[Akoue]

Joe T,
I'm with you o the question, "So, how does his view on St. Thomas cause stripes? "
I have read a lot and seen a lot of Ralph McInerny's works.
I'm and admirer of him.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

McInerny is what you might describe as a "Sola Aquinist". For him, Aquinas is the navel about which Catholic theology turns. And while I have no axe to grind with Aquinas, he isn't the only Doctor of the Church. McInerny's single-minded focus on Aquinas tends to express itself in the form of a deflationary attitude toward the contributions of the early Fathers of the Church, as well as of theological developments of the twentieth century, particularly those of the school sometimes called "Nouvelle theologie" or New Theology. Pope Benedict is a member of this school, as are other great modern theologians such as Congar, De Lubac, and Danielou. Pope John Paul II had deep affinities with this as well. These theologians have emphasized the early Fathers (though they, of course, don't in any way reject Aquinas).

So what I was getting at with my remark about Thomists of a certain stripe is that there are certain Thomists who tend to regard with some suspicion (and sometimes outright contempt, I'm sad to say) any theology other than that of Aquinas. As you can probably tell from my frequent mention of them, I have an especially deep fondness for and interest in the Church Fathers, and consequently McInerny's attitude gets under my skin a bit.

That's all I was getting at. He's certainly entitled to his interests, and Thomas Aquinas is far from a bad interest to have.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
I think the bible tells us in several ways that this world will eventually be destroyed even burn up.
There may be a new earth but I think even that may be temporary as I the universe itself.
Several trillion years from now the universe will be all burned out. No more suns and stars to shine. Only God's light will remain.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

Akoue,
Thanks much for your explanation.
Now I think I understand.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

So what I was getting at with my remark about Thomists of a certain stripe is that there are certain Thomists who tend to regard with some suspicion (and sometimes outright contempt, I'm sad to say) any theology other than that of Aquinas. As you can probably tell from my frequent mention of them, I have an especially deep fondness for and interest in the Church Fathers, and consequently McInerny's attitude gets under my skin a bit.

I find the Aquinas' logic easier to follow than those who reason without any systematic approach. Pope John Paul II seemed that way to me. Not that I questioned his teachings, only that they sometimes he seemed difficult to analyze (analyzing is just a thing I do - its from my training - I don't know why I do it all the time). The difference between the two, however, is that Pope John Paul II, as well as Pope Benedict, speak with an authority that Aquinas can only have by proxy.


JT

[arcura]

JoeT777,
Thanks for ex[aloning your way of thinking.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

I believe we can also say that we are in God, but we are not God.
God is in us, but God is not us.

This draws near to something about which I have been thinking of late. I just finished saying something like this on another thread, but these lines in De Maria's post made me realize that it has an important bearing on this discussion as well. Sorry for the overlap.

There is a tendency for many Christians to overemphasize the Crucifixion. How is it even possible to OVER-emphasize the Crucifixion? I'm glad you asked. Here's how.

People often speak as if the work of redemption began at the Crucifixion of Jesus and ended with his Resurrection. Salvation history thus shrinks to the space of three days. This I believe to be a fundamentally confused way of thinking about it. The work of redemption began with the Incarnation, when the Word, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, became flesh. In the person of Jesus, the living (not yet crucified or resurrected) Christ, humanity and divinity were united. Since Christ was fully human and fully divine, the two natures (human and divine) comingled, and this sanctified humanity (i.e. human nature) just as it elevated it or magnified it. The union of the human and the divine was effected in the womb of Mary (a point emphasized by St. Cyril of Alexandria when he defended the title "Theotokos"). This, I think, gives us some purchase on the notion of a return to unity with the Trinity, with the Godhead, and this is, as we have been discussing, a unity that goes well beyond mere harmony or--as Wondergirl has wondered--an Edenlike existence on a perfected earth. This is what the Fathers, especially the eastern Fathers, mean by divinization or deificaton: We become one with God; it is the unity of the human and the divine which utterly transforms the human. The point I am making, and the point I think De Maria may have been making (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you with this!) is that, in an important way, that deification of the human was effected with the Incarnation.

If we think of the Incarnation as something like a window on the union of God with his creation, we get a glimpse of something far more radical than is sometimes envisaged. And De Maria's point above seems to me to point in the direction of this. In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human. And I can't off the top of my head think of a reason to believe that this is not a symbol of the return home that marks the end of our temporal, earthly pilgrimage. Looked at in this light, the work of redemption begins with the unity of the divine and the human in the Incarnation and is completed, or perfected, in the unity of the human and the divine that is heaven. And I believe that Romans 8 is showing us that the union that awaits is not just that of the human and the divine but of the uncreated and the created.

This is not as outrageous as it may at first appear since, as I say, the Fathers do talk about this quite a bit and at considerable length. And this puts another face on Augustine's view that the Incarnation is itself a sacrament (in On the Trinity): It is the union of the divine and the human, but it is also a symbol of a divine or heavenly reality, namely the reality of heaven itself. In a similar way, then, the Eucharist and baptism could likewise be seen as symbols of the union of the uncreated (the divinity in the Real Presence and in the water) and the created (the bread and wine, the water). St. Ambrose talks this way about both baptism and Eucharist. What I hadn't adequately considered before is the unity that the Incarnation *points to*: Not only is the Incarnation itself already the unity of the human and the divine, it also points to the unity that awaits and for which we groan. (This also fits well with the text, which tells us that the groaning is from birth pains: Union has been in the process of being born since the Incarnation.)

So, then, the Incarnation is a sacrament of God's nearness, because there is a sense in which we are in him and he is in us, this because the second Person of the Trinity became human rather than just seeming to be human. By taking on human nature, he sanctified it, so that, as I say, the work of redemption began in Mary's womb and not on Golgotha. If we ignore this, if we become so fixated on the Crucifixion and Resurrection that we don't allow the mystery of the Incarnation fully to disclose itself to us, then we miss an awful lot.

I understand Joe's reservations about De Maria's earlier post, and I think those reservations are not unwarranted, since there are ways of understanding it that could lead one into error. I don't want to put words in De Maria's mouth more than I already have, but with this post I've tried to articulate a way of thinking about it that isn't theologically suspect. I stand by my earlier statement that there are a number of things going on in Romans 8, all at the same time. Unpacking this passage in a theological manner--in order to understand its deeply held truth--rather than in a strictly literal one--which fixates so intently on the words at the surface that it acts to bury the truths contained in it--yields a great deal and calls upon the reader to make a genuine and sustained effort to comprehend it. I feel like we've been making real progress. I hope you do as well.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I must thank you much for that.
I have a long time thought that the redemption began with the birth of Christ and did not start with the cross, but not to the extent that you offered here.
To that I agree very much.
It makes much theological sense.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Thank you, Fred. I'm encouraged to know that it made some sense. And I always respect your theological judgment. Feels good to know it passed the "Fred test"!

[JoeT777]

The point I am making, and the point I think De Maria may have been making (sorry if I'm misrepresenting you with this!) is that, in an important way, that deification of the human was effected with the Incarnation.

I don’t have difficulty with most what’s being said except the following:

1) I don’t think you mean for man to be deified, rather incorporated into deification; a oneness with God. And, because of the objection I made to De Maria – the servants place – I would opt for language that suggested becoming adopted “sons of God” or “adopted children”; which of course is the promise of Romans 8

2) I hold that providence demands that man’s redemption (or salvation – if you prefer that word) has been in God’s plans since creation. Remember Christ wasn’t created; He has always existed as the second person of the Godhead. That “In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human” is one of the great mysteries of our faith. It’s in the Eucharist we have Christ literally in us. (This kind of contradicts my ‘servants place’ statement doesn’t it?) Nevertheless, we are promised to become children of God, not Gods.


Unlike De Maria, I’m just not sure that the nature of man is such that it can withstand nearness to God that’s being suggested here (in fact, it’s not nearness rather incorporation). At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.

If I was to agree 100% with this suggestion, I still can’t see it in Romans 8.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.

We still got to go through purging fires after we die? Isn't that the chaff? I was hoping to be wheat going into the barn!

[JoeT777]

We still gotta go through purging fires after we die? Isn't that the chaff? I was hoping to be wheat going into the barn!

Well yes, unless you happen to be perfect in Christ.


JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Well yes, unless you happen to be perfect in Christ.


JoeT

I thought that's what He did for us.

[Akoue]

I don’t have difficulty with most what’s being said except the following:

1) I don’t think you mean for man to be deified, rather incorporated into deification; a oneness with God. And, because of the objection I made to De Maria – the servants place – I would opt for language that suggested becoming adopted “sons of God” or “adopted children”; which of course is the promise of Romans 8

Fair enough. The language of deification is a little arresting to me as well--not that that means it's wrong. But your point is well taken.

The way I have been thinking about it is that we are already adopted children of God, so the union that is to come is one of greater intimacy even than that. I also think I like the word "divinized" better than "deified". It's just that when you say "divinization" it's quite natural for people to think you are talking about fortune-telling or something.

2) I hold that providence demands that man’s redemption (or salvation – if you prefer that word) has been in God’s plans since creation. Remember Christ wasn’t created; He has always existed as the second person of the Godhead. That “In the person of Jesus Christ we see the human in the divine and the divine in the human” is one of the great mysteries of our faith. It’s in the Eucharist we have Christ literally in us. (This kind of contradicts my ‘servants place’ statement doesn’t it?) Nevertheless, we are promised to become children of God, not Gods.

I was thinking not that we become gods, but that union with the Godhead means that we become divinized--that we participate in the divine nature.

I'm not sure whether it contradicts your earlier statement. It's difficult in part because we are talking about two different kinds of union: There is the union with God that we enjoy as adopted children, and there is the union with God that awaits us at the end of salvation history. I think of the latter as a union of greater intimacy, of course, since I think of it in the light of the union of the human and the divine in Jesus. This isn't, however, to say that we will become Jesuses. We won't ever be the second Person of the Trinity.

Unlike De Maria, I’m just not sure that the nature of man is such that it can withstand nearness to God that’s being suggested here (in fact, it’s not nearness rather incorporation). At least not until the soul has been purified by the purging fires mentioned by Juan.

I think this is a really good point. No, I don't see how human nature could withstand that kind of intimacy with God. I think the purification is also transformative--that would make a lot of sense. But, then again, human nature was able to bear the intimacy with the divine that we see in the Incarnation. I'm not quite sure what to think at the moment.

Alas, still more question marks. At least I feel like I have a better idea what the questions are though.

[Akoue]

I thought that's what He did for us.

Can I ask you to say more about what you have in mind?

[Wondergirl]

I believe Jesus' sacrifice was complete. We don't have to do anything to save ourselves or do anything to complete the process -- or have any punishment assigned to remove sin. I'm with my birthday buddy Martin -- here on earth we are simul iustus et peccator. On Judgment Day, we are only iustus (iusti?).

[Akoue]

I believe Jesus' sacrifice was complete. We don't have to do anything to save ourselves or do anything to complete the process -- or have any punishment assigned to remove sin. I'm with my birthday buddy Martin -- here on earth we are simul iustus et peccator. On Judgment Day, we are only iustus (iusti?).

Where do you stand on the question of union that we've been discussing? Do you envisage further transformation of the sort I have alluded to with talk of deification or divinization or do you think of union in a different way?

[Wondergirl]

Where do you stand on the question of union that we've been discussing? Do you envisage further transformation of the sort I have alluded to with talk of deification or divinization or do you think of union in a different way?

All that makes my head hurt. A United Methodist once told me that, in heaven, we will be tiny points of light in Jesus' crown. I don't want to be a point of light. I want to be there in my own skin, my own flesh, my own bones. In this life, I am becoming all that I will be there. (The purging is here and now.) Here I am called to be a reflection of divinity, of Perfect Love ("blessed to be a blessing"). There I will be one with divinity, not incorporated but of the same Mind and knowing only Good--your word "divinized" (which brings up the question of free will in heaven).

[JoeT777]

There is the union with God that we enjoy as adopted children, and there is the union with God that awaits us at the end of salvation history. I think of the latter as a union of greater intimacy, of course, since I think of it in the light of the union of the human and the divine in Jesus. .

I can think of Salvation in these terms; in a manner of speaking, a two step salvation.

I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more. (Rev 21:1)

JoeT

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
From my understanding of it we will be in glorified bodies in heaven.
Also the sins we commit here on earth MUST be forgiven.
If we do not confess our sins with remorse and ASK for forgiveness we will not be forgiven.
If we do not forgive others we will not be forgiven.
Jesus shed His blood so that that we could be forgiven IF we do as we are told to do.
That is as I mentioned above. It is as the bible tells us.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[arcura]

Joe,
What am I missing here??
I happen to agree with both you and Akoue.
Please explain yourself better.
Peace and kindness,
Fred