"...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