The Fathers and Theosis

[marc hanna]

There is a problem with the way theological/traditional topics are often approached; and it is that they are often approached in isolation and not in the context in which they exist. It is true that the doctrine of participation is something that both EO's and OO's share, but in and of itself, it does not define our theologies or make them essentially the same. I think it is possible that there is a return in the general understanding of EO's that is similar to what OO's have always believed, that salvation cannot be achieved intellectually or spiritually on one's own accord; not that I'm saying this was the case, but there was definitely a spirit of such at times in the past.

Like the RC's the EO's have had an evolving tradition, theologically and practically speaking, whereas the OO's have not. The OO's have had no doctrinal development since Cyril of Alexandria, whose we believe is simply a clarification of what the earlier fathers understood. The three traditions existed as early as Athanasius of Alexandria and before and while when we read the common fathers we see evidence of them all, we should not assume that these were universally held precepts.

But focusing then on the East; let's discuss these two traditions and frame out that which is proper to each. This will have to follow in another post, I'm out of time for now.