President Hinckley: "Bring Your Good" and Conversion

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hmmm...

Oh yeah…

[3DOP]

On 9/14/2022 at 12:04 AM, Calm said:

Off the top of my head, I would say our relationship with God the Father is in conflict to the point the point our Restored Gospel’s belief is blasphemy to Catholics and others…the belief that God the Father is an exalted human and that gap of humanity vs godliness that exists between Man and God can be completely bridged (in essence Latter-day Saints believe that in the end for those exalted being fully human will mean the same identical state of being as being fully God while Catholics and others believe while there may be some overlap where God has blessed mankind with godly attributes, there are other aspects of God mankind will never possess).

Incorrect or maybe incorrect depending on how you interpret that.   My interpretation is attending a church is not, formally joining one is.  See 36.6.3.2 quoted above…formatting wouldn’t let my cursor in between the first quotes…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number30

 

Hey cal, Catholic deification is supernatural. You say above that your view (LDS) might be "blasphemous", that God the Father is an exalted human. 

That (blasphemy) would not be my objection. Exalted humanity is too limited. LDS "deification" is precisely defective. it is merely natural. We Catholics hold that, in spite of the philosophical objections to the impossibility, the One, Only, Transcendent God, made all things, and ourselves out of NOTHING. 

And we, with all filial fear (respect). are privileged, by faith, to approach Him, saying, "Our Father..." It is beyond the natural. It amazes those who have the light to believe this, and we know that this stupendous, astounding idea, could not be in any way greater, in any heaven or earth. And believing, we love, and adore, and cannot believe in anything more wonderful.

Perhaps LDS deification is more easy to believe, because it is natural. But having been introduced to something else, so far above the natural as to be ordinarily unbelievable, the informed Catholic should not be satisfied with "deified", but limited humanity, when offered "human", but unlimited divinity. 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hey cal, Catholic deification is supernatural. You say above that your view (LDS) might be "blasphemous", that God the Father is an exalted human. 

That (blasphemy) would not be my objection. Exalted humanity is too limited. LDS "deification" is precisely defective. it is merely natural. We Catholics hold that, in spite of the philosophical objections to the impossibility, the One, Only, Transcendent God, made all things, and ourselves out of NOTHING. 

And we, with all filial fear (respect). are privileged, by faith, to approach Him, saying, "Our Father..." It is beyond the natural. It amazes those who have the light to believe this, and we know that this stupendous, astounding idea, could not be in any way greater, in any heaven or earth. And believing, we love, and adore, and cannot believe in anything more wonderful.

Perhaps LDS deification is more easy to believe, because it is natural. But having been introduced to something else, so far above the natural as to be ordinarily unbelievable, the informed Catholic should not be satisfied with "deified", but limited humanity, when offered "human", but unlimited divinity. 

 

Are you saying Catholics believe humans can become fully gods like Christ and the Father?

[3DOP]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying Catholics believe humans can become fully gods like Christ and the Father?

Calm, hi. Give me a day or a week maybe. I am on vacation. The thread will be maybe spent. But I want to make my best answer. Thanks.

Rory

[Calm]

13 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Calm, hi. Give me a day or a week maybe. I am on vacation. The thread will be maybe spent. But I want to make my best answer. Thanks.

Rory

I would appreciate it. It is very important to me to understand Catholic belief, at least at a basic level and this seems that to me. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Calm, hi. Give me a day or a week maybe. I am on vacation. The thread will be maybe spent. But I want to make my best answer. Thanks.

Rory

I would appreciate it. It is very important to me to understand Catholic belief, at least at a basic level and this seems that to me. 

I'm waiting in line for this too.  Thanks for asking, Calm.  (The pressure is on now, Rory ).

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm waiting in line for this too.  Thanks for asking, Calm.  (The pressure is on now, Rory ).

 

Hey InCog...heh, Calm, hi.

The answer is yes and no. Fully gods like Christ and the Father? Whose Christ? Whose Father? 

"Blessed is the man whose help is from thee: in his heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, In the vale of tears, in the place which he hath set. For the lawgiver shall give a blessing, they shall go from virtue to virtue: the God of gods shall be seen in Sion." (Ps. 83:6-8)

Thanks for your interest. I don't think the LDS observer should be disappointed with the degrees by which, according to Catholic thought, "souls ascend by steps", in this life (the vale of tears), going from "virtue to virtue", until finally, the "God of gods" who at first creates out of nothing, man made in God's image, and then recreates out of worse/less than nothing (fallen man), who is potentially glorified as "the God of gods".

Fully gods? Not the Catholic God. Not fully, or else He would be the God of "Gods". But I think a case could be made that the "gods" of the Catholic God, would at the least, be no less exalted than the "gods" of the LDS God. That is where I would go with this if there is further interest. Of course, all that matters is which is the "true" God. But I would hate to see someone/anyone/especially LDS think that Catholic deification is to be scoffed at because it is less than "fully God". 

Again, thanks. 

I am so ready for the weekend/vacation that never ends. God bless.

Rory

 

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I would appreciate it. It is very important to me to understand Catholic belief, at least at a basic level and this seems that to me. 

Yes Catholics believe in theosis

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/12/04/the-ancient-roots-of-deification-in-the-latin-tradition/

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/can-man-become-god

The clincher, from the Catechism:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/460.htm

"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."

Edited September 18, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

I understand that Catholics believe in theosis, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t incorrectly understanding that humans cannot become God in the sense that they are identical in substance and power to the Father and Christ in Catholic belief.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I understand that Catholics believe in theosis, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t incorrectly understanding that humans cannot become God in the sense that they are identical in substance and power to the Father and Christ in Catholic belief.

I would suggest that the catechism answer is as clear as the church wants to make it. Words.

We are guilty of the same kind of ambiguities.

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I understand that Catholics believe in theosis, but I wanted to make sure I wasn’t incorrectly understanding that humans cannot become God in the sense that they are identical in substance and power to the Father and Christ in Catholic belief.

Okay, phrased that way, it is an easier answer, Calm. The deified are not "identical in substance and power to the Father and Christ in Catholic belief." I was suggesting that those who are deified according to the Catholic way of thinking are plausibly equal or in higher degree, more exalted in substance and power, than "the Father and Christ in LDS belief."

It is only in the "for what it is worth" category. Keeping mfbukowski in mind (Mark, hi.), who has confirmed Catholic belief from Catholic sources, I know that substance theology and a transcendent God is not granted, and is indeed denied by LDS. My aims as usual are necessarily modest. No effort to prove that anyone is a crazy fool. It is to communicate that we Catholics, though necessarily wrong according to LDS, do not believe in a theosis that is in any way less than yours. We, according to my understanding of coherent and thoughtful LDS belief, believe in a theosis that LDS must view as impossible, and unbelievable...because it is supernatural. 

I have always been bewildered when faithful LDS say they would be Orthodox if not LDS, dismissing Romanism, even though LDS are almost all western Christians, because Orthodox teach deification? What is up with not acknowledging, or demeaning the Roman Catholic view of theosis? Nothing against the East on this matter. But there isn't any appreciable difference. If anything, it seems to me like you should all say that East and West errs by going too far. Also, if a disaffected LDS avoids atheism, and looks for Christian deification, there is no reason for the Catholic Church to be below consideration.

Rory    

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by 3DOP

[Calm]

“I have always been bewildered when faithful LDS say they would be Orthodox if not LDS, dismissing Romanism, even though LDS are almost all western Christians, because Orthodox teach deification? “

I don’t know if others’ experiences match my own, I only know that prior to ZLMB and this board, when I explained exaltation to my Catholic friends, they did not share anything about theosis beliefs in their faith and treated exaltation as mostly an oddity.  I was quite surprised to find it out eventually, can’t remember when I did. However, my Catholic friends were not ones who enjoyed discussing religion and as far as I can remember, weren’t studying their own faith or anyone else’s.  I was aware of the Beatific Vision, but I assumed back then that humans were simply purified of sin by Christ when heaven bound and not much happened in eternity outside of (what sounded to me when they described it) an eternal peak experience/high that was so overwhelming that it drowned out everything else, so I assumed that Heaven was in essence having all one’s attention being consumed by the presence of God, the heavenly version of Mary choosing to sit at the feet of Jesus forever (and a few Christians have said to me Latter-day Saints are more like Marthas in heaven and we are missing the point of why we are there, which is to dwell with God).

Edited September 18, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

Taking this from a Catholic website (https://stpeter.us/the-creed-gods-nature/#:~:text=Catechism of the Catholic Church,is also truth and love)  about the nature of God:

Succinctly, we can say that the nature of God is transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, personal and perfect. He is also truth and love. Let me explain what each term means:

1. From the Bible we learn that God exists even before the world came into existence and that it was God who created the world. As its Creator, the created world is dependent on Him. In other words, God is above the entire created world and so He is transcendent.
2. God exists infinitely by Himself and not created by any super-power. His existence is not time or space bound. He has no beginning and no end. He exists forever. Hence, He is eternal.
3. God created the world according to His Will with love. Therefore, the Bible says that He found everything good. As far as God has the supreme power to create and to regulate systematically the functions of the created world, He is omnipotent. God saw all that, He created, as good, and so no evil can came from Him. If the evil is not from God, then evil is the consequence of the misuse and abuse of our freedom. with His infinite power, He sustains and protects the creatures.
4. In the Book of Exodus 3:14, God said to Moses, “IAM WHO I AM…and he said, ‘say to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.” This statement of God reveals that God is a personal being, who acts with freedom and love.
5. God, the creator of heaven and earth, loves us personally and passionately. The Salvation history gives evidences to the fact that God has been faithful in His covenant and inexhaustible in His mercy. In every way, history has proved that God has been ever perfect in His love, fidelity and mercy, while the humankind was imperfect in their response to the love and mercy of God.

The created world reflects in one way or other some aspect of God’s infinite perfection of Goodness, Beauty, life and love. Since the creatures share in the infinite perfection of God, their beauty, goodness, love etc. point back to Him and tells us something about Him. Thus, we believe that God is the infinite source of everything beautiful in the created world.

From reading this I would simply suggest that there seems to be no difference between non-LDS Christians on this definition of the nature of God, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, or those who claim to be neither.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Navidad said:

From reading this I would simply suggest that there seems to be no difference between non-LDS Christians on this definition of the nature of God, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, or those who claim to be neither.

Which, if accurate means you are still a Catholic and the Reformation never happened.    Which to me indicates that what is said here is not "accurate".

Note I am not attacking YOU or your beliefs- I am disagreeing with what you posted.

Fortunately  all the words in that quote can mean pretty much what you want them to mean, and some of the possible interpreted meanings of a given word may actually contradict other interpreted meanings of the same word.  "Personal" for example conflicts dramatically with "transcendent"

https://www.learnreligions.com/god-is-transcendent-and-immanent-251063

In my random daily stroll through some sites, I found this.

I underlined and bolded the Word "Restoration"

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/what-was-vatican-ii-anyway/

Quote

 

What did it do?

The Second Vatican Council produced several documents.

The four most important are called “constitutions.” They are:

• Sacrosanctum concilium, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. This document aimed for a “restoration” of sacred liturgy, focused on the call of all Christians to participate with “full and active participation” in the Church’s liturgy, which it called “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed,” and “the font from which all her power flows.”

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 9/17/2022 at 12:49 PM, Calm said:

I would appreciate it. It is very important to me to understand Catholic belief, at least at a basic level and this seems that to me. 

I'll try to give you some bullet points to work with:

• Theosis (or deification) is taught in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
• It's affirmed in the Catechism too (in paragraph 460).
• Theosis is the reconciliation of the creatures created in God's image with God. 
• An important difference between the Catholic teaching of Theosis and what I believe to be LDS teaching is that in Catholic teaching:
  • God is the eternal creator and humans are creatures in his image, and were created in space and time (so humans are not eternal in the sense that God is because humans were created, in space and time, by God)
  • There is not a notion of multiple Gods. Theosis is the reconciliation of creatures with the creator, but there is not a sense of multiple, eternal creators. 
  • The specifics of theosis aren't known. 
• This article might help: A Word That Every Catholic Needs to Know | Catholic Answers

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[3DOP]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Taking this from a Catholic website (https://stpeter.us/the-creed-gods-nature/#:~:text=Catechism of the Catholic Church,is also truth and love)  about the nature of God:

Succinctly, we can say that the nature of God is transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, personal and perfect. He is also truth and love. Let me explain what each term means:

1. From the Bible we learn that God exists even before the world came into existence and that it was God who created the world. As its Creator, the created world is dependent on Him. In other words, God is above the entire created world and so He is transcendent.
2. God exists infinitely by Himself and not created by any super-power. His existence is not time or space bound. He has no beginning and no end. He exists forever. Hence, He is eternal.
3. God created the world according to His Will with love. Therefore, the Bible says that He found everything good. As far as God has the supreme power to create and to regulate systematically the functions of the created world, He is omnipotent. God saw all that, He created, as good, and so no evil can came from Him. If the evil is not from God, then evil is the consequence of the misuse and abuse of our freedom. with His infinite power, He sustains and protects the creatures.
4. In the Book of Exodus 3:14, God said to Moses, “IAM WHO I AM…and he said, ‘say to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.” This statement of God reveals that God is a personal being, who acts with freedom and love.
5. God, the creator of heaven and earth, loves us personally and passionately. The Salvation history gives evidences to the fact that God has been faithful in His covenant and inexhaustible in His mercy. In every way, history has proved that God has been ever perfect in His love, fidelity and mercy, while the humankind was imperfect in their response to the love and mercy of God.

The created world reflects in one way or other some aspect of God’s infinite perfection of Goodness, Beauty, life and love. Since the creatures share in the infinite perfection of God, their beauty, goodness, love etc. point back to Him and tells us something about Him. Thus, we believe that God is the infinite source of everything beautiful in the created world.

From reading this I would simply suggest that there seems to be no difference between non-LDS Christians on this definition of the nature of God, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, or those who claim to be neither.

I agree Navidad. I would add to your #4, that "I am Who Am", is a name that is descriptive. Moses had asked God for His name. Who should Moses say told me to lead the people of Israel from Egypt? Certainly this reply shows God to be a personal being. But His name is "I am Who Am"? "God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you." (Ex. 3:14) The CAPS are interpretive. We can lose those for sake of discussion. Here is one interpretation without the caps:

 '"I am who am": That is, I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite; without beginning, end, or change; and the source of all other beings." If one accepts Ex. 3:14 as revelation, it isn't Plato or Aristotle, but Moses, around a millenium earlier, who seems to be suggesting that God is existence Itself/Himself." ---https://drbo.org/chapter/02003.htm

 

 

[3DOP]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Which, if accurate means you are still a Catholic and the Reformation never happened.    Which to me indicates that what is said here is not "accurate".

Note I am not attacking YOU or your beliefs- I am disagreeing with what you posted.

Fortunately  all the words in that quote can mean pretty much what you want them to mean, and some of the possible interpreted meanings of a given word may actually contradict other interpreted meanings of the same word.  "Personal" for example conflicts dramatically with "transcendent"

https://www.learnreligions.com/god-is-transcendent-and-immanent-251063

In my random daily stroll through some sites, I found this.

I underlined and bolded the Word "Restoration"

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/what-was-vatican-ii-anyway/

I agree that personal and transcendent are paradoxical philosophically. Catholics hold that God is nevertheless both, ignoring what seems like sound philosophy. We are not corrupted by hellenism. It is Moses who leads the charge.

[InCognitus]

47 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There is not a notion of multiple Gods. Theosis is the reconciliation of creatures with the creator, but there is not a sense of multiple, eternal creators. 

I presume you are making a distinction between "Gods" and "gods", correct?   Would you say there are multiple "gods", as in, God is the "God of gods" (Deut 10:17)?  (Just trying to make sure I understand, and comparing to what 3DOP wrote in his post).  

[Saint Bonaventure]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I presume you are making a distinction between "Gods" and "gods", correct?   Would you say there are multiple "gods", as in, God is the "God of gods" (Deut 10:17)?  (Just trying to make sure I understand, and comparing to what 3DOP wrote in his post).  

I am emphasizing that, through theosis, we become partakers of the divine nature. 

This issue with paragraph 460 arises once in a while, and particularly regarding what St. Athanasius was saying in the Greek. The entire article is here: 

Are We Gods? | Catholic Answers

Here's an excerpt: 

 

Quote

 

The Catholic Church is simply being faithful to Scripture in teaching man to be partakers of the divine nature by grace.

A mistranslation

Where the English translation says, quoting St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century, “For the son of God became man so that we might become God,” the official Latin text reads, Ipse siquidem homo factus est, ut nos dii efficeremur. Literal translation: “For the Son of God became man so that we might be made gods.” The Latin term dii translated “God” in the English translation of the Catechism is nominative plural and is not capitalized. Unfortunately, the English translation of the official Latin text gets it wrong. “God” should be “gods.”

Part of the problem here may well go back to the original Greek of St. Athanasius from which the Catechism quotes. The literal translation of the text from St. Athanasius that the Catechism quotes is, “For he was made man in order that we might be deified.” The Greek verb theopoiethomen is where the problem lies. This is a compound of two Greek words that mean god and to make. So one could see how a translator could translate it as “might be made God.”

However, the word carries the connotation of participation in godhood rather than becoming God. It is normally translated as “deified.” And if anyone reads St. Athanasius’ work, it is clear that is the sense in which he was using it. It appears that the mistranslation in the Catechism may well have its origin in a mistranslation of the original Greek text from St. Athanasius.

Whatever its origin, what we have here is a poor translation of the actual, official, and normative Latin text of CCC 460. But we should keep in mind that translations are just that: translations. It is only the original Latin text that is authoritative.

Still, no heresy

We should also note that, even with the poor translation, we are not talking about anything heretical here. The context makes it clear that the Church is not attempting to say Christians somehow become equal with God. The word itself should be understood in the context in which it is being written. So even if the Church intended to write “God” instead of “gods,” the context would make clear that we are still talking about men being partakers in divinity and not being made equal with God. The Catholic Church teaches that we do become “gods” but only in that sense of participation in the divine nature, as we’ve said.

It is crucial for us to understand in what sense Scripture speaks of theosis,or God’s people, as participating in the divine nature. Yes, men are referred to as “gods” in Scripture, and we need to know why. We cannot ever be “gods” as Mormons claim we can be. The famous bromide of Mormonism— “As we are God once was; as God is we will become” —is a definite no-no in Catholic and biblical Christianity.

But without understanding properly the concept of theosis, Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestants (and other sects as well) often find themselves unable to deal with key biblical texts that are used by Mormons to reinforce their henotheistic understanding.

For example, after having declared the truth of his divinity by saying “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30, which then caused the Jews present to “pick up stones to stone [Jesus]” because they knew he had just proclaimed himself to be God, Jesus responded, in verses 34-38:

Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods?” If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God?” If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me, but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6, where God himself refers to the “princes” of Israel as “gods” inasmuch as they represent God to his people: “I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.’”

“Gods” by proxy

The Hebrew word used for God here is Elohim, which is the most common word used for God in the Old Testament. Indeed, in Exodus and elsewhere in the Old Testament, we have multiple examples of people of God, judges in particular, being referred to as “gods” (see Exodus 22:8, twice in 22:9, and Psalm 82:1).

The idea here is that rulers in Israel wield God’s authority as judges and as such are “gods.” In the New Testament Christians are joined more radically to God through Jesus Christ so that they share even more profoundly in prerogatives that belong to God alone in a strict sense. Here is a brief list of only some of them:

1. God alone is “Father” in a strict sense, according to Matthew 23:9, yet many among the people of God are referred to and named “fathers” via participation in God. See Luke 16:24, Acts 7:2, 1 John 2:13-14, Eph. 3:14-15, 1 Cor. 4:14-15.
2. Christ alone is “teacher” according to Matthew 23:8 (Greek, didaskolos), yet many among God’s people are called to be “teachers” in Him. See James 3:1, Ephesians 4:11, etc.
3. Christ alone is our “shepherd and bishop” (Greek, poimaine and episkopos) according to 1 Peter 2:25, yet we have many “shepherds” and “bishops” in the New Covenant, the Church. See Ephesians 4:11, 1 Timothy 3:1, Acts 20:28, etc.
4. Christ alone is our “leader” (Greek, kathegetes) according to Matthew 23:10, yet we have many “leaders” in the Church (Heb. 13:17, 24).

Those who participate in that which belongs to God alone in a strict and infinite sense do not take away from God; they participate in God through a gift of grace. The same can be said for us Christians as “sons of God.” Christ alone is the “only begotten Son” according to John 1:18; 3:16, etc.; yet Christians are called “sons of God” and “born of God” in Galatians 4:4-7, Romans 8:14-17, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:18, etc.

In fact, even in the Old Testament angels are referred to as “sons of God” in Job 1:6, and sons of Seth were called “sons of God” in Genesis 6:4—obviously via participation and not by nature. The New Covenant reveals Christians to be sons of God not only through participation but even more intimately and radically via adoption. Christ alone is “Son” by nature, but it is entirely proper and biblical to refer to all of the above as “sons.”

With all of this as a backdrop, we can see how texts of Scripture that proclaim there to be only one true God—John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:5-6, etc.—do not contradict a text like John 10:34 where Jesus himself refers to the people of God as “gods.” The latter are “gods” via participation; God alone is God by nature.

Concluding thoughts

We do not speak often of the truth that the people of God are “partakers of the divine nature,” probably because of the confusion it causes for those who do not know the Faith or the Bible well, but that is a shame. If Jesus Christ revealing himself to be “the Son of God” was one of the most profound ways he revealed his divinity in the New Testament—and it was—then our being “sons of God” reveals our participation in divinity as well.

Are we “God” by nature? Of course not! But we are partakers of the divine nature. And this is extremely significant for us to know. In the words of Pope St. Leo the Great, written more than 1,500 years ago (and found in CCC 1691):

Christian, recognize your dignity and, now that you share in God’s own nature, do not return to your former base condition by sinning. Remember who is your head and of whose body you are a member. Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.

It is this biblical principle of theodosis that is the basis for our understanding of how we can accomplish anything of eternal value in this life. “Apart from me, you can do nothing,” Jesus says in John 15:5. But we can do “all things in [Christ] who strengthens [us],” according to St. Paul (Phil. 4:13). It is because of the Christian’s participation in divinity that he possesses spiritual gifts in accord with God’s will that empower him to perform miracles and all manner of actions beyond his natural capacity. It is because of this participation that his prayers can be efficacious and—most importantly—he can merit eternal life, as Paul makes clear:

For [God] will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury (Rom. 2:6-8).

And, again:

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart (Gal. 6:7-9).

When the Catholic Church speaks of “meriting,” it means simply that we will be rewarded for what we do in cooperation with God’s grace. And as Paul says above, part of what we merit, or are rewarded with, because of God’s grace working in us, is eternal life.

But we cannot accomplish this on our own. Not only did Jesus say we could do nothing apart from him, Paul also made clear that any works done apart from Christ are worthless as far as eternal reward is concerned (cf. Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 3:28, Gal. 2:16, etc.).

However, because of our union with Christ through faith and baptism, it is no longer us but “Christ who lives in [us]” who accomplishes all things (Gal. 2:20). Through Christ and in union with Christ we have truly become “sons of God” and “partakers of the divine nature” whereby we are empowered to do what our own natures could never do. As Paul intimated in Romans 2, we can merit “glory” and “immortality.” We can merit “eternal life.”

 

I hope I'm helping sort this one out....

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

 hope I'm helping sort this one out....

 

 

The problem is that we need a translation not from Latin to English but from Catholic to LDS.

I can read Latin just fine, but the CLARITY of the English is the major problem.  I think what the Latin says coheres just fine with the LDS interpretation AND the Catholic interpretations, there is that much ambiguity there.

But what exactly does "partakers of the Divine Nature mean?

Those have to be two of the most ambiguous words in English!  And using "divine" to modify "nature" simply doubles the ambiguity.

To me the phrase just means that by God's grace we can become more like him.

Work for you?

By God's gift we can become more righteous, a better person.

That is something even a dummy like me can understand 

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Which, if accurate means you are still a Catholic and the Reformation never happened.    Which to me indicates that what is said here is not "accurate".

Note I am not attacking YOU or your beliefs- I am disagreeing with what you posted.

Fortunately  all the words in that quote can mean pretty much what you want them to mean, and some of the possible interpreted meanings of a given word may actually contradict other interpreted meanings of the same word.  "Personal" for example conflicts dramatically with "transcendent"

https://www.learnreligions.com/god-is-transcendent-and-immanent-251063

In my random daily stroll through some sites, I found this.

I underlined and bolded the Word "Restoration"

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/what-was-vatican-ii-anyway/

What I am suggesting is that the reformation was not about the nature of God the Father. There were many doctrinal beliefs about which reformers and Catholics did not disagree and still do not disagree. There were some doctrinal beliefs that early restorationists (Anabaptists) and reformers did not agree on. It has been estimated those disagreements cost over 1000 Anabaptist lives. Between Catholic and Protestant armies the Anabaptists suffered terribly.

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I agree that personal and transcendent are paradoxical philosophically. Catholics hold that God is nevertheless both, ignoring what seems like sound philosophy. We are not corrupted by hellenism. It is Moses who leads the charge.

This is a good day! We are agreeing with each other! I always regret when differences in affiliation or life experiences separate folks. I admire you and your amazing life's journey. In some ways perhaps I understand its breadth more than most others on this forum.

I do believe that some times our LDS friends are too quick to attribute Hellenism as the source of beliefs that became institutionalized Christianity. It seems to me to be a means by which those same beliefs and the associated institutions can be either dismissed or justifying a restoration back to a truer form of orthodoxy. If there was a need for either reformation or restoration, it may have been a need for an internal restoration as it seems the brilliant Dutch Catholic scholar Erasmus suggested. I find it similar to what I would suggest about the SBC - Southern Baptist Convention. I hope that makes some sense even if you don't agree with it. I also think we are more alike in terms of our thoughts about synergism versus monergism, which might be a discussion for another day. Methinks our LDS friends would agree with us on that, but it is for them to speak about that for themselves. Best to you. I better quit while we are still agreeing! 😀

[Niblo]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:21 AM, Calm said:

Are you saying Catholics believe humans can become fully gods like Christ and the Father?

They don't.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/18/2022 at 7:04 PM, 3DOP said:

I agree that personal and transcendent are paradoxical philosophically. Catholics hold that God is nevertheless both, ignoring what seems like sound philosophy. We are not corrupted by hellenism. It is Moses who leads the charge.

A question about terminology:  By "personal" I meant a resurrected being with a body.  Perhaps you were using it differently.

Wikipedia,"Transcendence":   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(philosophy)

Quote

 

In religion, transcendence refers to the aspect of God's nature and power which is wholly independent of the material universe, beyond all physical laws. This is contrasted with immanence, where a god is said to be fully present in the physical world and thus accessible to creatures in various ways. In religious experience transcendence is a state of being that has overcome the limitations of physical existence and by some definitions has also become independent of it. This is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation, psychedelics and paranormal "visions".

It is affirmed in various religious traditions' concept of the divine, which contrasts with the notion of a god (or, the Absolute) that exists exclusively in the physical order (immanentism), or indistinguishable from it (pantheism). Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God may transcend both the universe and knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind).

Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of various religious traditions affirm that a god is both within and beyond the universe (panentheism); in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.

 

I had quite a long discussion with a Catholic priest about the PRESENT status of Jesus' resurrected body, today, right now.  Does it still exist?

If not what happened to it?  Where is it? 

These are the kinds of logical problems that arise in this description of God being "transcendent" AND immanent/ personal.

But I agree we cannot know really anything about how God does His thing, yes it is legitimately a "mystery".  That's fine but in that case we should just leave the topic alone and not pretend we have the answer.

[3DOP]

6 hours ago, Niblo said:

They don't.

Agreed, Niblo. Catholics can not correctly believe that deified creatures can be elevated to the status of the Uncreated One God.

I fleshed this out on a later post that you may have missed, which was aimed in particular at our LDS friends who could easily misunderstand such an unqualified reply.

By the way, welcome to the board.

3DOP