BECOMING THEORIA IN JOHN CASSIAN

A Paper Presented at the 45th Patristics, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies Conference,

Villanova University

Presented By

Andrew Nichols

October 17th, 2020

 Nichols, 2

It has long been noted that lifestyle and prayer are inseparable. We pray as well as we

live, and we live as well as we pray. The desert father John Cassian pushes this further by saying

that prayer is not only something done but is something someone becomes. In what follows, I

will summarize what Cassian means by prayer. I will explain Cassian’s method of attaining

theoria so that Christ—through prayer—might be “all in all” in the life of the believer. It is in

this prayerful union that deification in Cassian is best understood: a union of ceaseless prayer in

which all that one does and is can be called prayer. Finally, I will show that in this union, even

though Cassian does not use the term, deification is most clearly seen. This paper aims at

demonstrating that in John Cassian theoria is deification. While there have been some brief

discussions on deification in Cassian, as far as I am aware, this understanding of Cassian and

theoria has previously not been articulated.1 For this paper, relevant original sources outside of

Cassian—though useful in their own right—will only be mentioned insofar as they bring clarity

to what Cassian is saying.

1
Most notable is that of Augustine Casiday, “Deification in Origen, Evagrius, and Cassian” Origeniana
Octova (2003), 995-1001. William Harmless, Desert Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early
Monasticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 398 makes a passing comment that in Cassian deification is
the unity described in Conferences 10.7.2., but he does not connect it with theoria nor discuss the nature of this
union. John Levko, more than any other scholar, has written extensively on John Cassian’s view of prayer and
deification. While he is correct in saying that prayer brings a “force of deification” he does not connect it with
theoria. See John Levko, Cassian’s Prayer for the Twenty-First Century (Scranton: University of Scranton
Press, 2000), 63 for this phrase and his most mature thought on the idea. Levko’s work furthermore does not clearly
distinguish between contemplation and theoria. There has also been a recent MA thesis that discussion the
connection of prayer and deification, but it only mentions theoria once and this in a quotation of Cassian. See
Christiana Beu, “Deification in Cassian’s Conferences: Analysis on John Cassian’s Writings on Unceasing Prayer in
Conferences Nine and Ten as a Description of Deification” (master’s thesis, Providence College, 2015), see
especially 61 for the use of theoria. The issue that I take with all of these works is the lack of connection of
deification with theoria.
 Nichols, 3

Types of Prayer and Theoria

From a literary standpoint, the first part of Cassian’s Conferences, books I-X, stand

independently.2 Cassian prefaces the conferences of abba Isaiah (Conf. 9) by apologizing that the

work is already longer than he intended, indicating that he viewed his goal in writing to be

completed after discussing prayer.3 It is in these last two books of the first part where the real

climax of the Conferences takes place—with a discussion on prayer. While it may be tempting to

rush to the descriptions of prayer provided in these last books, what Cassian says in the first book

about the aim and goal of prayer is foundational in understanding anything Cassian writes.

Prayer, for Cassian, is the end of every monk and the goal of acquiring virtues. From the

beginning of his Conferences, he reminds his readers—through writing what abba Moses said—

that all ascetical struggle is a mere tool for attaining the highest good—theoria, which Cassian

repeatedly defines as contemplation of God.4 Here he uses the phrase sola theoria which I

suggest to be the single most unifying theme of all of Cassian’s ascetical writings. The goal in

Cassian is not to practice asceticism, uproot vice, nor even to acquire virtues—the goal is to use

these necessary steps to attain an unceasing theoria.

Cassian—though putting the words in Isaiah’s mouth—quotes 1 Timothy 2 arguing for

four types of prayer; supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving. 5 Thanksgiving, the

only of the four types of prayer that is without words, remains the highest category of prayer.

Though he believed that all of the categories could be used simultaneously, he makes it clear that

2
As is reflected in the manuscript tradition, this is not to say that the rest of the Conferences are to be seen
as a different work. When Cassian wrote the second and third part, he did so fully knowing what he had outlined in
the abbas of Skete in the first part.
3
Cassian, Conferences, 9.1.1. (SC 54:72) I have followed Boniface Ramsey’s translation of Cassian in this
paper while making note of important Latin phrases.
4
Cassian. Conf., 1.8.3.
5
Cassian, Conf., 9.9.1. Origen, On Prayer, 14.2 (GCS 3:330-3) was the first Christian author to make use
of these four categories as types of prayer.
 Nichols, 4

beginners start with supplication and make progress towards higher prayers.6 Columba Stewart

summarizes this point best saying “the theme is always progress: and with progress comes

change in prayer.”7 To say this foundational point in Cassian another way, prayer is both the

method and the goal. Cassian believed that to the extent someone progressed they would also

consider themselves to be further from where they should be.8 The more one progresses, the

more one realizes they are far from perfection.

What it means to start and stop a prayer is not always clear. If thanksgiving is wordless,

then it follows that a prayer does not start when words are used. Progress in prayer is not only in

the discovery of new words to say, but in the stance one’s heart takes. One “does not know how

to pray as they ought” (Romans 8:26) is a reality for Cassian not because someone lacks the

knowledge of what words to say, but because the groans that the Spirit helps with are too deep

for words. People not only lack the knowledge of what to pray for, but even how to pray it.

I noted above that Cassian defined theoria as contemplation of God.9 Though this simple

definition is foundational in understanding theoria, the term remains purposefully undefined. He

believed it was “great blasphemy” to ascribe bodily parts to God in a literal fashion and

advocated that scriptural language is often spoken of in ways that human frailty can

understand.10 Therefore when Cassian speaks of contemplation of God, he frequently uses

6
Cassian, Conf., 9.15.1, “The first kind seems to pertain more especially to beginners who are still being
harassed by their vices.”
7
Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk (New York: Oxford, 1997), 108.
8
Cassian, Conf., 23.19.3.
9
Cassian did not believe that all contemplation is theoria. All theoria is contemplation, that is, a focusing,
but not all contemplation is theoria. In Conf. 10.10.1, the one place where he uses both words in the same sentence,
contemplation is understood more as a focus. This understanding of contemplation was fairly universal outside of
Cassian as well. Theoria is therefore a specific type of focusing on God. See Lewis and Short, 445. There is need for
a project to explore theoria before Cassian’s use of the term. Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, etc. all make use of it, though
differently than Cassian and therefore not directly relevant to our purposes.
10
Cassian, Institutes, 8.4.1. (SC 109:340). Bulgakov’s comment here is helpful “All properties, all words,
all qualities, all thoughts borrowed from this world, no matter how we might potentiate and strengthen them, are
absolutely unsuited for the description of that which stands beyond the limits of this world.” Sergius Bulgakov,
Unfading Light, [reprint edition] trans. Thomas Smith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 107.
 Nichols, 5

language that human frailty can comprehend. Theoria in this understanding must be understood

as something apophatic in practice. It is described most clearly not by what it is but by what it is

not; an “unspeakable ecstasy,” “imageless,” a “fiery prayer which can neither be seized nor

expressed by the mouth of man,” and most crucially, it is where the “spirit gazes” at God.11

Though unspeakable and wordless theoria is still spoken, though imageless God is still seen,

though inexpressible it nonetheless is described, but beyond human frailty theoria is, by nature,

something experienced.

Cassian believed that it was the eyes of the heart, which he believed to be in no way

inferior to those of the flesh, that the soul gazes at God’s light.12 It follows that if theoria is the

contemplation of God, and if God is ineffable, then theoria itself is ineffable. The difficulty of

describing theoria is directly joined to the difficulty of describing God. While it remains helpful

to discuss what the unspeakable prayer is, it would devalue the reality of it if we believed we

could accurately and perfectly describe it. His description of the prayer as fiery in this

understanding is an attempt to grasp a reality that is beyond words. Here I turn to what I suggest

to be the best description of what theoria is in Cassian, that is, union with God.

Theoria as Union and Deification

Cassian calls the acquiring of virtue and the removal of vice practical knowledge and the

knowledge of heavenly realities theoretical knowledge.13 He explains that the theoretical cannot

be gained without first removing vice and acquiring virtue and that the higher step of theoria is

impossible without first taking the steps of the practical. In describing this reality Cassian

11
Cassian, Conf., 9.15.1. See also Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 170 for a list of the expressions Cassian uses
with seeing.
12
On this point Origen is especially helpful “For there are eyes within us that are better than those that we
have in the body.” Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel, 1.3.4. translation follows Thomas Scheck.
13
Cassian, Conf., 14.3.1. Evagrius, Praktikos 71, “The practical life is the spiritual method for purifying the
passionate part of the soul.” Whereas Cassian is more descriptive of what each step looks like, Evagrius is more
descriptive in outlining—often in great detail---what the steps are.
 Nichols, 6

compares the mind’s journey to God as a feather ascending that is weighed down by any vice

that is not removed.14 Of all the damage that vice can cause, the greatest is the weighing down of

prayers, the blinding the eyes of the heart, and, ultimately, the prevention of the chief good—

theoria. For what greater harm can be done than the prevention of the greatest good? To combat

the weighing down from vices and the constant assault of distraction, Cassian was told to

constantly focus on Psalm 69:2 (LXX) where the Psalmist asks for God to come to his assistance

and be quick to help him.

The language of union with God saturates Cassian’s works.15 Most importantly for our

purposes is that, for Cassian, vice alone is to be considered bad because it separates us from God

(Deo separans) and joins us with the devil (diabolo copulari).16 If theoria is the goal of virtue,

and virtue joins one with God, then it follows the union and theoria are closely connected. In this

sense, the benefit of acquiring the virtues—the latter process of the practical—is the separation

from the devil and the joining with God. Theoretical knowledge in Cassian, therefore, assumes

union with God. This knowledge is not possibly learned by memorizing and repeating a

particular teaching, but by the uprooting of vice and acquiring virtue. In this sense virtue is

knowledge and vice is ignorance.

14
Cassian, Conf., 9.3.3. See also Augustine Casiday, Tradition and Theology in John Cassian (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007), 183. Maximus the Confessor likewise says that the person devoted to theoria is
“weighed down” by growing lax concerning the vision of God. See Maximus the Confessor, Amb. 6.5. See also
Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 14.7 (PG 35:865) to see the text Maximus is discussing.
15
This point has been long been noted by scholars. Most notably is that of John Levko, Cassian’s Prayer,
especially 5. While Levko does not connect theoria with deification, he is here a significant step in the right
direction.
16
Cassian, Conf. 6.3.1. Here Cassian makes use of the same stoic categories that Origen uses; the good, the
bad, and the middle. See Origen, On First Principles, 3.1.18. While Cassian is clearly not the first to use these
categories, his description of joining with God or the devil is a step away from the stoic use of these terms. For a
discussion on Cassian’s use of these terms see Andrew Nichols, “Divine Medicine: Trial According to John
Cassian,” Stone-Campbell Journal 23 (Spring, 2020), 35-45.
 Nichols, 7

Cassian’s use of God being “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28) offers a helpful summary of

these points and all that Cassian hoped to achieve in his writings and, more importantly to our

purposes, what he thought happens in the union of theoria. In the Institutes Cassian warns—via a

saying of Antony—that virtues should be acquired through a community by imitating the virtue

that each one has perfected.17 In this communal use of the phrase “all in all” Cassian understands

that when the members are assembled Christ appears as the “perfect man” (in uirum perfectum).

For Cassian, the essence of virtue is Christ and therefore the assembly of the saints with these

virtues is the appearance of Christ, the perfect man. As Maximus the Confessor would later say,

“Christ becomes incarnated through the virtues.”18 Christ is all in all in that the end of all virtue

is present in the community.

What Cassian applies to the community he also applies to the individual in the

Conferences. Cassian states that there comes a point in the progression of prayer where one’s

very life becomes one continuous prayer—so united with God that God is all in all. Here it is

worth quoting Cassian at length,

“When every love, every desire, every effort, every undertaking, every thought of ours,
everything that we live, that we speak, that we breathe, will be God….so united with him
that whatever we breathe, whatever we understand, whatever we speak, may be God…
This, I say is the end of all perfection—that the mind purged of every carnal desire may
daily be elevated to spiritual things, until one’s whole way of life and all the yearnings of
one’s heart become a single and continuous prayer.”19

Here we see prayer not as something done, but as something someone becomes. When union

with God through theoria is achieved, God is everything. This “hauntingly rhythmic”20

17
Cassian, Inst., 5.4.1-4. (SC 109:196)
18
Maximus the Confessor, Amb. Th. Pro., 2. Translation follows Maximos Constas.
19
Cassian, Conf. 10.7.1-2. “cum omnis amor, omne desiderium, omne studium, omnis conatus, omnis
cogitatio nostra, omne quod vivimus, quod loquimur, quod spiramus, deus erit…ita scilicet eidem copulati, ut
quidquid spiramus, quidquid intellegimus, quidquid loquimur, deus sit. Hic, inquam, finis totius perfectionis est, ut
eo usque extenuate mens ab omni situ carnali ad spiritalia cotidie sublimetur, donec omnis eius conuersatio, omnis
uolutatio cordis una et iugis effciatur oratio.”
20
Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 98.
 Nichols, 8

description—which is strongly reminiscent of Origen’s understanding of “all in all”21—is the

culmination of what Cassian hoped to achieve and what he wanted others to know was

achievable. In one sense prayer, for Cassian, is not always a verb but is sometimes an adjective,

describing the believer who has become united with God.22 Prayer becomes the method, goal,

and status of the individual who desires to become united with God.

It is crucial to realize that when Cassian says the end of perfection is becoming prayer, he

is connecting this to theoria which he previously described as the goal of the monk. It is in this

prayer of union that the concepts of the kingdom of God, purity of heart, theoria, and God being

“all in all,” are most clearly fleshed out in Cassian.

Deification Terminology in John Cassian

Since the terms theosis and deification do not appear in Cassian, we face the danger of

projecting our modern categories on to those who did not use the terms. There has been

considerable work done on deification in recent years, most notably the monograph by Norman

Russell on deification in the Greek fathers. In his examination of the Latin fathers in the same

work, he makes it clear, however, that Cassian is one of the fathers he does not discuss, pointing

to the work done by Casiday on the subject.23

In Augustine Casiday’s work on deification in Cassian—expertly done, but devoting only

a page to Cassian himself—he defines deification as “that transformation of human persons

21
Origen, On First Principles, 3.6.3. “I reckon that this expression, where God is said to be all in all, also
means that he is all in each individual person. And he will be all in each individual in such a way that everything
which the rational mind, when cleansed from all the dregs of the vices and utterly swept clean of every cloud of
wickedness, can sense or understand or think will be all God; it will no longer sense anything else apart from God; it
will think God, see God, hold God; God will be the mode and measure of its every movement; and thus God will be
all of it.” Translation here follows John Behr.
22
In one of the descriptions of a monk experiencing theoria Cassian notes that he forgot to even eat. See
Cassian, Conf., 19.4.1.
23
Normal Russen, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004), 325.
 Nichols, 9

which results in the legitimate ascription to them of divine attributes and names.”24 He goes on to

suggest that Cassian’s clearest treatment of deification is in Cassian’s use of theodochus or “God

receiver.”25 While this is certainly a description true to Cassian’s understanding, the descriptions

of union with God through becoming prayer are where we see what receiving God looks like.

The brevity of the work done on this area in Cassian is reflective of the obvious, that is,

even though Cassian is fluent in Greek and Latin, he uses neither θέωσις nor deificatio. Alexey

Fakin points out that deificatio was not used until the ninth century.26 It is not the case that

Cassian omits a word that was being used, rather, the choice of his Latin and Greek reflects that

he pushed the limits of the languages of his day. In fact, Cassian’s use, and invention, of the

phrase sola theoria in Conf. 1.8.3. is the joining of Eastern and Western terminology, the

continuation of Greek theology, and a prime example of Cassian’s task as a writer. Columba

Stewart offers a study on Cassian’s use and translation of Greek terms, but, following the

consensus on Cassian and Evagrius, only examines theoria insofar as it connects with Evagrius,

and furthermore says that Cassian translates theoria as contemplation.27 This point should be

rejected not only because contemplation and theoria are used in the same sentence to mean

different things, but because Cassian explicitly calls theoria the contemplation of God—a more

pointed form of what contemplation is. Theoria is not just a focusing, but a focusing on God.

24
Augustine Casiday, “Deification in Origen, Evagrius, and Cassian,” 995. Levko’s work—noted above—
also provides a discussion on deification in Cassian, but not in the language of theosis described in this paper.
25
Casiday, “Deification in Origen, Evagrius, and Cassian,” 995. Here he is refering to Cassian’s use in
John Cassian, On the Incarnation, 5.3.1.
26
Alexey Fokin, "The Doctrine of Deification in Western Fathers of the Church: A Reconsideration," in
For Us and for Our Salvation – Soteriology in East and West Studientagung Esztergom, 3.–5. Oktober 2012, edit.
By Herausgegeben von Teresia Hainthaler, Franz Mali, Gregor Emmenegger und Mantė Lenkaitytė Ostermann
(Wien: Tyrolia Verlag, 2014), 207.
27
Columba Stewart, "From to verbum. John Cassian's Use of Greek in the Development of a Latin
Monastic Vocabulary." In The ]oy of Learning and the Love of God. Studies in Honor of Jean Leclercq, pp. 5-31.
Ed. E. Rozanne Elder (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1995), see especially 18-19.
 Nichols, 10

Any benefit in retrieving deification in Cassian will be found not in the retrieval of the

word, but in the retrieval of the content in which the word means to convey. With Cassian in

particular, we benefit from seeing that true contemplation of God is not something separate from

transformation. He believed that the entirety of the ascetic struggle was in pursuit of sola theoria.

Cassian prefaces his works by asking that his readers to “be on the lookout rather for the

truth of my words than for attractive language.”28 It follows that in our investigation of his works

we look for the reality of what is being said in favor of his use of particular words, which

admittedly is not a separate concept. While Cassian was not opposed to inserting occasional

Greek words, there existed no Latin equivalent to θέωσις. A Greek term that Cassian did insert,

however, was theoria. My point that theoria is deification in Cassian does not mean that Cassian

chose the word theoria as an equivalent to deification, rather, I am saying that the content of

Cassian’s use of word theoria matches the content of the word deification.

If theoria is to be taken as Cassian understood it, not just as something done but

something that involves a transformative union with God, then it can rightfully be said that

Cassian's use and explanation of theoria is a description of what deification is. Therefore, for

Cassian, theoria is deification. For if this prayer is described as being so united with God that

one’s life becomes a prayer while it becomes God, and if deification is to be understood as union

with God or becoming like God, then this prayer—theoria—is deification in John Cassian. The

theme of the Conferences, purity of heart for the sake of theoria, is done for the union with God

in theoria, which, I believe, makes the whole of the Conferences a guide to deification.29

28
Cassian, Inst., pref. 6. (SC 109:28)
29
Similarly, the Institutes, which concern themselves chiefly with the nature and remedies of the vices,
serve as a guide to practical knowledge while the theoretical knowledge is the chief concern with the Conferences.
 Nichols, 11

Conclusion

Deification in Cassian is complex. It is not fully describable because he believed it to be

union with something that is ineffable. However, his terminology and descriptions of theoria

should invite us to evaluate what we consider the later term deification to mean. The content of

what Cassian is saying is perhaps too frequently ignored in favor of those who use different

words to describe a similar reality. This paper serves as an attempt to reimagine what Cassian is

saying and the whole of deification in the Latin tradition in general.

Prayer is not something easily described in detail and indeed for Cassian the highest

prayers cannot be described. What mattered most to him was that one became prayer, which he

uses synonymously with becoming God through a union. While scholarship on deification in

Cassian needs further exploration, this paper has demonstrated that theoria is deification in

Cassian. Since preconceptions about what deification is are so easily entangled in investigations,

it is perhaps more helpful that Cassian uses different words to describe the same reality. The

brevity of this paper has not allowed us to explore all of the implications of this point, but I hope

that this concept can be used for further explorations into the topics of prayer and deification.

Ultimately for Cassian, it was more important for the reality of theoria to be achieved than

described, this suggests for us that theoria as deification is not something merely to be repeated

or even read in a paper, but, if it is to be benefited from, it is something that must be what we

seek to experience above all else, that is, a life lived in pursuit of sola theoria.