Does the catechism teach that we become gods after our death?

[flyonthewall]

Hi Flyonthewall,

Todd misquoted the Catechism that begin stating in 460 – for context – that the Word became flesh to make us “partakers…” by the Son of God becoming the Son of man…so that man entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship…“might become a God”…the last phrase an error. This partaking of the Word instead makes us a son of God, not a god in ourselves.

Was the catechism I posted misquoted? Seriously. I don’t know if it is, so I ask you.

We enter into God, not becoming or replacing Him. To say we become gods in ourselves violates the First Commandment as I had shared with you previously.

But your catechism, if what I found and posted is accurate, clearly stated that Jesus assumed our nature so that He might make men gods. Nothing is mentioned about becoming Him or replacing Him, but that He might make men gods(with a little ‘g’).

I have read and studied Book One: God of Summa Contra Gentiles by St. Thomas Aquina in a small class with a Dominican scholar of the Summa and by no means did St. Thomas ever teach that we become gods. St. Thomas said man’s understanding of God can be compared to the eye of an owl next to the sun…Note, The eye of an owl is only used in darkness.

St. Thomas states that God is pure truth; there can be no falsehood in Him. The intellect fails when it comes to the wrong conclusion because it is not operating essentially on the truth of Who God is. God knows our will and our inclinations,
our thoughts and inclinations.

"This is confirmed by the testimony of Sacred Scripture. For it is said in a Pslalm 7:10, “The searcher of hearts and reins is God.” And in the proverbs (15:11) “Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more the hearts of the children of men.” “He knew what was in man.”, John (2:25).

Preceding CC460 is 357: Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

CC358: God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him…

CC364: The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God:; it is a human body that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through im they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

CC366: The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not “produced by parents” – and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

To paraphrase the Catholic emphasis that we are creatures, and our goal is to be united with God rather than ourselves in our own separate way become gods…we are ordered to be supernatural, that we can be raised to be in communion with God which comes about by grace through faith in Christ in the Eucharist, the summit of our faith.

The context that St. Thomas Aquinas is giving us again here, is in the Eucharist. If you wish to read more of what St. Thomas meant, Flyonthewall, here is a treatise from the Vatican Library.

www.vatican.va/roman_curia/point_committees/eucharist_committ_euchar_doc_2004

I will read the link.
The words of that catechism seem very simple and straight forward. It is only when it has to be reconciled to other catechisms that it becomes complex.
It fits in right nicely with the words of Jesus, and with Revelations 3.
But, I won’t try and tell you how to understand your own catechisms.

 

[flyonthewall]

The Church of Latter Day Saints is NOT a Christian religion by any stretch of the imagination (except by theirs). They reject virtually ever precept of the Christian religions. They truly believe that MEN become Gods (but women do not), and that each man will have his own little world of his own.

Even if a man beat his wife repeatedly and she divorced him, if he molested his children repeatedly, so long as the marriage was 'sealed in the temple" the wife and children will be his servants once he becomes a “God”.

{ There is however one area where they truly put most actual Christians to shame. They take care of their own, big time. Their churches are truly a community center, and they encourage activities there (most not religious) 7 days a week. If someone in their Stake is “down and out”, they will provide for the family, provide work for them if needed, and see to it that no one goes without food, clothing and necessary medical care. Oh, if only we Catholics were so generous to our own people.}

There is nothing at all Christian about most of their beliefs. They claim to be Christian, because they claim that after his death and resurrection, Jesus came to the “new world”, and spread this totally new religion where no one that followed his teachings could possibly be aware of i for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Then, hundreds of years later, Joseph Smith was suddenly given a pair of gold glasses by an Angel, was handed a book of gold, translated it into the Book of Mormon", and this book changed everything that “Christianity” had ever been. Of course, no one but Joseph Smith ever saw this book, or the glasses.

As i said, they are not a Christian Church by any normal meaning of that term. BUT, they do put into daily practice some things that all Christians should be doing.

 

[KathleenGee]

Flyonthewall…

The misquote was Todd's ...you wrote it back correctly.

The first part of the passage is from St. Irenaeus who was the first to write against heresies…and was quite forthright and covered a great scope of the heresies of his time.

The latter quote is from St. Thomas Aquinas…if you look at the footnote…it is from his writing on the Eucharist but I could not link it correctly from the Vatican.

We leave the life of sin to enter into the life of grace in the Eucharist to grow in partaking of the divine, sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ…we are united with Jesus.

Again, look at the entire passage of 460…

St. Peter explains the concept perfectly as what I shared in the previous post.

 

[paulp1002]

This tends to happen all the time with someone from another religion that takes things out of context to try and make their point.

"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”***For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 ***

Is referring to writtings by St. Athanasius of Alexandria called “On the Incarnation of the Word” from some time around 318AD. As referenced in the footnotes of the CCC *“80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.” *

3. For He was made man that we might be made God ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impossible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility.

If you continue to read on, St. Athanasius uses the analogy “4. And, in a word, the achievements of the Saviour, resulting from His becoming man, are of such kind and number, that if one should wish to enumerate them, he may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to count its waves. For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in.5. Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe.”

It states that even if a man were to try, it is impossible to be God. There is only one God and we are his adopted children. These writtings also refer to something called deification: the exaltation of man to a similar rank of God. Since there is only one God, a man who lives a Christ-like life, follows his teachings and obeys his commandments, may one day be humble similar to God, but can never be God.

 

[KathleenGee]

Paulp

Yes, that was also my point as well…the Adversarial Spirit is very competent in leading people to take our materials out of context in an attempt to point out our own hypocrisy of faith…

But our Catholic faith is truly in Christ through the Holy Spirit from the Apostles. The transmission of the intent of true understanding of Christ and practice has come down through the successors to the apostles.

The problem is that non-Catholics have to discern and understand when a Church Father or Pope teach in the universal apostolic Church, and when they are speaking only out of personal opinion as Pope Benedict did recently, and clarified he was speaking out of his own opinion.

Non Catholics have to realize that our Church’s teachings draw both from the Tradition of faith first mentioned, and then locally, there is the point of the small faith traditions that reflect the local cultures and regions.

So many years ago, a Pope wrote an encyclical stating that all seminarians must study their course work in Latin. It was ignored.

I see it all the time people drawing usually St. Augustine…and only his partial contribution to a theological point that was being developed.

And theological points develop as the faith spreads into different cultures and different times and different conditions. The work of theology is to protect and proclaim the true intent of the Gospels in the specific times we live in, and that these teachings must have the universal character of one – our unity in Christ with one another, holy – from Jesus Christ Himself, apostolic – the teaching reflecting and continuing the transmission of faith from the apostles, and universal – again-- the teaching must reach the basic human condition that exists in all human beings.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Greek gentleman does not realize how his aspirations for the next life have been communicated to those reading this thread.

He is the first person I have ever met who wanted to continue to discover God’s creation in joy and freedom as a little child.

For Catholics, we follow Sacred Scripture.

Jesus said His kingdom is now at hand. Christ’s kingdom is now with us. Christ is God. He is the Incarnate Word through which the carnate world was made. God wills all of creation to exist.

Jesus gave us His Eucharist, the Manna of Heaven. If we receive worthily, we already experiencing something of heaven here on earth right now. When we receive the Eucharist, as people have for 2,000 years, we are now participating in the Divine life with Christ, and shared with each other.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This tends to happen all the time with someone from another religion that takes things out of context to try and make their point.

"460 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 "***For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 ***"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”

Is referring to writtings by St. Athanasius of Alexandria called "On the Incarnation of the Word" from some time around 318AD. As referenced in the footnotes of the CCC *“80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.” *

3. For He was made man that we might be made God ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impossible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility.

I read the CCC #460 and after and I found no mention of St. Althanasius.

460 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.”

Up until here I have no problem with what it says.

79 “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

This statement I really have a problem with. It is in quotes so that you know someone else said it, but it in no way is qualified. It is allowed to stand as it is. The “G” in the first mention of God is capitalized as it should be. But the “G” in the second mention of God is also capitalized, which to my way of thinking is not ok.

So the only possible interpretation is that the CC is saying **“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” **

I believe we will become like God. But to say that we will become God seems rather blasphemous to me.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dear Richard,

You are right to say it is blasphemous…Please read the notation for the footnote…it is at bottom to identify who said what.

The last quote of 460 is taken out of context by many…my priest teacher from the Angelicum in Rome asked us to note that we partake in the divine life but we are separate and not gods…

St. Thomas in his summa is very clear and adamant that we are not gods…

St. Thomas is referring to our reception of the Eucharist and cooperating with Divine grace…a lifelong process, and as such, we do not say we are ‘saved’…

I was thinking may be Rome needs to clarify this passage because of others’ belief of becoming gods…they are not that aware of some religions’ beliefs.

No, we never, ever become gods…but we share in the Divine Life of Jesus…and we do so by depending on Him, and serving others, making ourselves the humble servant.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Dear Richard,

You are right to say it is blasphemous…Please read the notation for the footnote…it is at bottom to identify who said what.

The last quote of 460 is taken out of context by many…my priest teacher from the Angelicum in Rome asked us to note that we partake in the divine life but we are separate and not gods…

460 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 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 “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.”

Kathleen this statement “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” is in quotation marks which means it is something someone else said. So, if it is taken out of context it is because the people that put together the catechism took it out of context. And I can see no reason for including it unless that is exactly what they wanted to say.

This is what I found at the bottom of the page.

70 1 Jn 4:10; 4:14; 3:5.
71 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. catech 15: PG 45, 48B.
72 1 Jn 4:9.
73 Jn 3:16.
74 Mt 11:29; Jn 14:6.
75 Mk 9:7; cf. Dt 6:4-5. 76 Jn 15:12.
77 Cf. Mk 8:34.
78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
82 Jn 1:14.
83 Phil 2:5-8; cf. LH, Saturday, Canticle at Evening Prayer.
84 Heb 10:5-7, citing Ps 40:6-8 ([7-9] LXX).
85 1 Jn 4:2.
86 1 Tim 3:16.
87 Cf. 1 Jn 4:2-3; 2 Jn 7.
88 Council of Nicaea I (325): DS 130, 126.
89 Council of Ephesus (431): DS 250.
90 Council of Ephesus: DS 251.
91 Council of Chalcedon (451): DS 301; cf. Heb 4:15.
92 Council of Chalcedon: DS 302.
93 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 424.
94 Council of Constantinople II (553): DS 432; cf. DS 424; Council of Ephesus, DS 255.
95 LH, 1 January, Antiphon for Morning Prayer; cf. St. Leo the Great, Sermo in nat. Dom. 1, 2; PL 54, 191-192.
95 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Troparion “O monogenes.”
97 GS 22 § 2.
98 Cf. Jn 14:9-10.
99 GS 22 § 2.
100 Cf. Damasus 1: DS 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, “Sicut aqua” ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; DS 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.
110 Cf. Council of Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559.
111 Council of Constantinople III: DS 556.
112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.
113 Cf. Gal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.
114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.
115 Council of Nicaea II: DS 601.
116 Gal 2:20.
117 Cf. Jn 19:34.
118 Pius XII, encyclical, Haurietis aquas (1956): DS 3924; cf. DS 3812.

#79 apparently is a quote from Irenaeus. The only options I see is that they made a mistake in putting this statement in the catechism. Which would mean that Irenaeus an ECF and the CCC are fallible or they meant to put it in and they think that Jesus came to this earth to make men God.

 

[flyonthewall]

I can certainly undertsand why this particular catechism is related to the Eucharist, as it is the emblems of the atonement.
It is through the atonement that our sins are washed clean and we can become one with Jesus. It allows us to overcome just like Jesus overcame, and as promised, we become joint heirs with Christ and can sit with Him on His throne just as He sits with His Father on His Father’s throne.
That statement is truth, and stands on its own. There is no need to try and explain it away.

 

[zarthan]

First of all, Todd520 did not misquote the Catechism, 460 reads as follows:
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.”

What is clear is that the writers of the Catechism are just as comfortable stating that man might become God as St. Athanasius of Alexandria was. He stated, “God became man so that man might become god” (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). In fact, many of the ECF wrote similar statements.

It is also true that the concept of Theosis or deification as it is more often called in the West is different from what Mormons believe. Though it is clear that we should be comfortable with the language of becoming God or gods, when used it is best understood that we fully partake in the holiness of God. Reading a few articles on this topic is not enough; it is a life-long study.

I have studied this for a long period of time and will be studying it for the rest of my life. One thing that I have learned is it is best NOT to ridicule our Mormons friends about language or concepts that even the ECF discussed far more openly than we do today.

We must all continue to study. We would do well to understand the various meanings of the Hebrew word for God, god, gods. “Elohim” is translated in scripture as God, god, gods, angels, and as being(s) with authority to rule or judge.

It would seem, that in the context of this discussion, those who become the children of adoption by the Spirit of our heavenly Father will become ‘god(s)’ with authority to judge other created beings, whether angelic or human. (Deut.1:17, Ex.21:6, Ps.82:6, John 10:34, 1 Corinth.6:2-3).

The God given authority to judge others in God’s stead in considered a very solemn and holy calling in the light of holy scripture. One must become perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect to attain to such a high calling. It is the indwelling of the fullness of God through our Lord Jesus Christ which makes it possible. Thus, becoming as gods with the authority to judge is a restricted meaning of the word in the totality of the reality and meaning of the One, True God.

 

[JeanMichel]

Todd and JeanMichael

You both misquoted the Catholic Catechism CC460!!!

CC460. 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.’

(This quote is attributed to St. Irenaeus, none other than one of the Early Church Fathers the Mormons reject when debating whether or not the Apostles had successors.)

Catholic Catechism CC460 continues:

‘The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, sot that he made man, might make men gods.’ --St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica was also very clear in Who God is and who we are not.

With St. Thomas’ remark, the priest added…and this point is also reclarified throughout the Universal Catholic Catechism, “we Catholics enter into God, --NOT BECOMING OR REPLACING HIM”…and he had us write this remark next to this very passage!

Fr Richard Rohr could not understand very well why Christ referred himself as the Son of Man…he finally realized how much our own very DNA as human beings is divine…We are indeed made in the image of God. Our souls hunger and need God even more than we need a cup of water or a plate of food. We are to share in the Divine Life not replace it in the next life.

The early Christians already believed that the kingdom of heaven is here on earth. Last night I read some of Fr Hampsch’s book ‘On the Healing of the Eucharist’…and spoke of some saints who had such an intense love for Christ in the Eucharist, hungering to the extreme for His love and to commune with Him constantly.

We sharing in the Divine Nature in no way intends to violate the First Commandment.

Again, it is all about context…and when people who are not Catholic or oppose it, I have yet to see an exception, misinterpret the Catechism and the mission and nature of our Catholic Church.

NO, I did not misquote the Catechism, I copied it and pasted the statement! If you have a problem with what it says, then please take it up with Mother Church. You create a controversy which the ECF did not see. They saw no conflict with the 1st commandment…OBVIOUSLY!

Further, St. Irenaeus did not provide the quote I gave, it was as a stated St. Athansius. St. Irenaeus stated something far more sensational, that Jesus “became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.” What is Jesus?

I know many of you have criticized Mormons for a doctrine that is so clearly stated by most of the ECF. Why are we today so uncomfortable with the language they used so freely?

In closing, please do not accuse me of misquoting anything. When I state something, it is because I am copying and pasting from the source. You obviously have a problem with the Church, its ECF, and its clearly stated doctrine.

 

[JeanMichel]

The Church of Latter Day Saints is NOT a Christian religion by any stretch of the imagination (except by theirs). They reject virtually ever precept of the Christian religions. They truly believe that MEN become Gods (but women do not), and that each man will have his own little world of his own.

Even if a man beat his wife repeatedly and she divorced him, if he molested his children repeatedly, so long as the marriage was 'sealed in the temple" the wife and children will be his servants once he becomes a “God”.

{ There is however one area where they truly put most actual Christians to shame. They take care of their own, big time. Their churches are truly a community center, and they encourage activities there (most not religious) 7 days a week. If someone in their Stake is “down and out”, they will provide for the family, provide work for them if needed, and see to it that no one goes without food, clothing and necessary medical care. Oh, if only we Catholics were so generous to our own people.}

There is nothing at all Christian about most of their beliefs. They claim to be Christian, because they claim that after his death and resurrection, Jesus came to the “new world”, and spread this totally new religion where no one that followed his teachings could possibly be aware of i for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Then, hundreds of years later, Joseph Smith was suddenly given a pair of gold glasses by an Angel, was handed a book of gold, translated it into the Book of Mormon", and this book changed everything that “Christianity” had ever been. Of course, no one but Joseph Smith ever saw this book, or the glasses.

As i said, they are not a Christian Church by any normal meaning of that term. BUT, they do put into daily practice some things that all Christians should be doing.

Again, this ridiculous attack on a fellow church that professes Jesus is the Christ. And people actually want to know why I can detest organized religion?!?! This is a prime example of someone that speaks from total ignorance of another faith. Mormons, like Catholics, believe that Jesus was born of the virgin, Mary, lived a perfect life, performed miracles, was the Son of God, was crucified for the sins of all mankind, rose on the third day, appeared to his disciples, sits on the right had side of the Father, and promised to return one day. In addition, Mormons believe that Jesus is the only gateway through which we may return to the Father.

With all of this about Jesus, somehow you concoct some doctrine that would deny the label Christian to even the first apostles. Think, study, and understand the ECF and the early church before you begin denying Christianity to anyone. Even more important, understand the Jesus is far more important then a belief in the Trinity, Theosis, or anything else. No belief is more important than Jesus crucified and resurrected.

 

[paulp1002]

#79 apparently is a quote from Irenaeus. The only options I see is that they made a mistake in putting this statement in the catechism. Which would mean that Irenaeus an ECF and the CCC are fallible or they meant to put it in and they think that Jesus came to this earth to make men God.

You are referencing the incorrect footnote. #79 is for: “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.”

#80 is: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

If you read my entire post, it contains a similar quote in the writtings of St. Althanasius, which is “For He was made man that we might be made God.” I’ll try and sum it up; What St. Althanasius is referring to is called deification. He tries to explain in the writting, that no matter how hard a person tries to be God, that he can never actually be God. However if he lives a “Christ-like” life and follows His teachings and obey His commandments, that one day that person be righteous and humble similar to that of Christ, BUT NEVER God. There is only one God, and men can not be God.

“For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in. Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe.”

He also goes on to explain that it is better to not try and be Christ, but sit back in great awe at the “whole” which is God.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

You are referencing the incorrect footnote. #79 is for: “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.”

#80 is: “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”

If you read my entire post, it contains a similar quote in the writtings of St. Althanasius, which is “For He was made man that we might be made God.” I’ll try and sum it up; What St. Althanasius is referring to is called deification. He tries to explain in the writting, that no matter how hard a person tries to be God, that he can never actually be God. However if he lives a “Christ-like” life and follows His teachings and obey His commandments, that one day that person be righteous and humble similar to that of Christ, BUT NEVER God. There is only one God, and men can not be God.

Ok, I see the numbers come after the quote. Anyway your explaination above does not explain the statement “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
This statement is inserted into the catechism with no explaination only the footnote, which most people don’t read anyway, and it is allowed to stand on it’s own.

I totally agree that man cannot be God. I also think that not even the remotest inference should be made that we think that we can be God. This statement goes beyond an inference and flat out states that the reason that Jesus came to this earth was to make man God. This statement, taken as it is given, is not only not true, it is blasphemous. And if it is not what the CC believes what possible reason could there be for including it in the catechism?

“For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in. Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe.”

He also goes on to explain that it is better to not try and be Christ, but sit back in great awe at the “whole” which is God.

I don’t know what any of this has to do with the question at hand.

 

[KathleenGee]

Paulp is quoting it correctly…sons of God…not gods in ourselves…and again…you are not reading all the Catechism that led up to 460 to give you the correct context.

And when St. Thomas Aquinas said such a thing, he was referring to our partaking in the Eucharist. I have the Summa on Christ. I have studied the entire book on God with a Dominican scholar. In no way does St. Thomas ever teach we become God…

St. Thomas is the one who taught that God alone is the Unmoved Mover…and constant. This is one of the qualities of God-- His constancy, and why Catholicism in the apostolic sense, maintains constancy of belief.

St. Thomas is representing systematic theology, along with St. Catherine of Siena, of whom I refer my studies to…may because of her feminine perspective.

St. Thomas said who can understand God? Our knowledge of God can be compared to an eye of owl next to the sun…I note an owl can only see in darkness…

 

[KathleenGee]

It is anathema to change even one word of the Bible…for one individual’s agenda.

If people do not know the purpose of organized religion…there is the intent of the Catholic Church to always uphold the truth of Who Jesus Christ Is, what His mission was, and how it was accomplished 2000 years ago.

When individuals take it on their own to change one word of the Bible or create new documents on data that cannot be proven or does not exist in the histories of named peoples, you first of all destroy the unity of oneness that Christ called us to.

Jesus called us to be one. The Catholic Church leads us to oneness in faith. Then we who have families, can come to the table as one and pray together as one and know God’s blessings.

Secondly, when you have a new religion founded one person, a mortal, along with it, you have that person’s pathology and bias. We all have pathologies and biases. Christ chose 12 men. He did not select one person. These apostles more or less represented ordinary people…like us.

If you start a new church based on one man, not Jesus Christ, you will also inherit that person’s bias. So then you are not getting a full deck of what it means to be Christian.

And the apostolic Church has always nurtured us with the Word of God Made Flesh…in the Eucharist, our partaking in the divine life, and this is the Kingdom of God revealed to us.

To be a servant of the Lord and His minister of the Eucharist is such a tremendous calling, and the effects of the Eucharist on the soul require the Minister his entire life. The ramifications of a sacred Minister not to fulfill his duties of providing us the Sacraments causes such great scandal and loss of faith that is witnessed by the world itself.

Our faith is apostolic, the Holy Spirit insuring that the intent of Jesus Christ is being taught for 2,000 years. The message always leads us to inner freedom and joy and true faith should not lead us to prejudice or superiority against other faiths. We are always being called as well to be humble servants of the Lord – not racists, bigots, ignoramuses…and to use the Sacred Word of God as the means to further fragment the mystical Body of Christ among its members.

Christ instituted HIs apostles as the foundation of the Church, Christ Himself the cornerstone. Christ is God and He intended his foundation to remain, not to disappear and evolve into all sorts of denominations and sects.

An international commentator, who knows the inherent good of the foundation of our own country, cannot understand the Christian bloc. Where is it? Why isn’t it mobilizing to fight the evils destroying our country?

Where is the united Christian bloc fighting the breakdown of family, the suppression of religious expression and the immense proliferation of society that permeates our entire culture? Where is the united Christian front fighting abortion, the taking of human life, and the spreading of pornography into every home through the internet and the world?

Where is the Christian bloc fighting the use of profane and blasphemous language? You never hear people curse the name of Buddha, or Mohammed but you hear the holy name of Jesus Christ whose utterance causes the demons to bend their knee in homage? There is the Holy Name Society in the Catholic Church that still exists for this cause in my own city.

Where is the true Christian bloc that fights facism and bigotry? It all depends on the individual church or denomination because we know the Restoration Movement bagan here in America with all its name calling of Catholicism.

The Catholic Church is indeed a highly organized religion and it serves as a bloc to fight all these evils. It works to have dialogue with other faiths that invalidate it. The Catholic Church is the best educated and most defining of good vs evil.

If we fragment into different interpretations or new books added to the Bible, we have divisions that can last well over centuries.

United we stand, divided we fall. That is why we have organized religion.

You cannot compromise the Truth of Who Jesus Christ is and His mission.

To deny His mission ever took place is a great lie and so we must start a new church only adds to fracture.

Jesus calls us to be one, holy, universal and apostolic as Church. Nothing less.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why would anyone want to be God - He has a lot of us sinners who must absolutely break His heart ?

 

[Esdra]

Why would anyone want to be God - He has a lot of us sinners who must absolutely break His heart ?

Well, why did Adam and Eve want to be God?

Genesis 3
The Fall of Man
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’"

4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!

5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Okay, it says** “like God”, not “God”**. But it was so tempting that Eve took one of the apples, right?

So how much is it tempting to actually BE a god?
Do you know by chance know the omputer game “Black & White” or "Black & White 2"?

Esdra

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, why did Adam and Eve want to be God?

Okay, it says** “like God”, not “God”**. But it was so tempting that Eve took one of the apples, right?

So how much is it tempting to actually BE a god?
Do you know by chance know the omputer game “Black & White” or "Black & White 2"?

Esdra

Hiyas

Yes but Eve was hmmmmm kinda lacking - in common sense IMO

She was just thinking about the good stuff - ignoring the other side.

I wouldn’t want to be President - but I’d sure like to have his ear