Catholic/Orthodox Theosis and the Creation of Worlds

[Tsuzuki]

In the Catholic/Orthodox view of theosis, can a divinized human person participate with God in the creation of worlds?

[3DOP]

Hi Tsuzuki,

I am sure you mean creation ex nihilo? I just made something out of something. One doesn't have to be divinized at all to create out of existing material. But I am confident that as a faithful Catholic one could so speculate. My personal opinion would be in the negative, especially with the way you phrase the question. The divinized human, to create ex nihilo wouldn't be a mere participant. He would need to be be God. I think such speculation is permissible to be explored. My negative is only personal opinion, nothing more. The Catholic Church has never definitively drawn the line to say "this far and no further." If She ever does, we will know.

I would also point out that only a Mormon who believes that God can create out of nothing could permit theosis to accomplish the same thing.

[Tsuzuki]

I am sure you mean creation ex nihilo?

I mean in terms of organizing and shaping.

And extending this backward in time, would it be possible within the Catholic/Orthodox paradigm for this world to have been organized and shaped by a previously divinized person in participation with God?

[Tsuzuki]

Anyone else?

[Joseph Antley]

I would guess that idea would seem very foreign and strange to most Catholics.

[Tsuzuki]

I would guess that idea would seem very foreign and strange to most Catholics.

But would it be within their own parameters?

[Joseph Antley]

But would it be within their own parameters?

Again, my guess would be that most would say it isn't. I am not familiar enough with the minute details of Catholic/Orthodox theology to say.

[Ambrose]

In the Catholic/Orthodox view of theosis, can a divinized human person participate with God in the creation of worlds?

From a Western Catholic standpoint, I would say no. Firstly, for the reason that in our tradition, "creation" means specifically productio totius substanti

[Tsuzuki]

From a Western Catholic standpoint, I would say no. Firstly, for the reason that in our tradition, "creation" means specifically productio totius substanti

[Ambrose]

How about in terms of organization and shaping, not ex nihilo.

Secondly, for the lack of evidence offered that other acts of creation will occur after the elect's ascension to Heaven.

I'm afraid that I'm having a hard time finding evidence from a Catholic perspective that any acts of creation will occur at the end of this time. Help me out here.

[John_Oaks]

I'm not a Catholic for starters, so I'm not speaking out of experience here, but I believe that to assist in the creation of THIS world require a pre-existence, which I don't believe is a Catholic doctrine.

-John

[Tsuzuki]

I'm afraid that I'm having a hard time finding evidence from a Catholic perspective that any acts of creation will occur at the end of this time. Help me out here.

Which definition of creation are you using? Even if no further acts of ex nihilo creation occur, that still leaves acts of organization and shaping open, does it not? Can a divinized human person participate with God in the organization and shaping of worlds?

[Ambrose]

Which definition of creation are you using? Even if no further acts of ex nihilo creation occur, that still leaves acts of organization and shaping open, does it not? Can a divinized human person participate with God in the organization and shaping of worlds?

As little as I understand what the Church teaches, I would not be comfortable saying that She instructs us that acts of organization or shaping will occur at the end of times. Can you help me out by pointing me to a source for this idea?

EDIT: The Catechism makes an interesting point " . . . the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject . . . " (CCC 290).

[Tsuzuki]

As little as I understand what the Church teaches, I would not be comfortable saying that She instructs us that acts of organization or shaping will occur at the end of times. Can you help me out by pointing me to a source for this idea?

My question wasn't if such were the case, but if such were possible.

[Ambrose]

Check the update of that last post.

[Tsuzuki]

Check the update of that last post.

Forget about the word, "create". It was a poor choice on my part for conveying what I mean.

[Ambrose]

Then if all you mean is: Will the Saints be able to shape reality or alter it upon deification? I find the closest answer to be a resounding no.

The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.

Remember that in the Catholic understanding of theosis, we are not made gods individually, but as a Church, and as a whole. More, when the time comes for the pilgrim Church to return to Her source, the Universe will also be perfected. I do not see much that a Saint could do to improve upon or change perfection.

[LeSellers]

The Catechism makes an interesting point " . . . the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject . . . " (CCC 290).

That's nice.

Nice, but wrong.

Bara has many subjects besides God: Josh 17:15, 18; 1 Sam 2:29; Eze 21:19, 23:47.

Moreover, it does not always mean "create". It is translated "make fat", dispatch", "cut down", "choose".

Finally, the context of Gen 1:1 makes creatio ex nihil extremely unlikely. It explicitly says that there was matter ("without form and void") before the Creation.

Lehi

[Ambrose]

That's nice.

Nice, but wrong.

Bara has many subjects besides God: Josh 17:15, 18; 1 Sam 2:29; Eze 21:19, 23:47.

Moreover, it does not always mean "create". It is translated "make fat", dispatch", "cut down", "choose".

Finally, the context of Gen 1:1 makes creatio ex nihil extremely unlikely. It explicitly says that there was matter ("without form and void") before the Creation.

Lehi

Thanks for the correction of the Catechism. I'll be sure to write a letter to the Vatican ASAP. :-P

More importantly, I think that we are all aware that Genesis was probably written without the understanding of creatio ex nihil, but this was not meant to be a defense of the Catholic understanding of creation, rather will creating persist after the final judgment in Catholic Theology. Thus, even if the Catechism teaches wrongly (that is not at issue), we posit what the Catechism teaches as evidence of whether or not the Catholic understanding permits what Tzusuki asks of it.

Although, for your side note, there is a neat comparison between the language of Genesis ("without form and void"), and the language of Democritus in describing the movement of an atom as requiring a void to move about in.

[Tsuzuki]

Thus, even if the Catechism teaches wrongly (that is not at issue), we posit what the Catechism teaches as evidence of whether or not the Catholic understanding permits what Tzusuki asks of it.

So far as I can tell, the Catechism is either silent on the issue or ambiguous.

Although, for your side note, there is a neat comparison between the language of Genesis ("without form and void"), and the language of Democritus in describing the movement of an atom as requiring a void to move about in.

Or the language of Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr describing the atom itself as mostly void.

[Ambrose]

So far as I can tell, the Catechism is either silent on the issue or ambiguous.

I do not mean to sound heretical here, but that seems to be the way of the Catechism on all things: ambiguity. I'll try to devote some time to your question when I wake up. I have a feeling that St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine will have some things to say on the issue. :-)

[Tsuzuki]

I do not mean to sound heretical here, but that seems to be the way of the Catechism on all things: ambiguity.

I thrive on ambiguity.

I'll try to devote some time to your question when I wake up. I have a feeling that St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine will have some things to say on the issue. :-)

Looking forward to it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Traditional Catholic theology presumed there was only one world, this one, that was the center of the Cosmos. Thus, it wouldn't make sense for deified humans to think about participating in "creating" another world, since this one was the only one in the cosmos, and indeed, this world is the entire cosmos.

[Tsuzuki]

Traditional Catholic theology presumed there was only one world, this one, that was the center of the Cosmos. Thus, it wouldn't make sense for deified humans to think about participating in "creating" another world, since this one was the only one in the cosmos, and indeed, this world is the entire cosmos.

Yet the Catholic Church now accepts the possibility of life on other planets, which opens up new avenues of participation for deified humans past and present.

[LeSellers]

Thanks for the correction of the Catechism. I'll be sure to write a letter to the Vatican ASAP. :-P

I doubt it.

For what it's worth, the LDS edition of the AV says essentially the same thing:

HEB shaped, fashioned, created; always divine activity; see Abr. 4: 1, organized, formed.

we are all aware that Genesis was probably written without the understanding of creatio ex nihil

...

Although, for your side note, there is a neat comparison between the language of Genesis ("without form and void"), and the language of Democritus in describing the movement of an atom as requiring a void to move about in.

Creatio ex nihil is untenable from the scriptures, even limited to the Bible. However, whether Democtritus or any other Greek philosopher (their "natural scientists") would agree with either side of the debate is pointless. They did not have the requisite revelation to know what happened during the Creation.

Lehi