Posted on 05/16/2008 3:19:30 PM PDT by netmilsmom
You are selectively quoting from a section discussing 2Peter 1:4.
Context matters.
I am unclear as to what exactly you ar asking me? If you are referring to post 1097, and I want to be clear to anyone who comes along and starts reading from this point on, that I did not make that post, then I will try to honestly answer your questoin.
Post 1097, posted by Oldreggie, is quoting from CCC 460, and the related quotes from the Apostolic Fathers, and I will state that it is not heresy. The Catholic Church has never via an Council or Papal Statement taught that humans become God. The first paragaraph of CCC 460 starts out by referring to “partakeing the Divine Nature”, which is to be understood to become Like God. The quote from St. Athanasius I would agree, can be confusing, if lifted out of context of the entire CCC 460, which is a paragraph in the Section of the Catechism that is reflecting deeply on the meaning of the “Incarnation”.
I will acknowlede up front that I am “no Greek-Language Scholar” and I would think that St. Athanasius’s statement that was quoted was originally written in Greek. The Greek and Eastern Orthodox term “Theosis” meaning to “be like God” or “participation in the Divine Nature”, etc, is most likely the way the phrase was written in Greek by St. Athanasius, or something close to it since “Theo” is Greek for God.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church was originally written in Latin, so what you have is a Latin translation from the original Greek, then translated into English. And again, the english rendering, taken out of context, can be confusing. However, please remember, here is where the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium comes in to expound on what the underlying meaning of the doctrine is, given the fact that the english Translation is 2 translations removed from the original Greek.
In closing, assuming you were asking me whether Post 1097 was heresy or confusing, my answer would be Definitely Not Heresy, in fact, entirely orthodox doctrine, when properly understood. Confusing?, perhaps, if one takes the quote out of context and is not versed in the Tradition of the Early Church as expressed by the Church Fathers.
This is an honest attempt answer at your question.
Regards
It’s the way you are ridiculing non-Catholics that has turned them off maybe. Having fun?
>>It’s the way you are ridiculing non-Catholics that has turned them off maybe. Having fun?<<
Actually, I was on a roll and I apologize. I should have taken the high road but I was kind of emotionally drained.
Thanks!
I guess all of us have our ways of computer mojo. I learned mine from my hubby.
Thanks. It wasn’t just you, of course.
>>Thanks. It wasn’t just you, of course.<<
No, but all of us should show a good example. I blew it there.
Protestants tend to have a sense of individualism Catholics seem to find disagreeable. I don't think Protestants generally bear any malice towards Catholics but we don't care for the heirarchy and bureaucracy. Ironically it's what brought a lot of people to this land from Europe to start with.
As a Catholic, I have no problem with that. If you did like the bureaucracy, you might be Catholic. Maybe not but the mods rule of avoiding pronouns easily confused such as “you” which can be both singular, (You worship idols) and plural (You [as in the Catholic church] worship idols) has gone a long way to toning things down.
Discussion of theological differences between Protestants and Catholics seems to get problematic because of it.
A Protestant has to argue his own case, in his own terms, based on his own opinions and beliefs.
When a Catholic challenges those beliefs, it's based on theological opinions handed down from the church - you are essentially arguing someone else's case, in their terms, based on their opinions and beliefs, and they are not here to question about the basis or reasong behind them.
Well actually, I don’t really care as long as people don’t get smarmy or sarcastic. That’s when I get smarmy and sarcastic and it leads me to the near occasion of sin.
Not good for any of us.
"...However, please remember, here is where the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the Magesterium comes in to expound on what the underlying meaning of the doctrine is, given the fact that the english Translation is 2 translations removed from the original Greek."
What has the Pope and/or the "Magisterium" had to say regarding CCC 460?
Well to be honest OldReggie, there has been no clarification from Rome on CCC para. 460 because it is not something that is causing confusion or division across the Catholic Church. Again, I think para. 460, as my earlier post alluded to, has to be understood in the context of what that entire Section of the Catechism is about, which is “what is the purpose of the Incarnation” or to put it in another way “Why did the Word Become Flesh?” I have linked the enitire Section of the CCC that relates to the Creedal statement “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and became man”, which is the entire context of CCC 460.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm
The Catholic Church, while agreeing with the Doctrine stated in the Eastern Orthodox terminology “Theosis”, does not use that term in the CCC (perhaps it should), but again, The Catholic Church agrees with Doctrine that is being taught in terminology “Theosis”. I think the Eastern Orthodox Church has more fully developed it, and the Catholic Church believes in it, but I don’t think much in the West has been said about it since St. Thomas Aquinas.
However, as Rome and the Eastern Orthodox continue to enter into dialogue, the Catholic Church will once again be able to benefit from the fullness of the Eastern Tradition, and of course, the East from the West.
With respect to your statement below:
We are in total agreement concerning the difficulty of translating (Forgetting the Greek for the moment. After all the Latin is the official language of the RCC and certainly the Latin version, footnotes and all, must be understood by the RCC.) from a dead language to one which is constantly changing.
I would like to add the following. While Latin is a dead language for commerce, law, and in general, I think it is wise that the Catholic Church still retains Latin as the official language, as oppose to modern languages, precisely because of the last part of your statement. English and modern languages are practical, in that they evolve, but for Theology and Doctrine, that is a dangerous thing. So, given that Latin was used my the Western Fathers starting in the 3rd century, moving away from Greek, words that meant what they meant in antiquity still mean the same today, so doctrinal meaning is not comprimised by the evolution of the meaning of words. Just take for example the word “gay’ and see how it has evolved since WWII.
So I would say that the Pope Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, and the late Pope John Paul II, and Theologians in Rome and around the Catholic world do/did understand the meaning of the English text and how it relates to the Latin text original. The confusion can arrive when the Latin text are translated into English. For the record, the Catholic Church in the English speaking world has been debating Liturgical translations since the Missal of Pope Paul VI was first published in 1970.
Regards
What many see as a defect in Latin—a “dead” language—is actually its virtue. Being unused, it is static and solid.
The Aquinas being quoted here (from Opusc 57) was originally in Latin as well. It would be interesting to see the original Latin, to compare it to the Greek of Peter and the French (or Latin?) of Cauvin.
They called themselves Christians but that isn't what you've stated. I don't believe they called themselves "Catholic Church fathers".
lol. This is getting ridiculous.
I linked to vatican.va where anyone can read the verse in context, and the entire #460 has been posted many times on this thread.
No matter what site offers the catechism, the fact remains Aquinas is wrong to say men becomes "gods."
To "make us sharers in his divinity," does not mean we "become God."
"They called themselves...?" In your opinion, were they or weren't they?
...I don't believe they called themselves "Catholic Church fathers."
The differentiation "Catholic" was not necessary until the proud heresies of the 16th century; but the Catholic Church is as it was from Pope Peter I until now.
I believe this is the original Latin passage:
http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/pcx.html
“Immensa divinae largitatis beneficia exhibita populo Christiano inaestimabilem ei conferunt dignitatem. Neque enim est aut fuit aliquando tam grandis natio quae habeat deos appropinquantes sibi sicut adest nobis Deus noster. Unigenitus siquidem Dei filius, suae divinitatis volens nos esse participes, nostram naturam assumpsit ut homines deos faceret factus homo. Et hoc insuper quod de nostro assumpsit, totum nobis contulit ad salutem. Corpus namque suum pro nostra reconciliatione in ara crucis hostiam obtulit Deo patri, sanguinem suum fudit in pretium simul et lavacrum, ut redempti a miserabili servitute a peccatis omnibus mundaremur.Et ut tanti beneficii iugis in nobis maneret memoria, corpus suum in cibum et sanguinem suum in potum sub specie panis et vini sumendum fidelibus dereliquit. O pretiosum et admirandum convivium salutiferum et omni suavitate repletum. Quid enim hoc convivio pretiosius esse potest, quo non carnes vitulorum et hircorum ut olim in lege, sed nobis Christus sumendus proponitur Deus verus? Quid hoc sacramento mirabilius? In ipso namque panis et vinum in corpus Christi et sanguinem substantialiter convertuntur, ideoque Christus Deus et homo perfectus sub modici panis specie continetur.”
What difference does it make how many pages any document is? Sounds kinda foolish to me to compare one against the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.