CCC 460 sounds like an LDS belief


#1

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81

The LDS Church says that if MAN became perfect, they can become like GOD. What are your **takes, **on CCC 460 ?

This I saw in Malachi4U’s Signature


#2

2 Peter 1:3-4

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.

Please see the following two links:

Supernatural Adoption


Orientale Lumen
Apostolic Letter on the Eastern Churches
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
Promulgated on May 2, 1995

See especially number 6, that starts: “6. Certain features of the spiritual and theological tradition…”

Justin


#3

TomNosser keeps bringing this up.

It is as simple as this. If CCC 460 teaches what Tom or the LDS says it does, the Catholic Church is teaching or allowing polytheism. Thats it. End of story.

So would ask Tom or any other LDS to show you where the Catholic Church teaches polytheism as acceptable to a Catholic. We proclaim in our great Creed weekly “We believe in ONE GOD …” The Catholic Church never has, doesn’t, and never will teach polytheism (that there ever was any more than one God, or ever will be more than one God). To claim that the Catholic Church allows for divinization as the LDS mean divinization is patently absurd. Any LDS who tries to make this case is reading the Mormon doctrine into the Catholic doctrine, which are totally different and contrary to eachother (see links in post above).

Any discussion like this boils down to montheism vs. polytheism.

Peter John


#4

[quote=Geocacher]The LDS Church says that if MAN became perfect, they can become like GOD. What are your **takes, **on CCC 460 ?

This I saw in Malachi4U’s Signature
[/quote]

I would say the LDS doesn’t teach that man can become LIKE God (sharing in part with His Divine nature by His free Grace that allows this), but that they teach man CAN BECOME A GOD UNTO HIMSELF, one of many. That is the distinction.

Peter John


#5

[quote=OfTheCross]TomNosser keeps bringing this up.

It is as simple as this. If CCC 460 teaches what Tom or the LDS says it does, the Catholic Church is teaching or allowing polytheism. Thats it. End of story.

So would ask Tom or any other LDS to show you where the Catholic Church teaches polytheism as acceptable to a Catholic. We proclaim in our great Creed weekly “We believe in ONE GOD …” The Catholic Church never has, doesn’t, and never will teach polytheism (that there ever was any more than one God, or ever will be more than one God). To claim that the Catholic Church allows for divinization as the LDS mean divinization is patently absurd. Any LDS who tries to make this case is reading the Mormon doctrine into the Catholic doctrine, which are totally different and contrary to eachother (see links in post above).

Any discussion like this boils down to montheism vs. polytheism.

Peter John
[/quote]

OfTheCross,
It is as simple as this, the CoJCoLDS is not Polythieistic and is not Henotheistic. This is true for the same reasons the Catholic Church is neither of these. Humans may become gods, but only through the uniting with God.

Here is a thread discussion some of the teachings of Catholic Scholars on

[/font]http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1624

If you would like to interpret these scholars words in a way that rules out “men may become gods” from the SPECTRUM of Catholic thought, then please post away.

Charity, TOm


#6

[quote=OfTheCross]I would say the LDS doesn’t teach that man can become LIKE God (sharing in part with His Divine nature by His free Grace that allows this), but that they teach man CAN BECOME A GOD UNTO HIMSELF, one of many. That is the distinction.
[/quote]

Peter John

And if I claim that Catholics believe that Mary interceeded for the sins of man through her suffering as she saw her Son crucified and that this is part of the atonement, would this be Catholic doctrine?

There is at least one difference that I say must exist between LDS and Catholic deification. This difference results from the LDS belief that humans are begotten spirit children of God the Father. As a result of this belief, LDS who are deified are lifted up to God by God when we “partake of his nature.” Catholics may in my non-Catholic opinion (but few do) believe that their nature is changed in some way when they “partake of his nature.”

This is the only real concrete difference that I think must be maintained by all Catholics and all LDS.

Another thing that is true that I believe Jordan Vajda calls his second difference is that LDS speak of “eternal increase.” Catholics would not speak of eternal increase, and the thought that a deified human could somehow grow in love until this love resulted in the begetting of others would sound quite foreign and aberrant.

One thing that some LDS may not recognize that we can learn from our church leaders and the witness of both the BOM and the Bible, is that to be deified is not something we accomplish on our own merits. It is also not something we do that results in our schism from God the Father so we can become some kind of independent entity. As I, Blake Ostler, and many LDS read the Bible and BOM, the unity of God cannot be compromised by the deification of man.


#7

Ex-Catholic Priest Father Vajda 5 years before leaving the Catholic Church to become a LDS wrote a masters thesis where he compared the ECF’s statements about deification. This is from an introduction to this document:

[font=Geneva]"The underlying motive for this thesis,"Vajda states in the new introduction that he has written for FARMS, “was my . . . perception that one connection between the CC and the CoJCoLDS lay in the fact that those who sought to deny the label ‘Christian’ to the LDS Church were, more often than not, the very same people who would then turn around and attempt to deny this label to the Catholic Church with the same reasons often being used in both instances to justify the conclusion. And since it was easy enough for me to see through the many half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright errors alleged against the CC, I suspected that similar critiques leveled against the CoJCoLDS [/font][font=Geneva]as to its ‘non-Christian’ status were equally flawed.” Accordingly, he decided that he “wanted to reach beyond the rhetoric and discover for [himself] what the CoJCoLDS actually taught,” in the hope of encouraging responsible and accurate interfaith dialogue.

“I firmly maintain,” writes Father Vajda, “that the Latter-day Saints are owed a debt of gratitude by other Christians because the Saints remind us all of our divine potential. The historic Christian doctrine of salvation theosis, i.e., human divinization for too long has been forgotten by too many Christians.” “Members of the LDS Church,” he promises near the beginning of his thesis, “will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming ‘partakers of the divine nature.’”[/font]

Charity, TOm


#8

[quote=TOmNossor]It is as simple as this, the CoJCoLDS is not Polythieistic and is not Henotheistic.
[/quote]

Actually, the LDS Church is polytheistic. Your own statement above supports this. If LDS Can become gods through any means at… then you believe in more than one God. This is by definition polytheism.

Here is what an LDS Apostles said about this:
"Three separate personages -Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.(Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine)

Brandon


#9

**Is monotheism still an accurate term in discussions of the Judeo-Christian tradition?
**
Strictly speaking, monotheism is the belief in one God. I must concede that a strict understanding of monotheism can no longer be used in meaningful discussions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, this does not mean that the term should be discarded. I would argue that a modified meaning of the term must be used in opposition to any modified form of polytheism in order to maintain an accurate description of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The following are some of the more salient terms that scholars have presented to describe the religion of Israel.

1.) Full blown polytheism – the belief that Israel acknowledged and worshipped more than one God.

2.) Henotheism/monolatry – the belief that Israel acknowledged more than one God, but worshipped only one God.

3.) Incipient/implicit monotheism – the belief that the intelligentsia of Israel were on the verge of pure monotheistic thought for some years before the exile, while the common peasants were either polytheistic and/or henotheistic.

4.) Practical monotheism – the belief that monotheism is the fundamental practice of Israel, without explicit denials of the existence of other “gods”.

5.) Creational monotheism – the belief that one God is the sole creator of the universe and all that is within.

6.) Strict/pure monotheism – the belief in only one God in an absolute sense.

As we move on to NT and the Christian religion the bare term “monotheism” is even more necessary to clarify. Though the NT speaks one God, the phrase is used only of God the Father. But, the NT also speaks of at least one other person as possessing divinity. As soon as one concedes that more than one person is God, the term monotheism must be reinterpreted.

Aug


#10

[quote=AugustineH354]**Is monotheism still an accurate term in discussions of the Judeo-Christian tradition?
**
Strictly speaking, monotheism is the belief in one God. I must concede that a strict understanding of monotheism can no longer be used in meaningful discussions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, this does not mean that the term should be discarded. I would argue that a modified meaning of the term must be used in opposition to any modified form of polytheism in order to maintain an accurate description of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The following are some of the more salient terms that scholars have presented to describe the religion of Israel.

1.) Full blown polytheism – the belief that Israel acknowledged and worshipped more than one God.

2.) Henotheism/monolatry – the belief that Israel acknowledged more than one God, but worshipped only one God.

3.) Incipient/implicit monotheism – the belief that the intelligentsia of Israel were on the verge of pure monotheistic thought for some years before the exile, while the common peasants were either polytheistic and/or henotheistic.

4.) Practical monotheism – the belief that monotheism is the fundamental practice of Israel, without explicit denials of the existence of other “gods”.

5.) Creational monotheism – the belief that one God is the sole creator of the universe and all that is within.

6.) Strict/pure monotheism – the belief in only one God in an absolute sense.

As we move on to NT and the Christian religion the bare term “monotheism” is even more necessary to clarify. Though the NT speaks one God, the phrase is used only of God the Father. But, the NT also speaks of at least one other person as possessing divinity. As soon as one concedes that more than one person is God, the term monotheism must be reinterpreted.

Aug
[/quote]

Yeah, scholars believe a lot of wacky things, so what. Go ask an orthodox Jew if he/she believes the views of Yeshua above are compatible with Jewish belief.

Scholars, no matter how great their credentials, are not protected from teaching error in regards to Christian doctrine (this is painfully obvious). Scholars can help explain the faith, but they can also help destroy the faith. Orthodox Christianity is monotheisic. Orthodox Judaism is monotheistic. No matter the claims of skeptics or heterodox scholars, this will never change.

Peter John


#11

Mary’s participation in the Objective Redemption was to merely give Christ the Redeemer moral support, to suffer with Him. Her suffering did not redeem mankind to God the Father, only Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross provided for the atonement of mankind. Mary through her intercession participates in the Subjective Redemption of mankind, in helping to apply Christ’s Objective Redemption to mankind. All believers participate in the Subjective Redemption in greater or lesser degrees, through our prayer, our evangelistic witness etc as we make Christ known to the world. This is not a problem at all, and does not really relate to the divinization debate.

I still argue that the Catholic definition of divinization is totally contrary to the LDS definition of divinization and completely incompatible with Catholic teaching. I don’t care how Mormons become gods, I don’t care if it is through Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (as one God or three), if men become gods that is polytheism, no matter how hard you want to protest.

Peter John


#12

Ex-Catholic Priest Father Vajda 5 years before leaving the Catholic Church to become a LDS wrote a masters thesis where he compared the ECF’s statements about deification. This is from an introduction to this document

What does this prove, that Father Vajda is either purposefully or ignorantly twisting the view of the Catholic Church or the ECF’s?

If I bring forth a host of ex-Mormons who became Protestant Pastors or Catholic priests and align themselves against his novel claims would that prove anything. No, it wouldn’t. My faith is not based on ex-Catholic priests or ex-Mormons or Master’s thesis’ or Doctoral dissertations. My faith is based on the Word of God (the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition) with the infallible guidence of the Magesterium and Pope guided by the Holy Spirit in binding and dogmatic pronouncments of faith over 2000 years.

If you or Father Vajda want to stubbornly believe that the Catholic Church teaches or allows the LDS concept of divinization, do as you please to your own peril. God has given us each free will.

Peter John


#13

Tom,

Quick question.

After a LDS becomes a god, does he/she still continue to be subservient and bound to worship the God(s) of the Trinity?

Peter John


#14

**If you would like to interpret these scholars words in a way that rules out “men may become gods” from the SPECTRUM of Catholic thought, then please post away. **

Again Tom, my faith is not founded on the whims of scholars who change doctrines and morals with any passing fancy. Scholars and theologians have been a great help to understanding the faith, and a great many of them have also been heretics seeking to destroy the faith. You can find plenty of Catholic theologians who deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for allowing women to the priesthood, say that abortion is a situational individual choice and not an absolute moral evil, say that the act of homosexuality is not morally wrong, teach that all religions are equal, … … … …

So should I now deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for the ordination of women, promote “choice”, think that the homosexual act is a true act of love with no detrimental effect, and teach others that all religions lead to God.

That is the struggle in the Catholic Church in this age and what is causing a great deal of confusion. Theologians vs. the Pope and the Magesterium. As an orthodox Catholic I follow the teaching office of the Church and not theologians, as 2000 years of the faithful have before me, and there is no confusion within me as to what I should believe.

Peter John


#15

[quote=OfTheCross]**If you would like to interpret these scholars words in a way that rules out “men may become gods” from the SPECTRUM of Catholic thought, then please post away. **

Again Tom, my faith is not founded on the whims of scholars who change doctrines and morals with any passing fancy. Scholars and theologians have been great helpers in understanding the faith, and also have been great heretics intent on destroying the faith. You can find plenty of Catholic theologians who deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for allowing women to the priesthood, say that abortion is a situational individual choice and not an absolute moral evil, say that the act of homosexuality is not morally wrong, teach that all religions are equal, … … … …

So should I now deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for the ordination of women, promote “choice”, think that the homosexual act is a true act of love with no detrimental effect, and teach others that all religions lead to God.

That is the struggle in the Catholic Church in this age and what is causing a great deal of confusion. Theologians vs. the Pope and the Magesterium. As an orthodox Catholic I follow the teaching office of the Church and not theologians, as 2000 year of the faithful have before me, and there is no confusion within me as to what I should believe.

Peter John
[/quote]


#16

[quote=OfTheCross]Tom,

Quick question.

After a LDS becomes a god, does he/she still continue to be subservient and bound to worship the God(s) of the Trinity?

Peter John
[/quote]

Joseph Smith was quite clear that the deified man was subordinate to God.

I maintain that the deified man is only deified through uniting with God. As such the diefied man must maintain his relationship with God. He is both subservient and bound to God.

Charity, TOm


#17

[quote=OfTheCross]**If you would like to interpret these scholars words in a way that rules out “men may become gods” from the SPECTRUM of Catholic thought, then please post away. **

Again Tom, my faith is not founded on the whims of scholars who change doctrines and morals with any passing fancy. Scholars and theologians have been a great help to understanding the faith, and a great many of them have also been heretics seeking to destroy the faith. You can find plenty of Catholic theologians who deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for allowing women to the priesthood, say that abortion is a situational individual choice and not an absolute moral evil, say that the act of homosexuality is not morally wrong, teach that all religions are equal, … … … …

So should I now deny the primacy of the Papacy, push for the ordination of women, promote “choice”, think that the homosexual act is a true act of love with no detrimental effect, and teach others that all religions lead to God.

That is the struggle in the Catholic Church in this age and what is causing a great deal of confusion. Theologians vs. the Pope and the Magesterium. As an orthodox Catholic I follow the teaching office of the Church and not theologians, as 2000 years of the faithful have before me, and there is no confusion within me as to what I should believe.

Peter John
[/quote]

If you followed my link you would find quotes from Pope John Paul II and a number of early saints. And of course CCC460 is from the magisterium.

So, no you should not deny the Primacy of the Pope. If ever women are ordained in the Catholic Church it will be a “fatal flaw” that results in tradition changing (my Catholic father is of the opinion that this will occur and he is conservative relative to the Catholic priest I grew up with).

But, that men may become gods, is not some scholarly silliness. There is a consistent tradition. There is Biblical backing. There just seems to have been a huge silence between 700-1900AD.

Charity, TOm

Charity, TOm


#18
  1. Do the current LDS leadership and doctrines currently teach that divinized man is still subserviant and must worship the Trinity of God(s) or do they differ from Joseph Smith’s original doctrine?

  2. Are LDS allowed to believe that divinized man may not need to be subserviant and may not have to worship the Trinity of God(s) or is this currently allowable?

This terminology seems quite confusing. There is either one God or many Gods. It seems that you are stating that there is God (not sure if you believe the Holy Trinity is ONE GOD three natures equal from eternity past to eternity future, seems like you would qualify this statement) yet at the same time gods subserviant to this God. Then are the gods really gods at all? I’d like to here a straightforward answer to the two questions above.

Peter John


#19

If you followed my link you would find quotes from Pope John Paul II and a number of early saints. And of course CCC460 is from the magisterium.

I did read the whole link and still think you are trying to push, pull, and squeeze the Catholic definition of divinization round peg into the LDS definition of divinization square hole.

Peter John


#20

[quote=OfTheCross]Do the current LDS leadership and doctrines currently teach that divinized man is still subserviant and must worship the Trinity of God(s) or do they differ from Joseph Smith’s original doctrine?
[/quote]

I am sure I do not know all the words used by all the current LDS leadership. I am sure that all I know from the Bible, D&C, BOM, and PGP would lead me to look for this subordination of the deified man to God. This is how I interpret the scriptures (binding LDS doctrine) and the words of LDS leaders (non-binding).

[quote=OfTheCross]Are LDS allowed to believe that divinized man may not need to be subserviant and may not have to worship the Trinity of God(s) or is this currently allowable?
[/quote]

As I have suggested in this thread and in the Catholic Deification thread I believe there is a spectrum of allowable beliefs for the Catholic. I believe within the CoJCoLDS there is an even larger spectrum of allowable beliefs. This larger spectrum is a result of a number of things, including no magisterium and generally being non-creedal.

So I would embrace a LDS who moved beyond my personal comfort zone with respect to the possibility of the future separateness from God as my brother or sister LDS and certainly as my brother or sister in Christ. I would also seek to share with them as an equal my opinions on this because I think our scriptures demand it.

Charity, TOm


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.