W
Warrior89
Guest
How does the Church understand the meaning of the “self”? (What is the “self” or how is it defined for the Church?)
- Status
E
Eucharisted
Guest
The Church uses the definition of self, it dose not make up one.
W
Warrior89
Guest
What is that definition?
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
This is actually a great question, and I’m curious to know how folks will respond.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the Christian understanding of self. On the one hand, the whole idea of the beatific vision implies a difference between creator and creation such that the creature is able to experience the vision/union and not be consumed by it. So there must be something in us able to apprehend the divine which must have something to do with who we are.
Moreover, the church has identified the three powers of the soul as memory, intellect, and will. While the Greeks seemed to have understood the seat of self-hood in terms of either knowledge or memory (we are what we know or what we remember), the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to locate it in the will. Many have conjectured that the beatific vision is accomplished through the union of God and man in the will of man which does not transform his nature from human into God (which would mean annihilation of the creature!), but divinizes the person through the union of wills.
On the other hand, man after the fall seems to have a self that is entirely not his true self ! What we think we are is not actually what we are. What we understand by our self is merely a collection of patterns of behavior, habits, stories we tell ourselves, images of who we are, and memory congealed into something we can point to and say “that’s me!” But it’s all a kind of illusion of sin / the fall. What we call the “self” is not much different from St. Paul’s “body of death” when he says, “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
Jesus says that we must lose ourselves in order to find ourselves. What that illusion that we call “self” is keeping us from realizing is that our true nature, our true selfhood, is found only in Jesus. We must go the way of the cross to destroy the false self, the body of death, in order to discover who we really are in Christ. It is Christ who gives us our true identity as Children of God! Christ is the reality of Self into which we are living by grace!
That’s how I understand it, at any rate. Again, I’m curious to see what others have to say!
Under the Mercy!
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
This is actually a great question, and I’m curious to know how folks will respond.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the Christian understanding of self. On the one hand, the whole idea of the beatific vision implies a difference between creator and creation such that the creature is able to experience the vision/union and not be consumed by it. So there must be something in us able to apprehend the divine which must have something to do with who we are.
Moreover, the church has identified the three powers of the soul as memory, intellect, and will. While the Greeks seemed to have understood the seat of self-hood in terms of either knowledge or memory (we are what we know or what we remember), the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to locate it in the will. Many have conjectured that the beatific vision is accomplished through the union of God and man in the will of man which does not transform his nature from human into God (which would mean annihilation of the creature!), but divinizes the person through the union of wills.
On the other hand, man after the fall seems to have a self that is entirely not his true self ! What we think we are is not actually what we are. What we understand by our self is merely a collection of patterns of behavior, habits, stories we tell ourselves, images of who we are, and memory congealed into something we can point to and say “that’s me!” But it’s all a kind of illusion of sin / the fall. What we call the “self” is not much different from St. Paul’s “body of death” when he says, “wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
Jesus says that we must lose ourselves in order to find ourselves. What that illusion that we call “self” is keeping us from realizing is that our true nature, our true selfhood, is found only in Jesus. We must go the way of the cross to destroy the false self, the body of death, in order to discover who we really are in Christ. It is Christ who gives us our true identity as Children of God! Christ is the reality of Self into which we are living by grace!
That’s how I understand it, at any rate. Again, I’m curious to see what others have to say!
Under the Mercy!
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo gratias!
A
atman
Guest
Wow! I really doubt that I can top Mark, there, but here is how I understand at least St. Thomas defining it. A self is, more or less, a thing. It is something we can point to as distinct from the rest of the universe. A rock, thus, can even be said to have a “self.” It is a self insofar as it is clearly identifiable. This is a bit different in plants and animals, which have souls. Their souls distinguish them merely from form-over-matter. Instead, it becomes a sensitive, living form-over-matter. This is even clearer with men, whose souls are subsistent, and thus can stand without the rest of creation and remain men. This is clearer in the angels, and reaches its maximum in God, Who is totally subsistent, in no way dependent, and is infinitely distinct from His creation. I hope this does not sound too confused. And I am always open t correction on these matters. aPeace!
-Leo Carton
-Leo Carton
D
David_Luis
Guest
Thanks for your commentaries, very interesting.
I do agree: it is what we are, our essence…
May God bless you.
I do agree: it is what we are, our essence…
May God bless you.
G
geometer
Guest
H’enoch was annihilated, as was Philip, and anybody else who became a begotten son of God.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
I notice that you’ve identified your religion as theosophy. May I ask of what sort? The theosophy of Blavatsky is miles away from that of, for instance, a Louis Claude de Saint Martin, a Jacob Boehme, or a Gichtel. Blavatsky introduced many Eastern religious concepts into her system which tends to confuse things when what you’re looking for is a uniquely Christian explication of theosis or selfhood.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
I’m not sure how you can get that from the texts. When Enoch walked with God, I believe that even given linguistic and grammatical uncertainties there was an Enoch and there was a God doing the walking. The Enoch literature supports this (you may be interested in Margaret Barker’s work in this area). Regarding Philip’s theosis, I don’t know that we have much beyond some of of the apocryphal gospels to fill us in on the details (should we wish to find them reliable), but even so, the gnostic wedding chamber sacrament, which is often discussed in these documents, suggests union, not annihilation. When it comes to theosis, though, we as Christians can do little better than consult St. Gregory Palamas, the Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus and I would even include Macrina), St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, the Desert Fathers and a host of others to inform our practice, theology and discipline.
I notice that you’ve identified your religion as theosophy. May I ask of what sort? The theosophy of Blavatsky is miles away from that of, for instance, a Louis Claude de Saint Martin, a Jacob Boehme, or a Gichtel. Blavatsky introduced many Eastern religious concepts into her system which tends to confuse things when what you’re looking for is a uniquely Christian explication of theosis or selfhood.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
G
geometer
Guest
No I have no interest in theosis. Tradition tells us that H’enoch and Philip vanished in being raptured by the spirit of God. The new testament says that H’enoch was translated. After the rapture of Philip he was found at a nearby city telling people about it.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
Regarding Philip, I think it is a stretch to see his miraculous travels as indicative of annihilation, unless you’re using that term in a very particular way with which I am unfamiliar.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
That explains much, then!
To which tradition are you referring? Enoch was taken “up” into heaven and didn’t experience death, that much is traditional. But to interpret “he was no more” or like texts referring to Enoch as “he was annihilated” is a bit of a stretch. Barker sheds some light on what may be happening–the transformation of “Enoch” into “Metatron” (becoming an angel being the goal of Jewish apocalyptic literature)–but this does not suggest annihilation, but transformation.
Regarding Philip, I think it is a stretch to see his miraculous travels as indicative of annihilation, unless you’re using that term in a very particular way with which I am unfamiliar.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
G
geometer
Guest
The word annihilation was used by the person that I quoted, it is used in eastern traditions and is accurate. I have been raptured from place to place on four occasions, and when I was taken up I vanished completely. When I was sent back to earth I experienced being reformed from the atmosphere. Its very beautiful, you should follow Jesus and pray to be sent.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
You write, “I experienced being reformed.” And this is the crux of the discussion of self-hood: If you were annihilated, then there would be nothing of you to experience anything–neither rapture nor reformation. Do you see what I’m saying? The question that relates to this discussion is: what is the “I” that experienced the things you experienced? It was clearly not destroyed/annihilated. What, then, is it?
As for me, I will cast myself on the mercy of Jesus. If he wishes to give me an experience like that of Philip, so be it. I do not look for it. I will not seek it. Frankly, I do not desire it. I desire Jesus. Should I receive some wondrous mystical experience at the hands of my Lord, I will accept it and give thanks for it. Should I receive pain and desolation, I will receive it and seek to love it and give thanks for it as coming from the hand of my Lord and God. Above all things, what I will seek to desire is my Lord and his Mercy.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
Whom did you quote?
This is part of the issue here–there is a difference between annihilation and vanishing. The former suggests that there is no there there or anywhere, the latter that what was there is there no longer but is elsewhere.
You write, “I experienced being reformed.” And this is the crux of the discussion of self-hood: If you were annihilated, then there would be nothing of you to experience anything–neither rapture nor reformation. Do you see what I’m saying? The question that relates to this discussion is: what is the “I” that experienced the things you experienced? It was clearly not destroyed/annihilated. What, then, is it?
I have no doubt that you experienced something in your spiritual journey. I will not dare to guess what it was, nor belittle your experience.
As for me, I will cast myself on the mercy of Jesus. If he wishes to give me an experience like that of Philip, so be it. I do not look for it. I will not seek it. Frankly, I do not desire it. I desire Jesus. Should I receive some wondrous mystical experience at the hands of my Lord, I will accept it and give thanks for it. Should I receive pain and desolation, I will receive it and seek to love it and give thanks for it as coming from the hand of my Lord and God. Above all things, what I will seek to desire is my Lord and his Mercy.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is grace and mercy! Deo Gratias!
J
JohnDarrouzet
Guest
You may find the following book helpful in answering your question: Self Knowledge in Thomas Aquinas: The Angelic Doctor on the Soul’s Knowledge of Itself .
P
PJM
Guest
Thee Church
***THEE Catholic Church Views “self” in the same and identical manner as God, so one could rephrase the OPQ as “how does God view humanity?”
The place to search for the answer is of course God’s Own Word, THEE Catholic Bible.
Genesis Chapter 1: 26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.”
Soon after this momentous event we find God seeking and asking “Adam where are you?” [Gen. 3:8] 8 “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”
Genesis 2: 15 “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
From these passages we can discern the following.
The bible is more about God seeking a relationship with His humanity, than humanity seeking relationship with his God. From Yahweh seeking Adam and Eve, to the selection of Noah, Abram, Moses, David and Solomon and the Prophets, to the birth of Christ [so that He could be known to us as God] to Christ Death of the Cross in order to establish a most personal God / man relationship of Redemption; one sees time and again, God seeking a relationship with humanity.
Humanity is made in “the image and likeness of God.” One need ask, “How” and “Why”?
God is “spirit and truth” [Jn. 4: 24] “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
Humanity too is by design and Divine Will, both “Matter” [our bodies] and “spirit” [our minds, intellects and freewill’s.] It is in the latter way that we are the image of God. We imperfect, God PERFECT!
Because humanity solely is Created in the image of God, one can understand that there must be a specific reason for this unique set of gifts.
Isaiah 43: 7 “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."
Isaiah 43:21 “the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise.”
Eph. 1:11 “In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory.”
Heb. 16: 15 “Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.”
Humanities identity is integral to God’s purpose for humanity. It is precisely in the fact that only man is able [on earth] to freely love, praise, and honor God through freewill assent of mind, heart and will; in obedience, service and worship which while adding nothing to God [just as not doing these things takes nothing away from God] nevertheless is pleasing to God, and fulfills the purpose of our existence.
Our identity then is “Children of God.” Made by God and for God. To “know, love and serve Him in this life so that we may spend eternity with Him in the Eternal Life.”
Love and prayers,
Pat***
G
grannymh
Guest
The only thing this answer is based on is one’s own observation – nonetheless, it would not contradict Church teaching. Self is the individual Homo sapiens consisting of the intimate union of the immaterial spiritual soul with the material element. Self includes all that is implied by body and soul.
A
Angie_Baskin
Guest
WOW!! I agree with you 100%. What you say about "our true selfhood is found only in Jesus’ is right - remember, Jesus said that “what ever you do to the least of my brothers you do to me”. So forgiveness plays an intricate part in becoming one with Jesus. It’s also interesting, that Jesus did not say where one person is praying, I am with him instead, He said ‘where two or more are gathered in my name there am I’. So possibly our acknowledgment of true self can never be singular. Maybe our true self incumbers others if no ALL others. “Self” singular, is the illusion, the body that is but dust. Acceptance of "Self’ plural, is our wilful union with Christ, the Body of Christ. Our true will through Jesus, is God’s will. Could it be that our singular will through only ourselves is the devil. Maybe that is why Jesus said that the battlefield is in the mind. Is it possible there is only ONE mind? The mind of God. (Who is the same, yesterday, today & tomorrow - unchanging) And when God’s extended creation, Adam, “slept” & chose to perceive ‘lack’ enducing ‘guilt’ for his imagined attack on God that Adam’s mind became split into one half knowing God the Father and the other not. Could this be the begining of opposites and perception of good & evil and the body. This concept would have direct corrolation to the concept of ‘self’ and what self is. I am mind bending here so please don’t jump down my neck.
- Status