Talk:Divinization (Christian)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"As the concept of the stage of theoria ... is different between East and West"

1. Would LoveMonkey please explain his latest edit: "As the concept of the stage of theoria, enlightenment or illumentation, Vision of God is different between East and West." As, allegedly, this is so, what follows? Perhaps LoveMonkey uses "as" as a translation of some word of a different meaning in his own first language, and he really meant to write something like: "On the contrary, the concept of the state of theoria ..."; or simply: "The concept of the stage ..." Did he mean to contradict the preceding sourced statement that there are Western theologians who maintain that there is no conflict between the teaching of Palamas and Roman Catholic thought? Would he please explain. It is extremely difficult to understand the edit as it stands.

2. If LoveMonkey's addition is meant to be a corrective to what is stated immediately before, it is hard to see how Barlaam's 14th-century disagreement with Palamas, at a time when Barlaam was acting not as a spokesman for the Latin Church, but instead as an emissary of the Eastern Church, proves that the Western theologians who maintain that there is no conflict between Roman Catholic thought and that of Palamas are mistaken. The Western theologians in question evidently agree with Palamas and disagree with Barlaam; and unless Barlaam was right and Palamas wrong, they are not mistaken. Even if it were evident that the citation demonstrates that Barlaam and Palamas had different concepts of theoria, that would prove nothing about the concepts of West and East in general. It is abundantly clear that Western theologians differ on the matter, but do not excommunicate each other on account of the differences in their views on the question. There is no single hard-and-fast Western view with which to contrast an Eastern view.

3. And, in any case, this article is about theosis, not theoria. So what has LoveMonkey's addition to do with the topic of this article? Indeed, what has all this section to do with theosis? Esoglou (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(Response to paragraph 2) What does the source say on the pages I noted? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Page 13 is not easily available, so would you please let me know in what way it made the syntactically incomplete declaration: "As the concept of the stage of theoria, enlightenment or illumentation, Vision of God is different between East and West." Page 12 speaks of Palamas and Barlaam, attributing to the latter and to mediaeval Latin tradition something that is specified only on page 13. As you know, we are no longer in mediaeval times, so would you please let me know what relevance that has to the topic of this article. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what this reference to pre-Renaissance times has to do with the documented fact that the ideas of Palamas do find some acceptance in the Roman Catholic Church; nor do I understand the incomplete sentence consisting of a subordinate clause ("as ...") and no principal clause. Esoglou (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand where the official Roman Catholic sources say that the Roman Catholic censor their past statements repudiate them and now teach Palamas as dogma. Where is the statement from the Roman Catholic church itself not some speculation or word bending by an obscure source claiming to be a Roman Catholic theologian. If I google topics for Roman Catholicism I pull up the New Advent. Thats reality. Thats being realistic. As Esoglou keeps talking about an Official Roman Catholic position that he will not source. While ignoring my sourcing his citation abuses. While I source and answer his questions in good faith. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church that teaches Palamas as dogma. The Roman Catholic does not. Nor does it teach anti-Palamism as dogma. The fact that some Catholics hold that his thought is in accord with that of the Church, even if others disagree, is enough to show that, for the Roman Catholic Church, it is not a matter of dogma. The New Advent website is not an organ of the Holy See or of any other Roman Catholic diocese. Esoglou (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

According to what sources? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Theosis and theoria

Why is Esoglou here again disputing what the Eastern Orthodox theology section says? Why is Esoglou making a distinction between these concepts but adding to the Roman Catholic section of the article the two concepts and their Roman Catholic interpretation Diff [1]? Why other than edit warring would Esoglou deny the Eastern Orthodox to clarify their understanding of that stage of theosis called theoria but then turn around and add to this article comments about the Roman Catholic interpretation of theoria? What other reason than POV pushing edit warring does Esoglou have? Please clarify. Why is this disruptive person still being allowed to do this on this article? Why are they ignoring the answer already given to them about why theoria is mentioned on a article called theosis since theoria is a stage of theosis. How many times do I have to post that before someone will do something to stop this edit warring POV pushing censoring, disruptive behavior from this article? LoveMonkey (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am just asking for an explanation of what you wrote, and pointing out the obscurity of its structure and its content. Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times is Esoglou going to make this statement or a variation of it?

Esoglou wrote

3. "And, in any case, this article is about theosis, not theoria. So what has ::::LoveMonkey's addition to do with the topic of this article? Indeed, what has all this ::::section to do with theosis?"

LoveMonkey (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement seems obviously true: this article is on theosis, the title says so. It is another article that has the title "theoria". It is the question that has to be repeated, since no sourced answer has been given. Esoglou (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided an Orthodox source. That is already in the article. [2] Why are you not reading the sources I have added? Why are you arguing when you know you don't know any Orthodox theology? You are attacking in bad faith. I have again asked to you what Eastern Orthodox sources you have read that state that theoria is not a stage of theosis? I have provided a source. You have not read that source. You have not read anything from an Eastern Orthodox perspective about this subject and that is part of your behavior. If you have please post it here. So I can confirm what in it you have read in it that justifies your behavior. As this source I posted that you and Richard both have already acknowledged. You are engaging in disruptive and argumentative behavior that can do nothing but frustrate editors here. Which again serves no purpose but to get people to give up in frustration and not edit with you anymore. THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR YOU CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN AND IT IS BAD FOR WIKIPEDIA AS IT RUNS OFF OTHER EDITORS THAT DO NOT SHARE YOUR POV. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to this particular source for this particular point. We now have a puzzle. Until now I thought that, for instance, the Theoria article was right in stating: "In Eastern Orthodox theology, theoria refers to a stage of illumination on the path to theosis", thus clearly distinguishing the two. So who is right? Perhaps tomorrow I will have time to study the matter. Esoglou (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps later today I can attend to this interesting question. I have other problems to attend to. If we stick to the topic of the article and avoid spending time on making accusations of ignorance (since in Wikipedia it isn't our knowledge that counts but the authority of the cited sources), we may make progress towards agreement. Esoglou (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledge your Eastern Orthodox sources. If Esoglou has no Eastern Orthodox sources then this is Esoglou being lazy speculating and edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox sources use theosis both for the achievement and for the process that leads to the achievement. Orthodoxwiki (not a reliable source for Wikipedia, but one to which LoveMonkey attributes high authority) says: "Salvation is a process which encompasses not only the whole earthly life of the Christian, but also the eternal life of the age to come. It is often described in terms of three stages—catharsis (purification), theoria (illumination) and theosis (divinization). Salvation is thus not only becoming sinless (purification), but it is also a progress in being filled with the divine light. Additionally, it is becoming so filled with God in union with Him that the Christian shines forth with the likeness of God, sometimes even literally becoming a bearer of the uncreated light. Though these terms of three stages are sometimes used, there is much overlap between them, and the whole process is often termed theosis." It thus uses "theosis" to mean either the whole process, or to mean the third of three stages in the process, of which theoria is the second.

The booklet of Archimadrite George of Mount Athos defines theosis by saying it literally means to become gods by Grace" (p. 86 ) It does not elaborate on one or more meanings of the word. However, while Orthodoxwiki uses "theosis" in two senses, it is to the word "theoria" that Archimandrite George attributes two senses. In one and the same paragraph on page 58 he first uses "theoria" to mean just the second stage in the process of theosis ("This is the second stage of Theosis, called “theoria”"), but then concludes the paragraph by saying: "Thus, theoria of God also means Theosis. " As far as I can see, he never gets around to specifying what is the third stage in the process. On page 50, he specifies praxis as the first of the several stages.

Both of these sources present theoria as a stage leading to full theosis. Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos (Naupactus) says on the contrary that theosis is a means of attaining theoria, at least he attributes that idea to Palamas: "St. Gregory teaches that the vision of God -the theoria of God- does not occur outwardly, but inwardly. Man reaches the point of seeing the uncreated Light through theosis, and not simply through an external vision. Man sees the uncreated Light through his inner noetic sense, which has been already purified; he even sees it through his physical senses, which, however, have been transformed so as to be able to accept theoria. Thus, man sees God through theosis. Each Prophet attains to theosis and through theosis he beholds the uncreated Light" (Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, "Knowledge of God" – emphases added). He repeats the same idea later: "In the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, it appears that theoria of God is man's union with God. It is effected through divinization (theosis)"; and then goes on to say that in patristic tradition "theoria", "union", "theosis", and "knowledge of God" are all synonymous (Hierotheos... Praxis and Theoria).

It seems to be a difficult task to give a definition of the senses (even these few sources seem to attribute more than one meaning to the word) in which Eastern Orthodox theologians use the word "theosis". Would LoveMonkey please help by suggesting a (sourced) definition? Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Esoglou wrote -Orthodoxwiki (not a reliable source for Wikipedia, but one to which LoveMonkey attributes high authority)- Why doesn't Esoglou show how he editwarred on that source and then got it invalidated as a valid source for Wikipedia and now in light of all of that puts words in my mouth and very disrespectfully now speaks for me as to what I according to Esoglou believe. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The importance of uncreated grace and of unceasing prayer in the Eastern Orthodox view of Theosis

I have not read the entire discussion (and probably, I'm not really saying anything new), but the article does not seem to mention the EO view that theosis is reachable because the divine grace (which humans can experience) is uncreated, and this is probably also a very important difference between the EO "theosis" and the western view of "divinization", since the west (or at least, the traditional western view) does not accept the EO view that humans can experience (in this world) the uncreated energies of God, speaking instead about a created energy or grace (and at least, EO theologians believe they continue to claim this), "In the Orthodox Church of Christ man can achieve deification because, according to the teachings of the Holy Bible and the Fathers of the Church, the Grace of God is uncreated....Westerners consider the divine Grace, or the energy of God, as something created..."For who is able to effect deification (gr. theosis), if divine Grace is a creation and not an uncreated energy of the All-Holy Spirit?". Also, as already noticed earlier by other users, the EOC also considers that humans are required to practice hesychast practices, like the "unceasing prayer of the heart", for reaching theoria and theosis, as it is claimed in the following "Many Fathers have written extensively about the extraordinary role prayer plays in deification. For example, Sts John Climacus, Isaac the Syrian, Gregory Palamas, and Gregory of Sinai stressed the primacy of prayer among all virtues, and how indispensable it is to achieving theosis....This union is preceded by a relationship with God (in this life) which is dominated by unceasing Prayer of the Heart made constant by grace (pulling us closer and closer to God) and is firmly grounded on impeccable Christian living and absence of passionate thought. As our acceptance of the Holy Spirit takes hold deeper and deeper, our relationship with God is characterized by silence and spiritual vision of His uncreated light, with all the corresponding re-creative and deifying results. This uncreated light, being God’s energy and, therefore, God, is the divinizing means of the Holy Spirit, the divine grace with which He blesses us. No one can reach theosis without going through this series of experiences while, the believer who follows this path to successful fruition, meets, with God’s permission, the requirements for deification. Impeccable Christian living, crowned by faithful, warm, and, ultimately, silent, continuous Prayer of the Heart, is our contribution to this process which the Holy Spirit takes over and completes for us....Many Fathers taught that unceasing prayer leads to deification", I could be mistaken, but the western doctrine of "divinization" does not seem to consider the "unceasing prayer" as indispensable. And regarding, the word "theosis", I'm not denying that it has also used in the west when referring to other views of "divinization", but I think it could be argued that "theosis" would be a primary topic for the "Eastern Orthodox" view of theosis/deification/glorification.Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that there should be more. The best I could get was an overview worked out for this article at the theosis section on the theoria article. I am now still having to argue over the meaning of words and having to try and [personal attack deleted]. This is all taking away time and energy from other contributions to the article. As such I would humbly ask you Cody to go ahead and do something about synergy for the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to see what I can do about this in the following days. (But, I have not often edited theological articles, usually I just discuss on talk pages, so I do not have a lot of experience, and I'm sorry in case I won't be able to add too much.) Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Cody, it is always a pleasure to discuss with someone like you, who keep to the topic and treat others as people who have at least a minimal mental competence. The following observations are made without checking sources, so by all means question or correct anything that you think is inexact. In the East, divine grace is seen as uncreated. In the West a distinction is made between created and uncreated grace. Both agree that theosis is possible only through God's grace. Does it matter for this article whether the grace that makes theosis possible is uncreated or created? Isn't the effect (what this article is about) the same? Isn't that a matter for an article on divine grace, not on theosis? As for prayer, which in a sense is human synergy with God's grace, has it not been claimed that the West, which accepts more than one method of advancing in prayer life, overstresses the importance of prayer by its elaborating on the different stages of prayer through which normally one passes before reaching mystical union with God? Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It may be important to mention the difference between created and uncreated grace, especially since this seems to be a point of attack made by the EO. (Question: Is this charge that is made by the EO one that is substantiated by assertions to that effect by Catholic sources?) --Richard S (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not meant earlier to say that the RCC does not view "divinization" as realized only through divine grace (even if they have usually claimed that this is a created grace, although modern RC theologians probably do not often insist on this issue), but as far as I see, EO theologians have claimed that a direct relationship with God, leading to theosis, is possible only through uncreated grace (and they have even claimed that created grace cannot lead to deification), and I think this would be important to mention. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Hi Cody... there are three concepts which are related in that they all aim at divinization/deification. These are theosis (Eastern Orthodox conception), theosis/divinisation (Catholic conception) and exaltation (Mormon conception). Are you suggesting that it is a mistake to discuss all three in one article? There is a separate article on exaltation and at least one Mormon editor thinks the coverage in this article of that topic should be kept to a minimum and the details left to that article. We could move towards having three separate articles: Theosis (Eastern Orthodox), Divinisation (Catholic), and Exaltation. Is that what you are proposing? I think the current vision is that all three should be discussed under the title Theosis although one could also argue for all three to be discussed under the title Divinisation. --Richard S (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Richard, I confess I am not convinced by your idea of "the current vision". When I hear Cody, I may change my mind. I'm sorry. I misread. That comes from trying to catch up too quickly. Esoglou (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

When I say "current vision", I am talking about the scope that seems to be the organizing principle of the current article. That is, the article covers the EO, Catholic and Mormon concepts of divinisation rather than, say, focusing solely on the EO view. This approach makes the article an umbrella article. One could imagine the details being pushed into summary articles titled: Theosis (Eastern Orthodox), Divinisation (Catholic), and Exaltation (Mormonism). Exaltation already has a separate article dedicated to it. I am not currently committed to either approach. I'm just asking Cody if this approach of three separate articles is what he had in mind in making his earlier comment. --Richard S (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I say break the article into 3 small articles and be done with it. While your at it do the theoria article as well. If people want an all encompassing article let them use Deification or Divinization instead of this theosis article. If people want an all encompassing article for theoria let them use contemplation or illumination. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I reserve my opinion vis-a-vis theoria but I am thinking that Theosis (Eastern Orthodox) should focus on the EO view of the concept with minimal discussion of the similarities/differences with the Catholic view. These could be covered under Divinization or Deification. If there is enough material to justify a separate article, we could have one titled Divinization (Roman Catholic). --Richard S (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is merit in LoveMonkey's suggestion about using an English word, such as "deification", perhaps in the form Deification (Christianity) as the title. Orthodox scholars, writing in English, sometimes have "Theosis: see deification" in the index of their books. Examples: Byzantine theology: historical trends and doctrinal themes, By John Meyendorff; The orthodox way, By Kallistos Ware; Images of the divine: the theology of icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, by Ambrosios Gialakis; Eastern Orthodox theology: a contemporary reader, by Daniel B. Clendenin; as well as in books by others. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it would be better to have separate detailed articles (and I also think "theosis" could be a redirect to "Theosis (Eastern Orthodox)", and this article, discussing multiple views, could be renamed to something like "Deification (Christianity)" or "Divinization (Christianity)"), something similar could indeed also be done with the "Theoria" article. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Over-long page

How does one ask for automatic archiving of this over-long talk page? Esoglou (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Currently Theosis is still a word that is Greek and used ONLY in the Greek church to teach it's theology

The West uses the word deification and does not teach the uncreated light(theoria)

It is not used in the Roman Catholic church as there is a Latin and English equilent. Richard Leadwind and Esoglou are in their own ways misquoting and misrepresenting and editwarring against Orthodox theologians as Esoglou just today does not want to allow the Orthodox theologians to have their say and or allow people to post what they are saying. Here is Leadwind renaming a section title 'under question' from Western rejection of the Orthodox theosis to 'Western response' which really is inappropriate.[3] While Roman Catholic theologians call the Orthodox teaching on what theosis is and how to obtain theosis -HERESY and compare it with their own HERESIES (Quietism) and this is sourced in the article. Roman Catholic editors ignore that and are saying only the Orthodox are calling people heretics. When in the source I gave that REALLY DOES SAY THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CHURCHES which Esoglou does not like since it is against his Uniate POV. It says that Westerners whom attack the teachings (and gives the example of Barlaam) are heretics. Here is Esoglou reverting and rewriting my edits today.

1. Diff 1[4]
2. Diff 2[5]
3. Diff 3[6]
4. Diff 4[7]

LoveMonkey (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What is theosis? Both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches feature this idea as a central point in their theology. What is called "theosis" in the East is called "divinization" in the West. … 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches By Edward Faulk

..."May we come to share in the divinity of Christ, Who humbled himself to share in our humanity." This process, technically known as "deification" or "theosis" has its scriptural roots in a passage like 2 Peter 1:4 ... The Catholic Answer Book, Volume 3 By Peter M. J. Stravinskas

There are lots more. Esoglou (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted Orthodox sources that say that part of theosis is theoria and hesychasm. No where in what the West says in ignorance or not is the teaching of the seeing of the uncreated light of Tabor which is essential to the Orthodox teaching (as I just showed with Father George which is a pamphlet people can find at the front of any canonical Orthodox church) that the West is not addressing this and it is absent from the Western interpretation of the Greek word and the Greek teaching as taught by the Greeks. My sources and I have already pointed this out and Esoglou knows this from his edit warring over it when I attempt to add it to the Roman Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences article. Esoglou again is ignoring evidence contrary to his POV. Evidence and sources that literately say that the Orthodox church's teaching is not the same. Which is bad faith and not my opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Theosis, theoria and hesychasm are not synonyms. Even if the first may be seen as the goal of the others, they are distinct concepts and rightly have distinct articles in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

More disinformation in order to confuse people. In the East if Theosis is a truck then hesychasm is it's engine. As the Orthodox source I quoted (which Esoglou loves to distort and try and use Father Chrysostmos against his own Greek brothers most specifically Yannas and Romanides (see the sections in the articles Roman Catholic- Eastern Orthodox theological differences and Theoria about the Eastern position on St Augustine's theology). As Chrysostmos as well says the same thing [8]. I.e Theosis is hesychast driven and or centered. You can't have one without the other. As those in the Eastern Church who have reached theosis in this life and truly done so have the skill of correct prayer and communication with the God- directly-. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Commenting specifically on the four edits by Esoglou which LoveMonkey alleges to constitute a 3RR violation:

• I can't find any indication that the first of these four edits is a revert. It simply appears to be new material by Esoglou — a partial rewrite, to be sure, of something LoveMonkey wrote, but not a revert as such.

• The second and third edits are, indeed, reverts. If this pattern had continued, either or both of you might have been guilty of a 3RR violation — but it didn't, so you weren't.

• The fourth edit is something completely different, and not a revert at all as far as I can tell. I'm willing to assume this was a good-faith clerical error on LoveMonkey's part, but he needs to be more careful.

If you believe I've misanalysed the scenario or am missing something else important, please help me (and the rest of us reading this) understand. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks must stop

The abusive language from LoveMonkey is totally unacceptable. It is bad enough to be contentious and uncivil but repeated violations of WP:NPA must stop immediately. They should never have gone on this long. LoveMonkey hasn't just crossed the line. He has trampled it and gone way past it. I have submitted an Wikiquette alert here. If this doesn't result in a block, then I will ask for one at WP:ANI the next time I see such behavior. --Richard S (talk) 17:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't make this out to be something it is not I stated that I have asked Esoglou to post what Eastern Orthodox theology sources he has studied. I did that while in good faith answering his questions and he has not answered my request. The two words I used "lazy" and "incompetent" are hardly a grievious enough of an offense to warrant your response. And does nothing to cover for the bad faith 3rrs on this article and the theoria article or are you Richard saying that Esoglou has answered my request? Are you Richard saying that Esoglou did not commit 3rr on this article? Since you have not made one mention of it to him here on the talkpage. Why is that? Why are you making headers to call me out for expressing my frustration? And yet still not making headers to call out Esoglou? Why so public, in such an obvious double standard? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To be more exact, not "incompetent", but "complete mental incompetence" was the phrase. Esoglou (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it because you can't see where the line is that denotes personal attack so go read WP:NPA again. "The two words I used "lazy" and "incompetent" are hardly a grievious enough of an offense to warrant your response." Yes, they are. Go read it again.

As for Esoglou's violation of 3RR. I don't have the energy to track the actual edits/edit wars that you guys make to the article. It takes two to edit war. Go read WP:3RR. It is not intended to be a license to edit war right up until the 3RR limit. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically violate 3RR. As far as I'm concerned, you should both be blocked for edit warring. Are you inviting me to start bringing that behavior to the attention of the admins?

One wrong does not justify another. If Esoglou has violated 3RR, then report him to the appropriate noticeboard and get him blocked. Just be prepared to catch a block for yourself as well for edit warring. Esoglou's violations of 3RR doesn't justify personal attacks. It could get him blocked but it still wouldn't justify personal attacks. Your nastiness has been poisoning the collaborative and collegial atmosphere here. It's a testimony to the patience of other editors that they've put up with it for so long. You can bet that an uninvolved admin won't be so patient and tolerant. So cut it out. Now.

--Richard S (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And as far as I am concerned you are enabling Esoglou's behavor. Your excuse of not having the energy is something I am not buying. As either put up treat me the same as you treat Esoglou. Or expect to get called on it. Everything else at this point is just talk. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't look at the edit histories, counting up to 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. I've got better things to do with my time than spending it doing that. If you are counting reverts, then you are probably violating the spirit of 3RR by carefully staying on the right side of the 3RR line while still edit-warring. If these violations by Esoglou are important to you, then go ahead and report them. If you want, I'll just report both of you for edit-warring and see what the admins think. --Richard S (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are involved here then youd better find time. Your accusing me of edit warring when I posted in your notice from here where I collected those diffs here on this talkpage. Still not one word to Esoglou. Not one word. Your engaging in hypocrasy which reflects very poorly on your position, I am sure you know all about mine, though. LoveMonkey (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stick it in your ear. I'll spend my time the way I choose. What are you going to do to me? Blast me with another thousand words of useless invective? Go right ahead. You obviously have more time or type faster than I do. You have a mechanism for seeking relief from 3RR and edit-warring. It's the 3RR noticeboard. Go right ahead and report Esoglou if you think his transgression is worthy of correction. And, if the responding admin takes a look at the edit history and finds edit warring or looks at this Talk Page and finds personal attacks, well... that's your lookout, not mine. --Richard S (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added some comments at WP:WQA#Personal attacks at Talk:Theosis. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Restructuring of article

I have copied the Eastern Orthodox section to a new article (Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology)) and renamed this article from Theosis to Divinization (Christian). I chose this new title based on the fact that there is already a disambig page at Divinization and Deification redirects to that page. In order for Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology) to be more than a content fork of this article, the Eastern Orthodox section of this article needs to be trimmed down to a summary of approximately the same length as the Roman Catholic section. It would be helpful for other editors who are more knowledgeable about the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis to help craft this summary. --Richard S (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have my doubts as to whether the word "theology" needed to be in the new article title. If anyone feels that the article title should be changed, we can discuss it at Talk:Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology). --Richard S (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

An overview, summary of the Eastern Orthodox position is all that this article needs. There is no need in this article for an elaboration of the Orthodox view as taken in the article as is. I propose the article section be reduced.LoveMonkey (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. I just didn't feel knowledgeable enough to do the cutting and was afraid I would make a mess of it. Reducing the length of the section in this article is very much the objective of creating Theosis (Eastern Orthodox theology).--Richard S (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused...

There are some questions that I have. I'm not suggesting that the answers to all of these should be covered in this article as there are other articles that cover the topics. I just think we need to get some things clear rather than going around and around in circles. And I'm sure some or all of these questions have already been covered in the discussion but please excuse my laziness in not wanting to read through all of it. WP:TLDR

(Side comment: I just went to Essence–Energies distinction to see if I could answer some of my own questions and found some serious problems with that article. I tremble at the thought of getting involved in another Orthodox/Catholic battleground article but that article is in need of some serious attention.)

• OK... this essence-energies thing... at least up until the publication of the CE between 1907-1914, the vast majority of Catholic theologians rejected hesychasm as "a theory that opposed (the) very foundation of Latin theology". (see the entry on Hesychasm in the CE).

• I commented out the sentence 'In the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911, Adrian Fortescue charges Palamas with heresy and "monstrous errors" ' from the Essence-Energies distinction article on the grounds that Fortescue makes no such charge explicitly nor does he ever use the phrase "monstrous errors" in the text of the article.

• Does the rejection of hesychasm by an overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians support the sentence in the article on Essence-Energies distinction that "The Catholic Church as a matter of dogma rejects the separation of God's incomprehesible essence from God's Activities or energies in creation." Is this true? If there is no Catholic council or papal encyclical that condemns hesychasm as heresy, can it be considered as such because it opposes the very foundation of Latin theology (Scholasticism)? Or is this an assertion of the EO about what Catholic dogma is? Is something dogma simply because Aquinas wrote it? Is actus purus dogma? Is it part of the magisterium? (And what's the difference between dogma and magisterium anyway?)

• OK... the "uncreated light" thing... I think this is part of the essence-energies thing. If God is actus purus, then there can be no essence-energies distinction and so no "uncreated light". But let's ignore that for the time being... what is the Catholic view of what happened at Mt. Tabor? It's about the Transfiguration of Jesus right? Is Jesus achieving theosis/divinisation/exaltation? I recognize that this is a moronic question to ask vis-a-vis the Orthodox and Catholics. It seems ridiculous to talk about Jesus-who-is-God achieving theosis. But I ask it because I'm not sure what the Mormon view of this event is.

• Here's my real question about what happened at Mt. Tabor. What happened to Peter, James and John there? According to the EO, they saw the "uncreated light" so does this mean that they achieved theosis? Does the EO have any opinion on whether any of the other apostles achieved theosis? Or do they simply assert that it's not documented anywhere so we don't know? Is it thought that saints and martyrs generally achieve theosis or is that reserved only for those who practice hesychasm?

• If the Catholic Church rejects the essence-energies distinction, how does it envision theosis? Is it still a mystical thing achieved via "prayerful contemplation"?

• Seems like the goal of theosis and divinisation is the same except that the sticking point is this bit about the "uncreated light". Both the EO and the Catholics want to become like God and this is not something that happens through reason or actions but through something more mystical (hesychasm or "prayerful contemplation). Thus, the goal is the same but the method is somewhat different. Or, to be precise, the theological/philosophical description of the precise mechanism by which theosis happens is different.

This is all the theology I can wrap my little brain around. Please correct me if I have gone off the rails in what I wrote above.

--Richard S (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

First, I want to wish a merry Christmas to all users (and especially to those who celebrate Christmas today, according to the Gregorian and Revised Julian calendars).

I'm sorry for the delay in response (it took me a bit of time to search for sources), but I'll try to answer some of your comments (and I hope this won't accidentally lead to a some new heated discussions).

Does the rejection of hesychasm by an overwhelming majority of Catholic theologians support the sentence in the article on Essence-Energies distinction that "The Catholic Church as a matter of dogma rejects the separation of God's incomprehesible essence from God's Activities or energies in creation." Is this true? If there is no Catholic council or papal encyclical that condemns hesychasm as heresy, can it be considered as such because it opposes the very foundation of Latin theology (Scholasticism)? Or is this an assertion of the EO about what Catholic dogma is? Is something dogma simply because Aquinas wrote it? Is actus purus dogma? Is it part of the magisterium? (And what's the difference between dogma and magisterium anyway?)

As far as I understand from the article on Essence-Energies distinction, it is RC dogma that "The divine attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence", and EO theologians believe that "all the Cappadocian Fathers (that is, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and John the Chrysostom) came to refer to the energies of God as “divine attributes”". (I'll also try to check on the issues discussed on Talk:Essence–Energies distinction.)

Here's my real question about what happened at Mt. Tabor. What happened to Peter, James and John there? According to the EO, they saw the "uncreated light" so does this mean that they achieved theosis? Does the EO have any opinion on whether any of the other apostles achieved theosis? Or do they simply assert that it's not documented anywhere so we don't know? Is it thought that saints and martyrs generally achieve theosis or is that reserved only for those who practice hesychasm?

The following article may offer some answers "So now, when reading the Old and the New Testaments, who do we learn has attained Theosis? In the Old Testament it was the Prophets, and in the New Testament it was the Apostles. But before all others in the New Testament, it was saint John the Baptist who had attained it. Then followed some of the Apostles. Not all the Apostles simultaneously, because only three of the Apostles were present at Mount Tabor. Even during the Transfiguration, the only ones that we are certain had attained Theosis in the New Testament were (apart from the Holy Mother of course) saint John the Baptist and then the three Apostles: Peter, James and John. The entirety of the Apostles attained Theosis, only during the Pentecost. During the Pentecost, all of the Apostles (all seventy of them) attained Theosis". As it can be observed from the article, even the old testament prophets could experience, during their life, a temporal theoria and theosis, and according to the following "Vision-theoria of God presupposes man's theosis. But the theosis of the Prophets was temporal and death was not ontologically abolished, that is why they went to Hades. We have real theosis in the case of the three Apostles on Mount Tabor, because they saw the glory of God through theosis. Yet while they were seeing the uncreated Light through theosis, that is internally, they themselves were outside the Theanthropic Body of Christ. The Theanthropic Body, which is the source of the uncreated glory due to the hypostastic union, was outside the disciples."

Seems like the goal of theosis and divinisation is the same except that the sticking point is this bit about the "uncreated light". Both the EO and the Catholics want to become like God and this is not something that happens through reason or actions but through something more mystical (hesychasm or "prayerful contemplation). Thus, the goal is the same but the method is somewhat different. Or, to be precise, the theological/philosophical description of the precise mechanism by which theosis happens is different.

I uderstand that there are some contemplative prayers also practiced in the RCC, but they might not be identical to the hesychast "unceasing prayer of the heart", even if there are similarities. I think an EO question here could be, if both indeed have the same experience (which according to the EO view, would mean experiencing the uncreated light of God), then why do the RC practitioners hesistate to speak about experiencing the uncreated light? (Perhaps, because of scholastic influence, but nonetheless, EO theologians have viewed this hesitation with suspicion, "Latin tradition speaks also of created grace, a fact which suggests that there is no experience of the grace of God. For, when man obtains the experience of God, then he comes to understand well that this grace is uncreated. Without this experience there can be no genuine “therapeutic tradition".) The EOC has traditionally made a link between theology and theosis, all EO theologians should normally achieve theoria and theosis, "there is no theology apart from experience; it is necessary to change, to become a new man. To know God one must draw near to Him. No one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian. The way of the knowledge of God is necessarily the way of deification." (and I think the RCC does not necessarily request theologians to achieve theosis/divinization). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Cody for what is a plenty prompt response. I wouldn't have been surprised if you had not responded until after Christmas or even New Year's. A very Merry Christmas to you as well.

Your answers were very enlightening and really most of them show deficiencies of omission in this article in that I would want to incorporate much of what you wrote in the article.

I think the point you make about "all EO theologians should normally achieve theoria and theosis" is a very critical point that we have glossed over. The RCC not only does not request theologians to achieve theosis/divinization, I don't think they expect it.

You asked "why do the RC practitioners hesistate to speak about experiencing the uncreated light?" I am far from knowledgeable about this area but I would venture to hazard a guess that the RCC has not formalized its mysticism to the extent that the EOC has. By "formalized", I mean that the EOC appears to have a very clear framework for a mystical understanding of God which has become incorporated as a central part of its dogma. The RCC, on the other hand, seems to have more of a rationalist (Scholastic, if you will) approach that acknowledges the existence of the mystical but has not worked on formalizing the mystical to the same extent. Thus, we have famous mystics (e.g. St. Theresa of Avila) but we don't expect all theologians to practice mysticism, let alone achieve theoria. There is perhaps a skepticism of mysticism as being "magic". More recently, Popes such as John Paul II have sought to reconcile these two approaches by talking of one Church "breathing with two lungs". The "two lungs" analogy sounds good in a speech but it breaks down because our lungs are basically identical with the exception of being on opposite sides of the bi-symmetrical axis and it is possible to live with only one lung. A more precise analogy would be "left brain" and "right brain". Which half of your brain would you choose not to use?

Years ago, I read a very good book by Karen Armstrong titled "A History of God". In it, she describes the three Abrahamic religions as having both a rationalist and a mystical side. For example, the Jews have the Kabbalah and the Muslims have the Sufi tradition. What I didn't really get at the time was how much the Catholic and the Orthodox differed in this dimension. I never understood how much the rationalist/mystical dichotomy was an underlying cause of the division between East and West. I think I just assumed that both East and West had rationalist and mystical aspects to their beliefs and didn't consider it as the primary point of difference. I guess I imagined the difference between East and West was more like the difference between Sunni and Shiite rather than the difference between Aristotle/Aquinas and Palamas.

As for "uncreated light", my personal view is that the problem is that the process of labeling and identifying things is fundamentally a rationalist exercise. Arguing about whether the light is created or uncreated is getting into a philosophical discussion about metaphysics and smacks of an Aristotelian approach to a mystical phenomenon. This is me personally speaking and I am neither philosopher nor theologian but I think that Catholic and Orthodox mystics could understand each other very well if they didn't have to use language to describe their experience. The use of language and its accompanying Scholastic/Aristotelian baggage of getting caught up in distinctions such as created/uncreated probably causes problems that are unnecessary. My poor layman's understanding is that the Scholastics reject the idea that there could be another "thing" other than the three hypostases and that the assertion of an "ousia" which is somehow different from or even driving the three hypostases sounds suspiciously like there is a fourth "something" rather than just the three hypostases. Now, me personally, I don't see this as a problem although I would like a better explanation of the "three realities" because that formulation is novel and alien to me. I think medieval Western theologians couldn't wrap their brains around the idea of three realities and this thing called "ousia" that is different from the three hypostases and wound up just rejecting the whole framework as polytheistic.

Once again, all of the above is an unschooled layman (me) speaking so I remain amenable to being corrected if I got things wrong.

--Richard S (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Personally, I think EO theologians wanted to underline the "uncreated" character of the light seen by mystics, because they wanted to emphasize the need of a direct relationship with God, but I think that it would indeed be better to focus on practicing this relationship, instead of arguing philosophically these terms and issues. I'm also a layman, and I do not consider myself a theologian, I do not have any serious theological studies or training, I just write what theologians have stated (in fact, these discussions I had on wikipedia, have helped me learn more about these issues, by encouraging me to search more information about them).

Regarding the realities of God, as far as I see, the discussion on Talk:Essence–Energies_distinction#The realities of God refers to the distinction between the Essence (also referred as Being or Ousia), the Hypostases (the three personal existences of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and the Energies (also referred as activities or operations, and also as light, love, grace, beauty, fire, glory). I think some good explanations about these distinctions can be found in a document (of just 7 pages) titled "On the Notions of Essence, Hypostasis, Person, and Energy in Orthodox Thought", which contains some excerpts from the book "Elements of faith" written by the EO theologian Yannaras. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Two questions for Cody, knowing that he will give a clear and reasoned answer, one that will be to the point.

Is it clear that it is Roman Catholic dogma that the attributes of God – at least if you include in them his activities towards creation, his "energies" – are identical with his essence? The only source quoted for this statement is Ludwig Ott, whom you cite. He wrote: "The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence (De fide). The reason lies in the absolute simplicity of God. The acceptance of a real distinction (distinctio realis) would lead to acceptance of a composition in God, and with that to a dissolution of the Godhead. In the year 1148, a Synod at Rheims, in the presence of Pope Eugene III, condemned, on the instance of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the doctrine of Gilbert of Poitiers, who, according to the accusation of his opponents, posited a real difference between Deus and Divinitas, so that there would result a quaternity in God (Three Persons plus Godhead). This teaching, which is not obvious in Gilbert's writings, was rejected at the Council of Rheims (1148) in the presence of Pope Eugene III (D. 389 et seq.)." As he indicates, the text of the decision of the 1148 Reims synod is given in Catechetics Online: Sources of Catholic Dogma, 389. It is as follows: "389 1. We believe and confess that God is the simple nature of divinity, and that it cannot be denied in any Catholic sense that God is divinity, and divinity is God. Moreover, if it is said that God is wise by wisdom, great by magnitude, eternal by eternity, one by oneness, God by divinity, and other such things, we believe that He is wise only by that wisdom which is God Himself; that He is great only by that magnitude which is God Himself; that He is eternal only by that eternity which is God Himself; that He is one only by the oneness which is God Himself; that He is God only by that divinity which He is Himself; that is, that He is wise, great, eternal, one God of Himself." Is it clear that this synod was speaking also of God's "energies"? I have (as yet) found no other statement in support of Ott's claim, which, if true, could be expected to appear also in, for instance, the article Divine Attributes in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Ott himself explains that the aim of the synod of Reims was to exclude the positing of a quaternity in God.

My second question: Does the EOC hold that that only those who see the "uncreated light" really attain theosis? The RCC surely does not deny that seeing the "the Eternal Brightness" that "some while still living in this corruptible flesh, yet growing in incalculable power by a certain piercingness of contemplation" are believed to see (Pope Gregory I, Moralia, book 18, 89) can be a way to deification. Does the EOC say that there is no other way to attaining theosis? Furthermore, does the EOC hold that only those who see this "uncreated light" can be theologians. We speak of dozens of Easterners as theologians. Have they all see that light? Did, for instance, Romanides and Meyendorff and all the others mentioned in these discussions see it? Archimandrite George says that "very few in each generation" see this light (p. 58 of his booklet). Are all the rest excluded both from being proper theoretics and from being proper theologians? Richard doubts it. What do you think? Esoglou (talk) 18:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Esoglou. That was indeed part of my confusion. Cody asserts that all theologians are supposed to achieve theoria and yet I imagined that there would be, as Archimandrite George says, "very few in each generation". Perhaps there are far fewer theologians in the Orthodox Church than there are in the Western Church? --Richard S (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the Synod of Rheims, it's interesting to learn more about it. Since Ludwig Ott's exact statement ("The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence") had many results on Google, including RC websites, I got the impression that many in the RCC thought he was accurate. I'm not denying that he could be mistaken, however he is a "secondary source", and I have not seen yet any criticism, in the RCC, against his claim. The RC encyclopedia from New Advent, also claims somewhere that "Divine knowledge itself is really identical with Divine essence, as are all the attributes and acts of God". I've also seen the claims "no attribute of God is distinguished in the concrete from the very essence of God" and "We have already said that God's attributes are not distinguished from his essence." in some articles on the Vatican's website.

Regarding the way "theosis" is understood in the EOC, as far as I know, theosis is indeed considered achievable only through the Uncreated Light/Grace/Energies, "In the Orthodox Church of Christ man can achieve daification because, according to the teachings of the Holy Bible and the Fathers of the Church, the Grace of God is uncreated...Subsequently, in three great Synods at Constantinople, the whole Church justified St. Gregory Palamas, declaring that life in Christ is not simply the moral edification of man, but deification (gr. theosis), and that this means participation in God’s glory, a vision of God, of His Grace and His uncreated light.", "This uncreated light, being God’s energy and, therefore, God, is the divinizing means of the Holy Spirit", "Vision-theoria of God presupposes man's theosis", "the vision of the uncreated light is man’s deification". Regarding EO theologians, as far as I see, the EOC has traditionally made a link between theology and the mystical experiences of the uncreated energies, "The prophet and theologian are formed by the cleansing, illumination, and glorification", "Saint Gregory defines a theologian as one who has reached this theoria by means of purification and illumination"..."Saint Gregory insists that to theologize "is permitted only to those who have passed examinations and have reached theoria, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at least are being purified."", "the eastern tradition has never made a sharp distinction between mysticism and theology", "in the east theology was always defined as experience...the title "theologian" is not scientific erudition in theology, but a visionary awareness of divine Truth.", "No one who does not follow the path of union with God can be a theologian. The way of the knowledge of God is necessarily the way of deification.". (So, as far as I understand, all EO theologians should practice a relationship with God and reach theoria and theosis, and this would mean that Lossky, Romanides, Meyendorff, Staniloae, Yannaras, Vlachos,etc, should have reached theoria and theosis, but nonetheless, at least as far as I see, there is no contradiction between them and Saint Gregory Palamas.) Also, compared to the total number of Orthodox Christians, these theologians are indeed few.) I'm sorry, if my responses are not as clear as you were expecting. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your responses are excellent, and I thank you for them. Yes, all Eastern (and Western) theologians should practise a relationship with God and reach theoria/mystic contemplation and theosis/divinization. But do they? And if you limit theosis to those "very few in each generation" who see the uncreated light, have "Lossky, Romanides, Meyendorff, Staniloae, Yannaras, Vlachos, etc." actually seen that light? Have they themselves or anyone else made that claim about them? I think that, in an earlier discussion, someone mentioned that even Palamas claimed to have had the experience only three distinct times. If we use the word "theologian" in its ordinary sense, the situation is clear: these are all Eastern Orthodox theologians. If we were to use "theologian" only in the ideal meaning of Palamas's definition, to which you have referred above, it would be impossible to speak with certainty about even one.

You have given quotations that indicate that Eastern Orthodox believe that theosis is achieved by seeing the uncreated light. You have given none that say that divinization is achieved in no other way. It is hard to believe that the Eastern Orthodox hold that only a very few in each generation are divinized, when Athanasius said: "Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπισεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεωποιηθῶμεν", thus declaring that God (or the Word) became man, in order that we (maybe not all, but certainly not just an extremely few of us) might be deified. By the way, I am convinced that "θεωποιηθῶμεν" is a misprint for "θεοποιηθῶμεν".

I think we still lack any indication that, when the West holds, as it does (whether as dogma or not is another matter, and we only have Ott to say it is dogma), that there is no real distinction between the attributes of God and his essence, it is talking also or in particular about God's operations or ἐνέργειαι. Since, as is verifiably stated in the Essence-Energies article, some Western scholars maintain that there is no conflict between the essence-energies distinction and Roman Catholic thought; according to G. Philips, the essence-energies distinction is a typical example of a perfectly admissible theological pluralism that is compatible with the Roman Catholic magisterium; Jeffrey D. Finch claims that the future of East-West rapprochement appears to be overcoming the modern polemics of neo-scholasticism and neo-Palamism; and some Western theologians have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking, it seems that the denial of a real distinction between the attributes and the essence of God is no obstacle to acceptance of an essence-energies distinction. Esoglou (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that there are modern western theologians who "have incorporated the essence-energies distinction into their own thinking", but I think there are still many who follow the traditional RC view presented by Ludwig Ott (who even described it as dogma). I have also seen articles on the Vatican's website claiming that "no attribute of God is distinguished in the concrete from the very essence of God", "We have already said that God's attributes are not distinguished from his essence" (and according to their adress, they seem to have belonged to Pope John Paul II). And the EO believe that "the energies are attributes of God" and that "all the Cappadocian Fathers (that is, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and John the Chrysostom) came to refer to the energies of God as “divine attributes”".

And regarding "Lossky, Romanides, Meyendorff, Staniloae, Yannaras, Vlachos, etc.", they have often been referred as theologians, and from the EO understanding of this term, it could mean that they had experienced theoria and perhaps even theosis, but nonetheless, as far as I see, they are in consensus with Saint Gregory Palamas and other Saints. Also, these are just a few persons compared to the total number of EO members, of approximately 225 millions. And I don't think Saint Athanasius meant that Christ became man so that most/all men simply become deified, he claimed (as usually translated) that "God became man so that man might become god" by grace. And few become deified because deification/theosis is hard to attain in this life, but I think that at least at the Second Coming of Christ, when all people will be resurrected and have to experience the Uncreated Light, all of those who truly love God will become deified. And regarding the relation between theoria and theosis, as far as I know, theosis is often described as the last (and most advanced) of the three spritual stages described as catharsis/purification, theoria/illumination and theosis/deification, ("It is often described in terms of three stages—catharsis (purification), theoria (illumination) and theosis (divinization). Salvation is thus not only becoming sinless (purification), but it is also a progress in being filled with the divine light.", "The patristic and ascetic tradition distinguishes three stages of spiritual life; first, purification; second, illumination; and, third, deification) so it is considered to come after theoria (or the experience of the Uncreated Light), and I have not seen yet any evidence that theosis could be reached without having theoria, the experiencie (or vision) of the Uncreated Light/Grace/Energies, especially since (according to EO belief) the Uncreated Light (or Grace) is the divinizing means used by God. I think in the sources shown above, it has been explicitly stated that deification means to participate in God's Light ("deification (gr. theosis), and that this means participation in God’s glory, a vision of God, of His Grace and His uncreated light.", "the vision of the uncreated light is man’s deification", and other sources speaking about this, have also used the definite article "the" (which in this case implies main importance), instead of the indefinite "a", "This uncreated light, being God’s energy and, therefore, God, is the divinizing means of the Holy Spirit"). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cody. You seem to think that Ott declared the real identity of God's essence and energies to be dogma. Did he? I only know of his declaration (unsupported by others) that the real identity of God's essence and his attributes is dogma. Did he include the energies among the attributes? Or did he elsewhere classify as dogma also the absence of real distinction between the essence and attributes of God? And yes, there are Western theologians who do not accept the real distinction, as well as those who do accept it. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, neither group is heretical. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church does not consider heretical the Easterners who uphold the real distinction, nor does it consider heretical any few Easterners who deny the real distinction.

Athanasius didn't say that God became man with the result that we might just perhaps become divine. He wrote: "ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεωποιηθῶμεν" – what Greek grammars call a "final clause", meaning a clause that indicates the purpose of the main verb. Purpose is the significance of the conjunction "ἵνα". Athanasius said that the aim of God in becoming man was for us to be deified. "Us", not "some few other people" (provided, of course, that we accept the possibility he offers us, all of us – but that is going outside of what Athanasius actually wrote, as is any supposition that in saying this Athanasius was speaking about hesychasm).

We can all look ahead to vision of the Light ("We shall see him as he is", wrote John in 1 Jn 3:2), including the many who are referred to as Eastern Orthodox theologians (not just the few that we have here mentioned by name), whether or not they really see It in this life.

You seem to agree with what was my initial understanding of theoria as leading to theosis. However, LoveMonkey has disagreed and has shown that some Orthodox writers speak of theoria as resulting from theosis. So now I am confused about what really is the Eastern Orthodox view of which comes from which. Perhaps there are divergent Eastern Orthodox views on the question. Esoglou (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

When I referred above to the dogma described by Ludwig Ott, I meant to refer to his claim about the real identity between God's essence and his attributes, I'm sorry for not being more clear. However, it seems that in his book, Ludwig Ott also claimed "In the Greek Church, the 14th century mystic-quietistic Sect of the Hesychasts or Palamites (so-called after the monk Gregory Palamas (f 1359) taught a real distinction between the Divine Essence and the Divine Efficacy or the Divine attributes".

Regarding theoria and theosis, I usually thought that theosis refers mainly to the most advanced spiritual state on the path of salvation which is achieved after theoria, but it is also claimed in the earlier pdf documents that "Salvation is a process which encompasses not only the whole earthly life of the Christian, but also the eternal life of the age to come. It is often described in terms of three stages—catharsis (purification), theoria (illumination) and theosis (divinization). Salvation is thus not only becoming sinless (purification), but it is also a progress in being filled with the divine light. Additionally, it is becoming so filled with God in union with Him that the Christian shines forth with the likeness of God, sometimes even literally becoming a bearer of the uncreated light. Though these terms of three stages are sometimes used, there is much overlap between them, and the whole process is often termed theosis." so it appears this entire spiritual process (which includes theoria) has also been referred as theosis (probably, because this process leads to theosis). The document which claimed that "The patristic and ascetic tradition distinguishes three stages of spiritual life; first, purification; second, illumination; and, third, deification" also claims "The vision of God (Theoria, contemplation) is synonym to sanctification, deification, i.e. the union with God....Theoria, the vision of God or of the uncreated light, is not the work of the man’s mind. It is not a mere rational knowledge, but union or deification, like the union of fire with iron". I do not think these necessarily represent divergent views, but rather show the close connection between theoria and theosis. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ott agrees that Palamas taught a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God. Ott doubtless disagreed with Palamas. But he didn't say that the negation of a real distinction between the essence and the energies of God is dogma. Esoglou (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused...

Why should any Orthodox spend their time in good faith answering Richard when Richard still has done nothing to condemn the edit warring behavior of Editor Esoglou. I am confused by Richard's selective attention. And how Richard selectively notices disruptive behavior. Richard will go report me for calling Esoglou lazy for ignoring my answers I have given in good faith while not answering mine. Report me for criticizing Esoglou's behavior as disruptive or edit warring> But I have given here on the talkpage at least one example of Esoglou edit warring and there is nothing. Absolutely nothing being said about it. Its not even 3 days old and nothing. People expect you in good faith to answer them after they treat you with a double standard. And won't answer your questions. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Theosis just now for 20 December 2010 (the period which I assume you are referring to and complaining about). While I do see a lot of disagreement between you and Esoglou during this time, I could not find any editing activity by Esoglou which either violated the letter of 3RR or constituted edit warring or bad-faith disruptiveness. If you believe I and others are simply not seeing something that is clear as day, please provide details, including a list of specific edits/reverts by Esoglou which you consider to be inappropriate. And I will repeat what others have said: If you have a grievance against an editor who you feel is acting improperly, you can (and should) report it on the proper admin noticeboard, NOT in an article talk page or in edit summaries. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

One that comment is almost a week old so why the bump? Two you reviewed what? Because if you review the article history..You'd see these diffs.

1. Diff 1[9]
2. Diff 2[10]
3. Diff 3[11]
4. Diff 4[12]

If you'd review the talkpage you'd have seen them listed under the heading The West uses the word deification and does not teach the uncreated light(theoria). Also if you dislike what I am doing then follow your own advice Richwales. Other then that I'd say considering the radical amount of work done on this article in the past 7 days I've moved on and maybe you should also. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I did discuss the above series of edits (at WP:WQA#Personal attacks at Talk:Theosis), and as I said there, I don't see an instance of 3RR violation here. The first edit involves the addition of new material, not a revert to an older version of the text. The second and third edits are reverts, and this pattern could have constituted an edit war if it had continued, but it didn't. And the fourth edit simply added a {{qn}} tag and isn't anywhere near being a revert.

I'm optimistic about where this set of articles is going now (especially after the split), so hopefully the past problems (regardless of whoever might have been more or less at fault) are in the past and we can all move forward from here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK so you said you couldn't find any and now you said you found some and even discussed them. And the reason the reverting stopped on the lead of the article is because Richard removed it. Which caused everyone to move on. However Richard only posted comments about my posting not Esoglou's. That was my whole complaint. I do not believe myself above criticism and me and Richard have a past of him blowing up and saying inappropriate things. I however usually agree with him. This was one of the moments where I did not do so. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I blew up because you called Esoglou a liar. Calling him "completely mentally incompetent" was also bad but calling someone a liar is a very bad violation of WP:NPA. You can say that someone is wrong, mistaken, or has misread the source. However, to call someone a liar completely breaches WP:AGF and leads to a breakdown of collegiality and collaboration. I'm none too thrilled with your general interaction style of contentiousness and incivility but it was that comment of yours that caused me to consider that you had crossed the line, trampled it and gone far beyond the pale. --Richard S (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Whitewashing and removal of sources critical of Roman Catholic position

This article has been white washed by Roman Catholic POV pushing editors whom are editwarring in order to remove positions expressed that show the history of this type may put them in a bad light. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the article has been renamed and also branched and there appears to be no conflict on the article branched from this one for the Eastern Orthodox theological subject (theosis). I can say that I remove my criticism as is posted. As I have already removed my POV template from the article. However if the other article is removed or deleted then it might just be proper to still see this as a legitimate criticism or concern. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation request for exegesis of Athanasius of Alexandria

LoveMonkey removed a citation request with the edit summary "one doesn't have to source that the sky is blue". The statement in question is not of that sort.

There are a lot of problems with the Eastern Orthodox section reading like a religious tract. Wikipedia is not intended for the catechetical instruction of the faithful. It should read like an objective, secular publication. This means that we cannot make assertions regarding religion without putting them in the voice of a reliable source ("According to Lossky...", "Romanides says...") etc. We cannot interpret primary sources such as Athanasius. It is bad enough to cite Athanasius directly as a primary source but, if we need to provide an exposition of what he wrote, we must put that exposition into the mouth of a reliable secondary source. For the statement in question, who asserts that?

--Richard S (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the whole section. I have no problem at all with the content. It just needs to be rewritten to be in a more objective tone so that it is clear that we are describing a religious belief and not indisputable fact. --Richard S (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have sourced part of the section on the Eastern Orthodox Theosis article already. I think that the sentence that was being citation-ed to be sourced was obvious that the Orthodox teaching of the theosis does not say that any man can become God. So where am I going wrong here? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Beyond sourcing, we need to change the tone of the section. I don't think you will have a problem with this. The text says "His statement is an apt description of the doctrine." Well, who says that? Is it LoveMonkey's personal opinion? If so, that would be unacceptable OR. However, if it is Lossky's opinion, that's not a problem. A more acceptable version of the sentence might read "According to Lossky, this assertion of Athanasius is the essence of the Palamite doctrine." You see, I have a problem understanding how much of this section is Lossky's opinion. Assuming that all of that is a summary of Lossky's writing, then we need to let the reader know that. Otherwise, it reads as if it is the opinion of the author (i.e. one or more Wikipedia editors) and that would be inappropriate. --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As a separate but related topic, we have a problem of anachronism. Athanasius predated Palamas so his assertion about God becoming man so men could become gods cannot be a "description of the doctrine (of Palamas)". Palamas must have built his doctrine on Athansius. It's just a question of wording but it's important to get the implication right. --Richard S (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)