Catechism Questions

[Charolettestar]

Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

 

[johnnyc176]

Here are a couple of links that may help.

agapebiblestudy.com/documents/St.%20Thomas%20Aquinas%20on%20the%20Feast%20of%20Corpus%20Christi.htm

philvaz.com/apologetics/a124.htm

 

[PJM]

=Charolettestar;10539499]Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

Here from Haydock’s Catholic commentary is the explaination:

Ver. 34. This is addressed to princes established to govern the people of God. They are the image of God on earth by the authority they exercise, and which they have received from Him. — Is it not written in your law, (under which were also comprehended the Psalms) I have said: you are Gods? &c. Christ here stops the mouths of the Jews, by an argument which they could not answer, that sometimes they were called Gods, who acted by God’s authority. I have said: you are Gods. (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) But then he immediately declares, that it is not in this sense only that he is God. 1st, Because he has been sanctified by the Father, which St. Augustine and others understand of that infinite sanctification, which he has necessarily by always proceeding from the Father. Others expound it of a greater sanctity and fulness of grace above all other saints, given to him, even as he was man

WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

God Bless,
pat/ PJM here on this Forum

 

[Charolettestar]

Ok so this was addressed to someone in authority already over the church? Then because they are in the in the likeness if Christ he means we are of his god like nature if we are reading 460 as a whole. Am I missing the mark?

 

[fred_conty]

Ok so this was addressed to someone in authority already over the church? Then because they are in the in the likeness if Christ he means we are of his god like nature if we are reading 460 as a whole. Am I missing the mark?

It is thru baptism that we become children of God.
But baptism does this because Jesus redeemed us making this possible.
As St. Paul said, “Abba, Father”.
We can now call God our Father.

 

[JM3]

CCC 460…"The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

Aquinas can be hard to understand, as St. Peter said of St. Paul.

Perhaps this will help.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc_committ_euchar_doc_20041010_turkson-catechisis-youth_en.html

 

[PJM]

=Charolettestar;10540145]Ok so this was addressed to someone in authority already over the church? Then because they are in the in the likeness if Christ he means we are of his god like nature if we are reading 460 as a whole. Am I missing the mark?

Well yes; sort of.

He is saying that BUT also pointing out the leaders emulate God ALSO because they ARE to be listend too and followed.

Romans 13: 1-4 “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Acts.20: 28 “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

Romans 13: 2 “Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

It would seem that today’s similar problem is not new at all.

 

[Nita]

Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

It is to be understood so that it is in conformity to the Scripture passage it is refering to - 2 Peter 1:4 (which is cited in the opening sentence of paragraph #460). We have a “share” in the Divine nature; but that does not mean we no longer retain our human nature becoming totally a god.

I don’t mean to equate it with the Incarnation, but if it helps, look at some parallels with that event. Jesus assumed our human nature, but He also retained His Divine Nature. He was never just a man. And above all His Person was always a Divine Person – Second Person of the Trinity; He never became a human “Person”. We will be granted a “participation” in the divine nature (receive divine/god like qualities) but we will always retain our human nature. And above all, our “person” will always be a human person.
460 The Word became flesh to make us ***“partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

***2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

 

[Nita]

It is to be understood so that it is in conformity to the Scripture passage it is refering to - 2 Peter 1:4 (which is cited in the opening sentence of paragraph #460). We have a “share” in the Divine nature; but that does not mean we no longer retain our human nature becoming totally a god.

I don’t mean to equate it with the Incarnation, but if it helps, look at some parallels with that event. Jesus assumed our human nature, but He also retained His Divine Nature. He was never just a man. And above all His Person was always a Divine Person – Second Person of the Trinity; He never became a human “Person”. We will be granted a “participation” in the divine nature (receive divine/god like qualities) but we will always retain our human nature. And above all, our “person” will always be a human person.
460 The Word became flesh to make us ***“partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

***2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

I was too late to edit, but wanted to add to the above that there is another major difference between Our Lord’s Incarnation and our partaking of the divine nature and that is that Jesus assumed the totality of a human nature (humanity) whereas we will receive a “share” in the divine nature, but not the totality.

 

[fhansen]

Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

Here’s another one:

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

Man will always be a created being, dependent upon God for his existence, but man was made in God’s image; the very model for man is God. So God’s intention from the very beginning was for man to be a partaker of His own nature-but only to the extent that we’re willing-the greater our willingness to align ourselves with His will, the closer we are to true godliness. And this can only happen as we come to recognize who He really is, with the result that we increasingly come to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves-because love is the primary defining attribute of God’s essence. We are more than mere exercises in super-complex design and construction techniques wrought by an awesomely intelligent creator; we’re actually emanations/expressions of God, to the degree that we’re turned from sin and turned towards Him.

 

[Third_Day]

Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

460 is quoting from the bible "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion and become partakers of the divine nature." 2 Peter 1:3-4​

In heaven we will partake in God’s divine nature, thus we will be “gods.”

We will not be a “God” like the One God but we will share in His divinity. That is all it is saying.

 

[grannymh]

460 is quoting from the bible "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion and become partakers of the divine nature." 2 Peter 1:3-4​

In heaven we will partake in God’s divine nature, thus we will be “gods.”

We will not be a “God” like the One God but we will share in His divinity. That is all it is saying.

We do not have to wait for heaven to share in God’s divine life.

Check out the teachings of Catholicism on the Sacrament of Baptism.

 

[Goya]

Hi everyone, I really was happy to find this website. I have so many questions.

My first question: In the catechism under #460, I agree with everything except the last part of the paragraph.
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to makes us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Agree with everything except might make men gods. Can someone explain it in lay terms?

I remember looking into this several years ago; I don’t have the sources which I relied on available, but here is what I remember—the passage is actually a clumsy rememnant of translation from the original Greek, in which the word used for ‘gods’, simply meant immortal. Hence by partaking in the divinity of Christ, our souls may attain immortality, and thus be as ‘gods’–but not as God, in that we do not partake of His omnipotence.

Here is the closest I could find towards that point (note: the footnote to section 460 refers to St. Athanasius):

Athanasius’s Doctrine of Divinization

The Word was made man so ***that we might be made God'' ***(De Inc 54.3; Robertson 65). What did Athanasius mean when ***he used the word theopoie_? Literally, this word means to make God’’ or, more politely, to make divine.''*** Can humans be made God? Even though the Arian controversy was, at a fundamental level, about whether a spirit being could be made divine, Athanasius used the word theopoie_ casually, seemingly with little thought for the potential it had to contradict his main argument. If mortal humans can be made God, why couldn't the Word himself be made a God? For Arius, Jesus…becomes God only in the way that every saint may be deified’’ (Rusch 17).

Despite the potential for confused concepts, Athanasius did not take time or space to explain what his word theopoie_ meant. He took it for granted that his readers knew what he meant and agreed with this doctrine. The Arians must have agreed with it, because Athanasius could use it as the starting point for an argument: For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God'' (Orat 2.70; Robertson 386). If, by a partakability of the Spirit we shall become partakers of the divine nature, it would be madness then afterwards to call the Spirit an originated entity, and not of God; for on account of this also those who are in him are made divine. But then if he makes man divine, it is not dubious to say his nature is of God’’ (Ad Serap 1.24; Egan 161-162).

Background of Athanasius’s doctrine

Athanasius could use this concept because it was part of his cultural background. The Greek moralists and ancient mysteries taught that a person may be deified by contemplating the eternal and eliminating the sensuous (Harnack 2:10, 337). Since the Greeks considered some of their ``gods’’ to be of human origin, it was not strange to think of a theopoi_sis. Platonists, Stoics, and Cynics all spoke of something divine within humans (ibid., 1:119). Plotinus taught that purification led to deification (González 349).

Since many early Christians were influenced by Plotinus and NeoPlatonism, divinization found its way into Christianity with the support of Psalm 86:6 and 2 Peter 1:4. This was aided by the elasticity of the concept `theos' '' (Harnack 1:119***) --- Origen could speak of many supernatural theoi (Rusch 15). The term theopoie_ was simply not well defined. Divinization was never adequately defined in the creeds and dogmas of the church’’ (Pelikan 2:34). Clarification of the term `deification' had to await the resolution of the conflict over the deity of Christ'' (ibid. 1:155).20 ***The concept did not really mean anything, for it was impossible to understand it in any serious sense’’ (Harnack 4:290).

…

Despite its vagueness, the concept was widely known and used and believed. The definition of the salvation of man as his deification was a standard element of Eastern theology'' (Pelikan 2:46). After Theophilus, Ireneæus, Hippolytus, and Origen, it is found in all the Fathers of the ancient Church’’ (Harnack 3:164 note 2, which also cites passages from Ephraem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Apollonarius, Macarius, Pseudo-hippolytus, Dionysus the Areopagite, Sophronius, Leo of Russia, and Gennadius. Lampe (631) includes most of the above and Maxentius, Basil, Cyril, and Epiphanius.

Athanasius was working with a widespread but loosely-defined tradition with roots in preChristian philosophy. Irenaeus mentioned the concept several times, with only brief explanation (evidence that he assumed that his readers would be familiar with the term). He noted that Christians could be called God: There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption'' ***(Against Heresies, book IV, preface, section 4; AnteNicene Fathers 1:463). ***We are human in the beginning, but at length gods’’ (IV 38.4; ANF 1:522). We are raised up ``to the life of God’’ (V 9.2; ANF 1:535).

In Alexandria, Clement wrote, ``the Logos of God had become man so that you might learn from a man how a man may become God’’ (Prot 1.8.4; Pelikan 1:155)…

…

angelfire.com/md/mdmorrison/hist/DIVINIZ.html