by Matthew Tsakanikas

An interesting paper, posted by Mary on the Byzantine Catholics Speak list...

http://tcrnews2.com/deification.html

Pani,

This is a superb article. I think that this is the central question facing the Church today. Until we get what salvaton is all about it's pretty difficult to understand much of anything else in the Christian faith. I will be using this article in my theology classes beginning Monday. More later.

CDL

I concur, this is a superb article. We as Catholics, especially Latin Catholics, must reclaim our very rich tradition of deification that was buried in the aftermath of the Reformation. It may cost us close relations with certain Protestant groups, but I think in the long run it will serve to bring them back the Church in greater numbers as the full splendor of the Mystery is presented again.

As a Latin, I particularily appreciate the attention given to the subject of deification as it's present in St. Thomas' writings, and the writings of those who were his spiritual pupils such as St. John of the Cross (and I would add St. Theresa of Avila). It seems that in an attempt to dialogue with Protestantism, even if in total opposition, there developed a tendency to downplay what had traditionally been extremely important in the West. I don't think it was a concious effort to distort the traditional Latin teaching and understanding, but I think it resulted in just that. This is understandable to a certain extent, because there was a very real spiritual war going on, and the goal of making people follow the rules is easier to accomplish than the goal of making everyone a mini-theologian.

In this development, though, much was lost. We ended up with a "Thomism" that had almost no similarity to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, who was a mystic (as the article rightly points out) and not a legalist. We ended up with a spirituality that was centered more on what not to do rather than what to do in order to become something more. It was a sacrifice that in hindsight was perhaps more damaging than good.

I do see a turn-around though, and it's happening both because people are looking to the East, and also because Westerners are rediscovering their own roots. You can see it in the rebirth of Western Patristics, and in the greater appreciation of Apostolic Sacramental theology (something that in many ways has ironically been revived by Protestant converts to the Faith). I think that rather than discussing how people are "saved", we must begin by addressing what being "saved" really means, a subject that the traditional (pre-Reformation) West, and the current Eastern and Oriental traditions dealt with exhaustively. Without this fundamental shift in perspective and approach, all bridges that are built with the "Reformed West" are going to be ultimately fruitless, either leading us Catholics more in the direction of their errors at worst, or at best creating a seeming of unity that doesn't exist in any reality at all.

Definately a strong article, and one that reminds the more thoughtful Latins of a traditional bent that looking to the East for spiritual help and guidance does not mean forsaking Western tradition, but restoring it to the life it had for most of history. It helps us to remember what is truly Catholic in our Faith.

Peace and God bless!

Dear Friends,

Up here, Latin Catholics in general seem to be more into "horizontal" rather than "vertical" theology.

This article presupposes that one is into "vertical" theology . . .

In my Latin Catholic college, priests and lay teachers who taught us religion and related subjects would often deride the Eastern Churches for being "ossified" since they saw Christ as "God only" (monophysism) and tended to overlook His Humanity!

Somehow, the notion is around that to truly experience "Jesus Human" implies that one see Him as being somehow divested of His Divinity (Nestorianism by another name).

Alex

I am in a rather truculent mood today, as well as recently

Timbot2000,

Your post violates the rules of this board and I have, therefore, deleted it. Please abide by the rules as they pertain to referring to other Churches.

Fr. Deacon Edward, Moderator

Yes, there has been a heresy that has sprung up expressing exactly the thought you're suggesting, but it is completely foreign to pre-Reformation Latin theology and expression. It is along the same grounds as those who want us to understand Jesus as a human teacher rather than as the Son of the Father revealed to us. John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI have devoted a lot of paper and ink to attacking such heretical views, but they are deeply rooted in certain corners of the Latin Church, especially academia.

Thankfully there has been a resurgence of returning to the true Latin theological roots, which includes a profound sense of Deification. Ironically, I think it is converts like myself and many Protestants who are bringing this stuff up, because we are the ones who came to the Church precisely for these teachings that we hunger for. It is converts who are dusting of St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila, as well as the Summa Theologica (as opposed to Thomism).

Peace and God bless!

Dear brother Ghosty,

How long do you think this rediscovery has been going on? I mean, Trent was adamant against the Protestant idea of mere imputation as distinct from infusion and actual ontological regeneration. That seems like deification to me. Are we talking about mere language here?

Blessings,
Marduk

M,

That's correct but in popular parlance many Latins seem to have difficulty separating our views from those of Protestants. Moreover, while the doctrine of "infusion" ought to be enough to correct the Calvinistic "Imputation" notions it doesn't seem to be enough. We are either changed and are being changed into the Divine nature, as Catholics and Orthodox teach or it is a ruse as Calvinists seem to teach.

It may be a matter of emphasis, but I suspect the difficult is more real than imagined.

CDL

I'd be careful about the proper description of deification. We are not being "changed into" the Divine Nature. That would imply pantheism. We become "partakers of the Divine Nature", to quote St. Peter. We achieve union with God through Our Lord Jesus Christ, by way of His human nature, and we always retain our own human nature. In Orthodoxy, theologians always quote St. Athanasius (I believe) to say "God became man so that man could become god". Notice the small-case "g". These theologians will always describe deification as a "union with, but not a merging with" God. Palamist Orthodox theologians, such as Fr. Dimitru Staniloae, (who present theological difficulties for Catholicism) speak of a union with the Divine Energies, but not with the Divine Essence. From what I've read, the Catholic understanding of deification is a union, but not a merger with, the Divine Essence. But nobody (other than, perhaps Tielhard de Chardin, the late Jesuit of dubious orthodoxy-probably a pantheist) in canonical Orthodoxy or orthodox Catholicism speaks of our nature being changed from human to Divine. Just an attempt at clarification, in the spirit of charity.

Dn. Robert

Oh yes, Trent was quite adamant on such things. I think the reclaimation is relatively new because the loss of it is relatively new. If you read the writings of circa-Trent Latin Saints like St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila (to name only two well known writers), you will find a presentation of deification (theosis) that arguably rivals ANYTHING else found in the Church, East or West (I'm currently reading "Interior Castles", and it's quite inspiring. My friend is also reading it, and she said that realization of God literally indwelling in us presented in that book makes the mere idea of sin physically repugnant).

I think it was post-Trent that saw the real development of "Protestantized" Latin theology, and I think it came from a kind of siege mentality (protect the goods from any kind of ridicule, even if it means hiding them; no more discussion of "becoming God", or of the "omnipotence of the Saints", ect.) combined with the fact that when you are fighting with something, you often end up on the level of that which you fight. In order to engage Protestants in debate, for example, you have to use Protestant language to some degree. This combined with the secular development of nominalist philosophies (you can't know the thing, only the effects, and even the effects are mere associations of ideas and names), and you end up with a very thick layer of crust and scum over the jewel of traditional Latin theology.

The irony, IMO, is that so-called "Radical Traditionalists" are often fairly removed from the actual pre-Reformation Latin tradition, and even from the spirituality of Trent, which many of them claim is dear to their hearts. I think the call of Vatican II to rediscover these roots (which was taken as a way to break with ALL tradition and Tradition by far too many, since they couldn't see past the barnacles of the last hundred and fifty years to the actual hull of the Latin ship, and thought scraping the barnacles meant scrapping the ship) is beginning to bear fruit.

This isn't to say, BTW, that EVERYTHING was dark in the couple of centuries before Vatican II; far from it! It was the same period that brought us the likes of St. Therese of Lisieux! Just that there was a tendency especially among the theological academics to mitigate the traditional Latin spirituality. It wasn't universal, and it wasn't total, but it was definately a reality, and I think it culminated in the things that our good brother Alex attested to.

Just my humble thoughts!

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for clarifying, brother Ghosty.

What do you think of the Arminians, the Pentecostals, and the Methodists or Wesleyans. Does their soteriology approximate the Eastern and traditional Latin understanding of deification?

To ALL,
What is the difference between the spiritualities of Pentecostalism and Palamism? I'm not talking about the obvious differences in Trinitarian doctrine, but about the topic at hand - deification.

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm not familiar with the Pentecostals or the Arminians (other than that they're often mistaken for Armenians ), but I've been pretty impressed with the Wesleyan Nazarenes and their views of Holiness. My friend I spoke of before is a convert to the Catholic Faith from the Nazarenes, and we've actually talked quite a bit about this very issue. While they don't have quite the same level of theology on the matter (lacking the majority of the Sacraments, for instance), they definately preserve a much more Apostolic sense of Holiness. I think it's made the transition to being Catholic easier for her than it might be for many Protestant converts as the Sacraments pretty much just drop right down into what she had already been taught growing up; the Eucharist is particularily significant for her now.

Of course, one of the hallmarks of the Wesleyan movement was a return to the basics of the tradition of Deification (which they call "entire sanctification"), and the Church of the Nazarene represents the merger of the Wesleyan tradition with the Pentacostal movement. I'm not sure if their theology incorporates quite the same sense of what Deification means as does the Apostolic Tradition, but it very well might. They definately believe that humans can be made totally Holy, as this is a central tenet of their particular denomination; it's just that I'm not sure if they believe it's by an indwelling of the Trinity through the Holy Spirit, or as a natural growth of humans. Given that they do believe in the necessity of Baptism, however, I tend to think it's most likely the former rather than the latter. I'm sure this will be one of the things I discuss with her father, a Nazarene minister, when I meet him

Peace and God bless!

Dear Ghosty,

To tell you the truth, your screen name is a bit scary for me . . .

But thanks for clarifying that - we need you up here, Big Guy!

Alex

:p

No need to be scared! My screen name comes from two sources. The first is the Japanese film "Ghost in the Shell", which is set in a very post-Modern near future world in which humans work side by side with "ghosts in shells": human brain cells augmented by machine processors and bodies. It's a fascinating exploration of what makes us human from a secular standpoint, and when I was an atheist it was very influential on my thinking. I used "Ghostinashell" as a sceen name then, and I've kind of kept the online identity for the sake of continuity.

The second is my Armenian mother's family name, Gostanian, which playfully morphs into "Gosty", and then "Ghosty".

Peace and God bless!