[Akoue]

I give them out for factually incorrect responses, not like the one that you gave me.

So you are saying that I said something factually incorrect when I expressed my agreement with De Maria with the following six word post:

I think this is exactly right.

That wasn't factually incorrect because I DO agree with what he said. And the reddies I have given you have been for factually incorrect claims that you've made, most recently concerning the meaning of the word "petros" in Koine, a language you do not know.

Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).

This is, of course, not scriptural.

I don't agree with that. But, as I've told you a great many times, I am not a sola scripturist.

The discussion on this thread has been as much about post-Biblical theology as about the Bible. We have every right in the world to discuss Catholic theology on this forum without constantly being told by you that to discuss theology beyond the parroting of Biblical passages is somehow illicit. You have rejected Catholicism, a point you have made quite evident at every conceivable opportunity. That is your right. But those who have not chosen as you have also have the right to discuss Catholic theology with one another. Your assumption that the Bible is the total of God's revelation is exactly that, an assumption, and one that many of us do not share. Moreover, many of us find your understanding of Scripture to be woefully deficient, and as a result your claim that something is or is not Scriptural is itself less than compelling. But, again, that is not the sole measure by which theological claims are to be adjudicated.

Also, as the discussion on this thread and the Romans thread bears out, your understanding of what divinization means is also profoundly deficient. You like to fancy yourself an expert on Catholicism, but those of us who actually study Catholic theology find this not to be the case. And this is something that has been pointed out to you many times by many different posters. I have enjoyed many exchanges at this site with people with whom I disagree, and I haven't been shy about letting them know that. But you seem determined to make this an unpleasant place for those who do not adhere to your quixotic interpretations of Scripture and you have driven a good many people away from the Christianity boards because of it. Those of us who have remained see absolutely no reason to recognize your authority to determine what counts as authentic Christianity. Perhaps it would be good for you to make your peace with that fact.

[De Maria]

I give them out for factually incorrect responses, not like the one that you gave me. Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).

This is, of course, not scriptural.

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

[De Maria]

Something I should have said:

The angels are higher in the order of beings or natures, but this does not mean that they are favored above humans. Notice that the fallen angels did not lose their angelic natures: They are lower than us on the moral hierarchy, but still higher on the ontological hierarchy (the hierarchy of being). My take on this is that God's love is not determined by placement on the hierarchy--this is another reason that I do hold that animals can love and worship God in a manner appropriate to them, and that they can in turn experience God's love. St. Irenaeus acknowledges this at, e.g., Adversus haereses 4.38.4, when he says of animals that "each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created". And St.Gregory Nazianzen and St.Augustine both believe that animals worship God, because God created them in such a way as to be capable of worship according to their nature.

Remember that all of creation is a vestigium of God. What makes humanity special is that we are not just a vestigium, but also the image, of God. Angels are similitudes or God, not images of God. We lost the similitude through sin and regain it by grace. So we get the following picture:

Human beings with grace: similitudo
Human beings as nature: imago
All beings: vestigium

It might also help to have scholastic anthropology in mind.
Human beings are rational animals. Our soul is our form, our body our matter. The spiritual faculties (through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit) of intellect and will are both formal and material, because we are form (soul) and matter (body). And we have to distinguish the spiritual faculties from the inner senses of common sense (sensus communis), memory, cognition, imagination, and judgment.

Angels have spiritual faculties, and like us, they can use them well or badly. But these higher faculties give them a greater intimacy with God than we can, at this time, even begin to fathom.

Define "vestigium".

[De Maria]

Something I should have said:

The angels are higher in the order of beings or natures, but this does not mean that they are favored above humans. Notice that the fallen angels did not lose their angelic natures: They are lower than us on the moral hierarchy, but still higher on the ontological hierarchy (the hierarchy of being). My take on this is that God's love is not determined by placement on the hierarchy--this is another reason that I do hold that animals can love and worship God in a manner appropriate to them, and that they can in turn experience God's love. St. Irenaeus acknowledges this at, e.g., Adversus haereses 4.38.4, when he says of animals that "each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created". And St.Gregory Nazianzen and St.Augustine both believe that animals worship God, because God created them in such a way as to be capable of worship according to their nature.

Remember that all of creation is a vestigium of God. What makes humanity special is that we are not just a vestigium, but also the image, of God. Angels are similitudes or God, not images of God. We lost the similitude through sin and regain it by grace. So we get the following picture:

Human beings with grace: similitudo
Human beings as nature: imago
All beings: vestigium

It might also help to have scholastic anthropology in mind.
Human beings are rational animals. Our soul is our form, our body our matter. The spiritual faculties (through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit) of intellect and will are both formal and material, because we are form (soul) and matter (body). And we have to distinguish the spiritual faculties from the inner senses of common sense (sensus communis), memory, cognition, imagination, and judgment.

Angels have spiritual faculties, and like us, they can use them well or badly. But these higher faculties give them a greater intimacy with God than we can, at this time, even begin to fathom.

What are spiritual faculties?

[De Maria]

I must be missing something because all I can think of as I try to follow all of this is...

Much ado about nothing!

Ecclesiasticus 24 31 They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

[Akoue]

Define "vestigium".

A vestigium is a trace or footprint. As St. Augustine shows in the De Trinitate, God left traces [vestigia] of himself throughout the whole of creation. In book three, he holds that science is a kind of worship because by studying the physical world it is--even if secular scientists aren't self-conscious about it--working toward a deeper understanding of God. Animals, too, are vestigia of traces of God. All things bear the mark of their creator deep within their being, and all living things are provided a means by God through which to love him and praise him.

[Akoue]

What are spiritual faculties?

Spiritual faculties, intellect and will, are those by means of which we apprehend and conform to spiritual truths. They are the faculties through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

[De Maria]

Fair enough. But note that we are already adopted sons and daughters of God. This is one of the reasons why I think that what awaits is more intimate than adopted sonship. It is a thoroughgoing oneness with God's nature. Hence talk of divinization or deification: It is incorporation into the Divine.

What do you think? Am I missing the point of your reservations? (I fear I may be.)

But we will retain our uniqueness, our identity, right?

[Akoue]

But we will retain our uniqueness, our identity, right?

That's what I was trying to get at, not altogether felicitously alas, by the idea that union doesn't annihilate differentiation. Our union with God is a union enjoyed by each of us at once individually and collectively.

[De Maria]

I totally get where you're coming from. You're right, resurrection of the body means that theosis won't be just a spiritual union of souls but one of bodies as well. Here's my one bit of insight on that--although I'm not sure how insightful it really is: We aren't unified with other bodies and then unified with God. Our union with others comes by way of our union with God. In other words, God draws each of us into his nature and in this way we each become one with him and with others. So it has to be a union that isn't the total annihilation of differentiation. But this makes sense, since the Father was one with Jesus the man. There was unity there, but also differentiation.

BTW, when I say it makes sense, I don't mean to suggest that I completely understand it. Only that we know it is possible.

What do you think? Could it be the fumes from the bathroom repair killing my few functioning brain cells, or does this seem like it's at least pointing in the right direction?

This is where the metaphor by St. Thomas? Augustine? Is so useful to me. He spoke of iron in the fire, glowing red as to be indistinguishable from the fire. Yet retaining its form.

[De Maria]

Akoue.
Your point about the Transfiguration is well taken.
And yes I do believe that we were created "a little less than the angels" but that will change when we become one with God in heaven.
We will be still human to some extent but also in glorified bodies as Jesus had after he rose from the dead and ascended into the "clouds" of heaven.
As I understand it back in the days of those who wrote Holy Scripture the clouds were the beginnings or entry into heaven.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think we are one with God, now. We are temples of the Holy Spirit.

[De Maria]

A vestigium is a trace or footprint. As St. Augustine shows in the De Trinitate, God left traces [vestigia] of himself throughout the whole of creation. In book three, he holds that science is a kind of worship because by studying the physical world it is--even if secular scientists aren't self-conscious about it--working toward a deeper understanding of God. Animals, too, are vestigia of traces of God. All things bear the mark of their creator deep within their being, and all living things are provided a means by God through which to love him and praise him.

The first thing that came to mind was "vestigial limb". So I suspected something as you describe.

Now, this is evidence for the redemption of Creation, correct?

Now, although Scripture speaks of animals and nature praising God, I always thought of that as metaphorical.

It isn't that the animals and nature praise God literally, but that we praise God because we detect the vestigial presence of God in all Creation. Therefore, it is said that Creation praises God, but it is the Angels and the Saints who praise God when we see the beauty of nature.

[De Maria]

Spiritual faculties, intellect and will, are those by means of which we apprehend and conform to spiritual truths. They are the faculties through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

As I suspected. Do we believe that animals and other things in nature have these as well?

[De Maria]

That's what I was trying to get at, not altogether felicitously alas, by the idea that union doesn't annihilate differentiation. Our union with God is a union enjoyed by each of us at once individually and collectively.

Yeah, I was going through systematically and came to it after I posted the question.

Why not felicitiously? I think that was a marvelous explanation. Of course, I agree.

[De Maria]

Sorry to swamp you guys with all those questions. I was trying to catch up and the responses are so interesting, I didn't want to miss any.

Have we moved any closer to answering the question of the OP?

[Akoue]

The first thing that came to mind was "vestigial limb". So I suspected something as you describe.

Now, this is evidence for the redemption of Creation, correct?

Now, although Scripture speaks of animals and nature praising God, I always thought of that as metaphorical.

It isn't that the animals and nature praise God literally, but that we praise God because we detect the vestigial presence of God in all Creation. Therefore, it is said that Creation praises God, but it is the Angels and the Saints who praise God when we see the beauty of nature.

I have come to believe that it isn't metaphorical, that God has provided the means for his creatures, whom he loves, to feel that love and return it. Each in a manner appropriate to the nature it has received from its Creator. Human worship is distinctive in all sorts of ways, but I don't believe it to be exclusive. And yes, I do believe this is further reason to believe that all of creation is to be redeemed.

[De Maria]

I have come to believe that it isn't metaphorical,

Based on a feeling or on logical deduction or what?

I don't think absolute proof can be gained either way. But my "feeling" is based on my childhood disappointment at the idea I had (very much like the lady on this forum and her dog) that my pets had unconditional love for me.

Then, when that love was put to the test, it turned out they didn't. That's when I realized that, not only did they not have unconditional love for me, but I didn't have it for them.

So, my ideas are also based on subjective feelings, for the most part. But, I'm wondering whether you have something more substantive?

that God has provided the means for his creatures, whom he loves, to feel that love and return it.

Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?

Each in a manner appropriate to the nature it has received from its Creator. Human worship is distinctive in all sorts of ways, but I don't believe it to be exclusive.

As you said, the angels also worship and ours is an extension of their heavenly liturgy.

And yes, I do believe this is further reason to believe that all of creation is to be redeemed.

Agreed.

[Akoue]

Based on a feeling or on logical deduction or what?

I don't think absolute proof can be gained either way. But my "feeling" is based on my childhood disappointment at the idea I had (very much like the lady on this forum and her dog) that my pets had unconditional love for me.

Then, when that love was put to the test, it turned out they didn't. That's when I realized that, not only did they not have unconditional love for me, but I didn't have it for them.

So, my ideas are also based on subjective feelings, for the most part. But, I'm wondering whether you have something more substantive?

I think I've given all the reasons I have at the moment, here and on the Romans thread.

As far as unconditional love goes, I'm not worried about that. I believe that the only unconditional love is that which God has for us, so I don't expect dogs or humans to have unconditional love for each other. Nor even for themselves. I do, though, think that dogs have been given the ability by their Creator to love their Creator. This isn't based on a feeling, but is supported by it. It is based on the considerations I've offered and on the testimony and teachings of the Fathers and my understanding of Romans 8.

Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?

I think it can be. But there can be love of God in the absence of the joy of life. For some people life feels very heavy and painful. I don't expect them to feel joy. But I've known more than a few whom I believe to love God.

God is generous. He created out of generosity. He redeems us out of generosity. I believe that his generosity isn't stingy: I don't think it is reserved only for humanity. If I can love God's creation and the animals that fill it, how much more must God love it and them, Who is capable of a much greater love than I?

[Tj3]

So you are saying that I said something factually incorrect when I expressed my agreement with De Maria with the following six word post:

What you said was right was in fact wrong.

And the reddies I have given you have been for factually incorrect claims that you've made, most recently concerning the meaning of the word "petros" in Koine, a language you do not know.

You were wrong. Apparently you feel that you have the right demean other's knowledge, but odd that so many of the most highly recognized experts say that those who hold your opinion don't know Koine Greek. I'll stick with the experts who do know what they are talking about.

Moreover, many of us find your understanding of Scripture to be woefully deficient, and as a result your claim that something is or is not Scriptural is itself less than compelling.

And many of us who have studied scripture find your knowledge of scripture to be woefully deficient. But like I said, I'll quite happily stand by what scripture says, and hold to what the experts in the Greek and Hebrew languages say.

Also, as the discussion on this thread and the Romans thread bears out, your understanding of what divinization means is also profoundly deficient.

Perhaps you ought to explain the experts who wrote the dictionaries. Apparently, in addition to thinking that you know Greek better than the experts, you seem to think that you are qualified to redefine the words in English.

You like to fancy yourself an expert on Catholicism, but those of us who actually study Catholic theology find this not to be the case.

You opinion, based upon past experience, carries no weight with me.

And I note that you failed to respond to the question regarding the CCC which states specifically that men become gods and men become God. Avoiding the question in fact answers it nicely.

[arcura]

Tj3,
That is just your opinion as far as I am concerned.
Fred