CCC 460 - how to explain it?

[ahs]

I was shown (by a non-Catholic) a snip from CCC 460 that says, “For the Son of Man became man so that we might become God” and “…so that He, made man, might make men gods.”

I’d like to see a good explanation of this paragraph, because my answer only provided some context and background…but didn’t fully address the concern.

Here is the full quote of CCC 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.”

Here is what I said: So, the proper citation is CCC 460. The context of CCC 460 is clear in its opening:

"The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: [78] “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.” [79]

[78] refers is to 2Pet 1:4 which says, “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” (2Pet 1:4)

[79] refers us to St. Irenaeus’ “Adversus Haereses” 3,19,1: PG 7/1, 939. (from which the quote comes).

That sets the stage for the meaning of the words you find troublesome: “For the Son of Man became man so that we might become God…”[80] and “…so that He, made man, might make men gods.” [81]

[80] and [81] then refer us to St. Athenasius (Dei inc., 54,3: PG 25, 192B) and St. Thomas Aquinas (Opusc. 57:1-4) for the context these statements are made. Have you by chance read these to get the fuller context? I have not…so I will assume that these statements fit within the context of the immediately preceding words…meaning that God has made possible the bringing of us into communion with Him…to make us sons of Him by the Incarnation (the taking-on of flesh by God).

 

[DavidFilmer]

Anyone can take a sentence, remove parts, rearrange parts, and insert parts to come up with something completely different.

But that’s pretty blatant. It’s not like it’s hard to verify what the CCC actually says. But I bet this person was given this “snip” and never even considered that it had been adulterated; he just accepted it at face value.

Sheesh.

Good Job, ahs!

 

[ahs]

So it’s really just as simple/plain as that?! I figured there’d be some deep explanation about the style that Athenasius and Aquinas wrote in, etc… (I have not read any of Athenasius, and very little of Aquinas.)

I did ask the guy if he had deliberately misrepresented the Catholic teaching, or if he had simply missed the immediately preceding text within that same short paragraph.

 

[ahs]

I did a forum search…turns out this is a popular topic!

Here’s a link that I found really helpful:
cuf.org/2006/01/so-that-we-might-become-god-understanding-catechism-no-460/

 

[fhansen]

So it’s really just as simple/plain as that?! I figured there’d be some deep explanation about the style that Athenasius and Aquinas wrote in, etc… (I have not read any of Athenasius, and very little of Aquinas.)

I did ask the guy if he had deliberately misrepresented the Catholic teaching, or if he had simply missed the immediately preceding text within that same short paragraph.

I don’t understand the problem. The CC teaches theosis. That’s always been God’s plan for man:

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I was shown (by a non-Catholic) a snip from CCC 460 that says, “For the Son of Man became man so that we might become God” and “…so that He, made man, might make men gods.”

I’m glad you brought that up because some people have taken it literally. We will never " become God., " we will never be " gods. " That is what Mormans believe.

It would have been better if the CCC had not used such quotes and references.

The instructor I had for the CCC actually made the same statement without needed elaboration and I just gritted my teeth because he gave no time for questions.

It is sad that it is possible to get the wrong idea from such statements. Makes one wonder what some people use for brains!

To conclude, to become adopted Sons and Daughters simply means that that the Holy Spirit will dwell in us with the fullness of Grace appropriate to our " merits. " We will never be God, nor even a part of God. We will not become " gods. " Period!!!

LInus2nd

 

[Vouthon]

I see no problem at all with this Catechism re-statement of what is a traditional - nay fundamental - dogma of Catholic spirituality, taught by all the Church Fathers.

So long as one understands that union does not involve a merging of essences and removes the consciousness but not the ontological reality of distinction between God and man, then one should not “dilute” the faith out of fear for misinterpretation. The soul becomes God by grace not by nature - this is the consistent teaching of the Fathers, scholastics, theologians and mystics of our most holy religion. We should not change their language simply because we fear it might be misunderstood and so opt for a blander, less spiritually-fulfilling term.

Just as when air is penetrated by sunrays it seems to absorb the light but is not itself the sun, this deification - or “theosis” - does not mean that we become the sun (God) but that we acquire its clarity. In the unitive state the mystic becomes aware only of God, just as when blinded by sunlight we can only see light and all differentiation of forms vanishes beneath its overpowering rays. Everything seems to disappear but the sun is still there and remains distinct from the air, just as God remains distinct from us even though we feel like there is no difference between Him and our soul.

That is what this passage means when it says that we “become God” not ontologically but psychologically, in spirit, in conjoined wills, in love, in mutual self-giving, in consciousness. We do not lose our human creaturehood, rather we find it enhanced, perfected - like unto the perfect humanity of Christ as it should be and was intended to be the beginning before the Fall. Our soul is transparent: freed from the rust of sin, self, disturbing thoughts and images.

What we need is better teachers who can properly explain and explicate this teaching. There is nothing wrong with it in itself, any indication of such an opinion smacks to me of anti-mysticism.

How could there ever be anything “wrong” with the Catechism quoting a central dogma of the Catholic faith spoken of in the Bilbe that we become through grace “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter) that is the divine life of the Trinity?

 

[LivingWaters7]

It would have been better if the CCC had not used such quotes and references.

LInus2nd

Why? Are they not quotes from ECFs? Deification/Theosis clearly is part of Catholic doctrine, and has been taught since the beginning of the Church (and receives particular emphasis in the East). Perhaps there should have been more explanation on what the quotes mean, but I don’t see how it would have been better if the CCC didn’t use those ECF quotes on an apostolic teaching.