The Fathers and Theosis

[marc hanna]

I agree a bullet-point list of the differences are hard to pin down http://in a vacuum, and so this is why I've made the greater attempt to first contextualize the teachings. When we strip the context away, many will say that we are just splitting hairs, but the truth is, context is everything! And this is first the biggest hurtle when discussing any topic between EO's and OO's, that we can't even agree on the context. First of all, the OO's are grouped as monophysites by the EO's - which we are not, monophysitism is ascribed to a particular heresy whose theology is foreign to our's - and so our understanding of the fathers is dismissed as flawed.

Now I'm probably coming off as a little abrasive now, but I knew from the onset of your EO influences, and I know there is nothing I can say that will not be immediately dashed apart by those whom you refer back to, and this is because of the ancient practice of EO's taking/isolating quotes of the fathers out of context - let's look back at the dialogues between Severus of Antioch and John the Grammarian - to this day EO's still reference John after it was plainly revealed that he repeatedly misquoted Cyril. So yes, I have to first lead you down a long road of contextualization before I get down to the "meat and potatoes" of this issue, and you have to be willing to see it from our perspective, or else we will get no where. Theosis and theopoiesis are not isolated issues than can be plucked out of context and examined. They are both intertwined into the theological traditions from which they originate. Cyril recognized the importance of commonality of terms and this is why he took so much exception to Nestorius' prosopic union because it inevitably leads to two wills, two natures and two Sons.

There has been a lot of corrective action in EO theology over the centuries, which I applaud when compared to the RC's unwillingness to correct flawed theology. Unfortunately, the EO's don't admit that there was any corrective action but that it was a mere clarification of what was always believed. It seems to me, that if we had just skipped the Council of Chalcedon and went straight to Constantinople II, we would have avoided schism altogether.

I don't concern myself much with the protestants because their theology is hopelessly diverged from ours; but for the lay person who understands nothing of theology and has faith like a child, I believe none of this matters. I would rather you dismiss me as a lunatic and continue on in your faith, than me get into telling you which fathers were right and which ones were wrong, because then I tread on dangerous ground by repeating the same mistakes that resulted in schism to begin with. I don't know where you are at in theology, but I have observed that some of the people you refer back to are not exactly open-minded to OO theology, and if they are your guides, then I don't think there is much hope for a true conveyance of my points.

I am a firm believer in going straight to the source, and while I believe commentaries are useful in opening our minds to things we haven't considered, they are also equally to blame for imposing biased points of view. This is why for myself, I have found it important to learn Ancient Greek, so that I am not reliant of the theological leanings of the translator. But again, I digress.

God bless, and may your learning be fruitful.