Thanks for the links. I read them. Very frustrating when Mr. Slick keeps presenting some Catholic teachings (even citing some of them) while ignoring others when they are important to the subject.
Just as Scripture it must be taken as a whole (he doesn’t seem to take Scripture as a whole either), the Church’s catechetical teachings must be taken as a package.
Reading this post of Mr. Slick’s just reminded me of the frustration I have had in the past reading his stuff (nothing seems to have changed) to help Protestant friends of our family asking about Mr. Slick’s teachings.
Surprisingly he did get a few things correct too (but he will not cite the Bible verses Catholics show that support and many times quote in our teachings).
Distortion Of Catholicism
For example he states:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
- Become a god: CCC 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.”
- Paste: Become a god: CCC 460, “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.”
- Article: The CCC paragraph 460 and becoming gods.
Then Mr. Slick does NOT cite the footnote for the champion of the early Church and the defense of the Divinity of Jesus, St. Athanasius (whose very statement this is and is explicitly footnoted in footnote 80 of CCC 460 but NOT cited or expounded upon by him) when he talks about “so that we might become God”.
Mr. Slick forgets that the context is consort with God (Latin “divinae consortes naturae”) right from CCC 460.
Consortes from “consors” merely means “having a common lot, of the same fortune” but Mr. Slick neglects to mention any of this.
Mr. Slick also conveniently does not point to other areas of the CCC such as CCC 443 or CCC 2786 or other teachings that make it clear we are NOT God and we ARE distinct from God.
CCC 443 Peter could recognize the transcendent character of the Messiah’s divine sonship because Jesus had clearly allowed it to be so understood. To his accusers’ question before the Sanhedrin, “Are you the Son of God, then?” Jesus answered, "You say that I am."50 Well before this, Jesus referred to himself as "the Son" who knows the Father, as distinct from the “servants” God had earlier sent to his people; he is superior even to the angels.51 He distinguished his sonship from that of his disciples by never saying “our Father”, except to command them: “You, then, pray like this: ‘Our Father’”, and he emphasized this distinction, saying “my Father and your Father”.52
CCC 2786 “Our” Father refers to God. The adjective, as used by us, does not express possession, but an entirely new relationship with God.
Mr. Slick does not point out in his article that the Church here specifically talks of the fact that we are sons of God or PARTAKERS of the divine nature in the sense that St. Peter says right in the Bible! A RELATIONAL sense.
Mr. Slick also neglects this fact was implicitly included in the CCC footnotes too from the very same CCC 460 that he cited!
2nd 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.
There were so many half-truths, errors, and omissions on his posting, I just didn’t know where to start so I just took the grotesque distortion about us BECOMING GOD in the absolute sense instead of a relational sense that the CCC really teaches.
I heard a debate (from his own radio show) with him and Tim Staples. Staples kept correcting him on these types of things and he had no adequate response other than to either keep saying the same thing over and over or change the subject. Staples buried him with Bible verses and Mr. Slick was clearly caught off guard . . . I would think embarrassingly so.
In all fairness to Mr. Slick, he rectifies some (not all) of the issues I laid out above in a different article.
But WHY on that same “improved” article would he still even say something like: “. . . and is held by cults – in particular the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)” is beyond me.
Especially when he admittedly KNOWS different and even admits it later in the same article (but doesn’t tell the reader WHY). ** He knows we don’t teach** being partakers of the Divine nature in the sense of Mormons (so WHY bring this up in an analysis about Catholic teaching).
Mr. Slick later admitted . . .
Does the RCC teach we can become gods? Again, all my research has led me to believe the contrary.
So WHY not take down your post here Mr. Slick if you’ve found out Catholics don’t teach we become gods in the sense you intimated?
Very annoying of him when he does this sort of thing.