Further understanding

[sambos671]

On another forum a person charged Catholics with this

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” (page 116, canon 460).

And the very next sentence in Canon 460 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is “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.”

They say flat out that the goal is to become “God” and be made “gods”. You may not believe that, but Cardinal Ratzinger put his Imprimi Potest on it.

Now as a newly returning Catholic my knee jerk response was something to the effect that taking one phrase out of a document doesn’t do it justice then quoted:

3: 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,

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."

Citing passages from scriptures like

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children

and

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

and

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit

Then making a statement to the effect that God just doesn’t want to declair us righteous but to insert us into a felial relationship. However, I’m not sure about this teaching or the context of it. Can someone enlighten me?

 

[DallasCatholic]

On another forum a person charged Catholics with this Now as a newly returning Catholic my knee jerk response was something to the effect that taking one phrase out of a document doesn’t do it justice then quoted: Citing passages from scriptures like and and Then making a statement to the effect that God just doesn’t want to declair us righteous but to insert us into a felial relationship. However, I’m not sure about this teaching or the context of it. Can someone enlighten me?

This is purely a case of someone taking a teaching of one of the Early Church Fathers and imputing a meaning that does not exist. If one looks at the CCC, almost every line has a footnote. The lines you refer to are attriubuted to St.Athansius and St. Thomas Aquinas. If one bothers to go below the surface, even briefly, than it is easy to see that the first portion you quoted is…in a word, hogwash. Here is a link that explains St. Athanasius:
bringyou.to/apologetics/a124.htm

I hope you find this useful.

 

[DallasCatholic]

For further understanding of the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas see this document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pont_committees/eucharist-congr/documents/rc_committ_euchar_doc_20041010_turkson-catechisis-youth_en.html

Just to reiterate; the lines in the CCC that your poster refers to are quotes from Saints of the Church.

 

[wardrandolph]

The full reading of #460 in the CCC:The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”.(2Pe.1:4)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(Jesus Christ)and thus recieving divine sonship,might become a son of God.For the Son of God became man so that we might become God(St Irenaeus).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(St Thomas Aquinas).Notice the small g in this last quote.

 

[User_Name_Craig]

This question was put to Colin Donovan on Open Line one time and he gave a good answer. Not that I can remember it but it was along the lines of what the other posts have put.

I think it comes down to what was meant by the original author and how would it have been understood at that time.

Perhape email Open Line of call in on a Friday when he is on.

Cheers
Craig

 

[sambos671]

Thanks everyone. This guy doesn’t want to see that we aren’t mormons and we are not claiming to be God himself. However, its the crux of his argument.

 

[VociMike]

Thanks everyone. This guy doesn’t want to see that we aren’t mormons and we are not claiming to be God himself. However, its the crux of his argument.

So ask him what it means to partake of the divine nature. Let him fumble and stumble trying to come up with a suitable explanation of that scriptural promise.

 

[sambos671]

Is this similiar to Theosis?

 

[fhansen]

Yes, this is theosis, and a part of Church teaching. God’s purpose for man has always been greater than we can imagine. We’ll never be God-in fact, thinking we could be has been mans’ problem form the beginning, but He wills to share His nature with us.

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”.