Yes.It says man becomes God or does it say man is a participant in the divine nature?
While the aphorism of Athanasius is certainly subject to misinterpretation, the theology of the EOC and CC is very clear on the ontological distinction between Creator and creature; the idea of divinization is carefully defined to safeguard that distinction.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.”
Come on Sidbrown, I already posted what the Catechism says. I will post it again.It says man becomes God or does it say man is a participant in the divine nature?
To simplify my last post: it says both.It says man becomes God or does it say man is a participant in the divine nature?
But you now have raised another question, on my part. Does the Orthodox Church believe in infallibility as you describe above? And, does it include an active acceptance by the laity? If so can you provide some examples of infallible decisions that were accepted and links, so I could read up on them?
I agree that a man can participate in the Divine Nature.Come on Sidbrown, I already posted what the Catechism says. I will post it again.
"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."
2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts.”"
The part that you say “Monica says” is right in the Catechism, and is a quote from St. Athanasius, in his work “On the Incarnation of the Word”, which you can read on New Advent. Neither the Catechism/Catholics, Monica, nor Orthodox believe that there will be “millions of Gods”.
“Partaking of the divine nature”, man becoming “a son of God”, “the Son of God became man so that we might become God”, and the Son of God assuming our nature so that “he, made man, might make men gods” are all referring to the same thing (theosis), and are all directly from the Catechism. If you are criticizing Monica and/or Orthodoxy (which I hope you are not) for “God became man so that man might become God”, you also have to criticize the Catholic Church and Athanasius, since the Catechism says the same thing.
Did you read the OrthodoxWiki article yet?
If the Orthodox Church is infallible, why is there lack of agreement on the issue of artificial birth control?Yes the Holy Spirit causes the Orthodox Church to be Infallible.
Participating in the Divine Nature is man becoming God. :doh2:I agree that a man can participate in the Divine Nature.
I disagree that a man can become God, regardless of who said it.
It would setup a contradiction if a man became God. For example, if President Truman became God, then He would say that it was morally justified to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. But if Emperor Hirohito became God, He would say no it was not justified. So, supposing both became God, then you would have a very serious contradiction, just in this one example. So, no. I do not think that any man can become God.
If the Orthodox Church is infallible, why is there lack of agreement on the issue of artificial birth control?
If you mean participate in the Divine Nature, I can agree with that. I don’t think I can agree with the appropriateness of the terminology of saying a man becomes God, because of the obvious contradictions that I have mentioned.Participating in the Divine Nature is man becoming God. :doh2:
Uh what? None of this makes any sense in the context of theosis. Please read the OrthodoxWiki article. Your hypothetical is a gross misunderstanding of theosis. “Becoming God” does not mean what you think it does. Again, read the Wikipedia article and the OrthodoxWiki article to get the basics of theosis.
So you disagree with a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church (found in the Catechism). okay.
The terminology is correct and appropriate if we understand what is meant by it. Since the Catholic Church says that the terminology of “man becoming God” is okay (since it’s right there in the Catechism), then I’ll go with the Church.If you mean participate in the Divine Nature, I can agree with that. I don’t think I can agree with the appropriateness of the terminology of saying a man becomes God, because of the obvious contradictions that I have mentioned.
This is not a problem at all. The idea is not that we suddenly and without change possess the powers of God. The idea is that we* change*, and we become as God in our love and mercy and justice, etc… If Truman and Hirohito were sufficiently advanced in their theosis, we wouldn’t have been talking about dropping bombs.I agree that a man can participate in the Divine Nature.
I disagree that a man can become God, regardless of who said it.
It would setup a contradiction if a man became God. For example, if President Truman became God, then He would say that it was morally justified to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. But if Emperor Hirohito became God, He would say no it was not justified. So, supposing both became God, then you would have a very serious contradiction, just in this one example. So, no. I do not think that any man can become God.
Great book.Yes the Holy Spirit causes the Orthodox Church to be Infallible. Infallible decisions are recorded in the 7 Ecumenical Councils held between the 4th and 8th Centuries.
I don’t know of an internet link to them, but you can read them in a Catholic work called: The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology written by Catholic Historian Leo Donald Davis by The Liturgical Press out of Collegeville, Minnesota ISBN # 0-8146-5616-1
Maybe because the Orthodox Church has never definitively ruled on artificial birth control, because it is not of the essence of the Faith.If the Orthodox Church is infallible, why is there lack of agreement on the issue of artificial birth control?
The terminology is correct and appropriate if we understand what is meant by it. Since the Catholic Church says that the terminology of “man becoming God” is okay (since it’s right there in the Catechism), then I’ll go with the Church.
From your “obvious contradictions” hypothetical, I see that you don’t understand the terminology, and instead are relying on what you think it means, rather than what it actually means in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Your “obvious contradictions” fail, because they are based on an incorrect understanding of “man becoming God”.
To put it simply, “man becoming God” means participating/partaking of the divine nature. It does not mean that we become equivalent to God in everything.
Many Protestants disagree with the terminology “Mother of God” because they ask “how can God have a mother??” As Catholics, we would tell them that they have to understand what is meant by that phrase, and can’t assume what it means, since their assumption is false. Likewise, you disagree with the terminology “man becomes God”, because you don’t understand what is meant by that phrase. Both “Mother of God” and “man becomes God” are appropriate if we understand what is meant by both. If we don’t, then we end up with questions like “how can God have a mother?” and your “obvious contradictions”, both of which are strawman fallacies.
Read those articles yet?
His purpose, I believe, was to enumerate the sources of teaching authority in the Church. If the Pope has a special charism in that regard, as Vat. I teaches, how could it not be “crucial to his point” to at least mention this charism? JoeIAs to you argument regarding arguments from silence, I don’t agree. For his purposes, the connection to the councils, bishops, etc. suffices to make the point that he wanted to make. Any ranking of bishops (there were Popes and Patriarchs at his time) was not really crucial to his point. So I think his silence here is not a good example of an “good” argument from silence, which would require, IMO, silence on a crucial point.
.
I think his purpose was as he said: … to secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy." The question is: was reference to the Papacy crucial to his task?His purpose, I believe, was to enumerate the sources of teaching authority in the Church. If the Pope has a special charism in that regard, as Vat. I teaches, how could it not be “crucial to his point” to at least mention this charism? Joe
An example of how the Magisterium itself employs the VC illustrates what that involves. Consider then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s CDF responsum ad dubium on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, a document of John Paul II’s which had ruled that the Church’s lack of authority to ordain women priests was a doctrine to be “definitively held by all the faithful.”
Notice that he didn’t simply say that since the Pope said it, causa finita est. But I think you will agree that the words of the then Cardinal could not possibly be thought to imply his denial of the Catholic view of the Papacy. Instead, he is likely to say that Rome is the embodiment of universality and Apostolic tradition.“This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.” (mliccione.blogspot.com/2008/07/of-what-use-is-vincentian-canon.html)
…if Leo could have been brought* per impossibile *to read the Vatican I doctrinal definitions he would have been amazed at their limited nature and restricted scope. Leo himself taught that the Bishop of Rome alone among bishops derives his authority directly from St. Peter, that the Bishop of Rome can overrule any bishop, group of bishops or synod of bishops, that the decrees and definitions of ecumenical councils have no force or effect until confirmed by the Bishop of Rome and that the Bishop of Rome as the “indignus heres beati Petri,” the (personally, morally, ethically and meritoriously) “unworthy heir of Blessed Peter” inherits in full the unbounded juridical authority that Christ (in Leo’s view) conferred on Peter, and on Peter alone, among the apostles.
See The Life and Times of Leo the Great by Trevor Jalland (1940) – Jalland was an English Anglo-Catholic clergyman and academic and the latter part of his book consists of translations from Leo’s letters and sermons which make his views on the subject quite clear – and "Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy* by Walter Ullmann, Journal of Theological Studies, N.S., XI (1960), pp. 25-51 for full, perfect and sufficient proof of this. One might also read the more polemical, but still useful, “The Fathers Gave Rome the Primacy” by A. St. Leger Westall, The Dublin Review, CXXXII (January-April 1903), pp. 100-114.