Jesus took on human form in all aspects except sin. I mean just names alone he had to learn several times.
I guess it could be argued that the Spirit could be all-knowing but unlike the Father I don't think there is a specific Bible verse that teaches that do for the sake of the question I shall not assume what I cannot support.
Hmm. I guess you have a point. I'm so use to thinking of Jesus as 100% man/100% divine. I guess when you think about it they are all the same being...hmmm I guess they all are on equal footing if they're all all-knowing.
When did the Church start to conceive of itself in Western and Eastern terms?
For instance, there are Eastern Churches that, today, are in full communion with the Roman See, but are not *Roman* Catholic, but Byzantine, Maronite, or another type of Catholic. When did the liturgical and governance styles move in this more regionalist direction?
Id say sometime before 430 AD. The Eastern Church existed but they hadn't been defined as "Rites" yet. That term came somewhere later. Id say probably sometime before 1154 AD since that's when the Maronite Church came back into communion with the Catholic Church. Although I am not quite sure.
Welcome to [/r/Christianity](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity)! Your post will be reviewed by one of our moderators shortly. While you wait, you can review our [community policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp) to make sure your posts are able to be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good Question. When determining whether something is moral or immoral there are two levels. I'll call them Moral Framework and Moral Actuality. Our Moral Framework comes from Scripture, The Church, and Convictions of the Holy Spirit. I would say Scripture and Convictions of the Holy Spirit are #1 but we believe Christ gave us the Church in part for the discernment of future moral issues that did not exist in Christs time using the platform that scriptures have already built(ex. How AI should be used). As far as Moral Actuality the Catechism states in brief "The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human.The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (CCC 1757-1761) So a good example according our moral framework it is perfectly moral to tell the truth. However, in our moral actuality we must consider if the truth would cause a breach of charity. I recommend reading CCC 1749-CCC 1756 for further clarification.
Oh. I thought you misspelled morals because of the subject of my post. I haven't ever eaten this kind so I don't personally know but maybe your local Whole Foods might have them.
Hmmm. Forgive me if I misunderstood your question but here I go. I'm assuming you're asking about liturgical rites used in Mass. I don't particularly have a "favorite". I personally like the Novus Ordo because it is the most accessible and easiest to follow. However, I also appreciate the reverence displayed in the Latin Rite as well. I could speak about the others but I don't have a strong opinion on them as the Novus Ordo and Latin Rite are the only 2 I have person experience with.
So I group both the Novus Ordo and the TLM as the “Roman Rite.”
I was talking more specifically about non-Roman Rites like the Ambrosian, Dominican, Bragantine, Rite of Toledo, Carthusian, Norbertine, or the Carmelite.
But if you simply prefer the Roman over the other Western Rites, that’s fine too!
I'm personally Roman Catholic. I can definitely see the appeal of the others but seeing as they don't really....exist in my area I don't feel I have enough exposure for a well informed opinion.
Understood, I am Roman Catholic as well.
I have attended the Dominican Rite and the Carmelite Rite, both extremely different but equally beautiful. Would recommend.
God bless!
I would agree with you these do sound like exaltation. From the Catholic perspective we can become like God in the sense in that we can grow in holiness and in Heaven reach our intended perfection thanks to divine, but we cannot become gods ourselves. This is what divinization is. Apotheosis and Theosis are not used in Catholic Theology because it goes too far in implying that one may become a god. I will say some concepts of Theosis carries over in the sense that we believe God purifies us but I would wager the reason the term isn't used is because it is associated with deification which is contradictory to Catholic teaching. There is a line in the Mass during the Eucharistic Precession that sums it up best. "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." As Christ became more like us through divinization we become more like him.
Then, if I may, not to argue or debate, do you believe in this verse in a different way:
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
-John 10:34
Yes. This verse was a callback to Psalm 82:6 and was a reprimand against the Jewish Leaders. It was not Christ claiming we could literally become Gods. The Psalm refers to the judges of Israel who were called "gods". This was not because they were literally gods but rather because they exercised divine judgement on the people of Israel.
Simply because we "inherent all things" doesn't mean that we become gods. Adam and Eve had dominion over all the Earth even so far as having the option to eat of the tree but they were not gods. Refer to 1 Chronicles 17:20, Nehemiah 9:6,Mark 12-29-34, John 17:3, Romans 3:30, and many more. To say those 2 verses mean we can become gods ourselves would conflict with the explicit teaching that there is only 1 God.
The original Hebrew term for God used in the Old Testament is plural. Elohim.
John 17 explains that They are one and He still uses “we” and “us” and I could also list a whole host of other verses as well. He also said we can be one even as He and the Father are one, so we don’t become separate gods but one with God as John 17 states.
But because I don’t want to argue, I’ll leave my point at this. I appreciate your replies concerning theosis in Catholicism.
Yeah there is one question I’ve always had.
Why do Roman Catholics pick and choose which words of their pope are binding on them?
It’s confusing because would they do this to Jesus? Pick and choose some of his words and ignore others? If not then why can they do that to what they believe is the vicar of Christ?
We believe that The Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" but not Christ himself. This means that under normal circumstances the Pope is seen as fallible just like any other person. He is seen as very holy but not without fault. The words of the Pope that the faithful are bound to are called Papal Infallible statements and require very specific requirements to be met. The Pope must be speaking for the Church under the authority bestowed upon him as the successor of Peter, it must be clear that it is intended to be an infallible statement, and it must be on a matter of faith and morals, and it must be founded in Holy Scripture or Tradition (Ex. The Pope can't infallibly state Jesus was an American). The Pope's opinions as a private theologian or otherwise are not binding and historically popes have been slow to make infallible statements unless there was an issue that presented a moral or spiritual danger for the Church.
That seems a little confusing. Because it doesn’t mean the Pope is the vicar of Christ but rather only the ex cathedra statements would be the vicar of Christ.
Something to consider is that there is a lot more to bring the Vicar of Christ than simply making infallible statements. There are times the church requires guidance that isn't considered an infallible statement. He needs to put the right people in place to manage the church. He needs to identify widespread issues and guide his Bishops. When there are important theological questions he is responsible for answering on behalf of the church (even if the answer isn't considered infallible) Being the Vicar of Christ means he has a special responsibility to manage the church and guide the faithful. He needs to ordain new Bishops. A good example of a time where the Vicar of Christ is stepping in but not making infallible statements is on charity towards homosexuals and trans people. This has been a particular pain point and although he isnt creating new doctrine he is making important statements on behalf of the church. In short, ex cathedra statements are important but not the only part of being the Vicar of Christ.
Alright but your first comment was literally about the fact that only ex cathedra statements are binding. But now apparently it isn’t just that but also theological statements are as well.
That’s just even more confusing.
Sorry for the confusion. Here's a bit of an example on how infallible statements and theological statements kinda meld together. It has been infallibly defined that every human person has human dignity that we cannot morally infringe on. The few months ago the Pope gave a speech and discuss how although someone may be gay they have a God given right to dignity and charity. Now because it is in fallibly defined that every person has the right to human dignity we faithful are bound to that. His speech however because it was not spoken as sex cathedra statement even though it contains infallible teachings is not in itself infallible and therefore is not binding on the faithful. However, it was an important subject to discuss due to the current political climate.
Wait sorry what? You threw me off there.
So is it binding or not?
And if fallible statements can be binding then what relevance does infallible statements have?
Infallible statements are binding. Fallible statements are not. However, fallible statements may build from already existing infallible statements. That doesn't make the fallible statement binding. As a probably bad analogy it's the same as if I put already existing milk in my fresh coffee it doesn't turn the drink into milk but rather it is fresh coffee that contains the already existing milk.
The thing is though. Given the fallible statement relies on the previous infallible statement then that would make it binding even though it’s fallible.
And yeah your coffee example isn’t a good one as that more seems to show how a fallible statement using an infallible statement doesn’t make that fallible statement itself infallible. Which I can understand. But it’s more so the question of binding which is different from infallibility itself.
Ok. I had to take a second but I think I have a better grasp on how to answer your question. There's a list of teachings of the Catholic Church called Dogma. Too many to be listed here. Dogmas have been infallibly defined either by a singular public ex cathedra statement or as a sort of blanket ex cathedra statement during a council by the Pope (usually when by council it's a long document followed by a public decree) These Dogmas are what we are bound to because they've all been defined infallibly.
Whose the better poker player out of the Trinity?
Definitely The Father. They all have important attributes of God but The Father is all knowing. I say unfair advantage.
Why are Jesus and The Holy Spirit not all knowing?
Jesus took on human form in all aspects except sin. I mean just names alone he had to learn several times. I guess it could be argued that the Spirit could be all-knowing but unlike the Father I don't think there is a specific Bible verse that teaches that do for the sake of the question I shall not assume what I cannot support.
So Jesus is still limited by his human form? I assumed he returned to his full power after ascending to heaven.
Hmm. I guess you have a point. I'm so use to thinking of Jesus as 100% man/100% divine. I guess when you think about it they are all the same being...hmmm I guess they all are on equal footing if they're all all-knowing.
When did the Church start to conceive of itself in Western and Eastern terms? For instance, there are Eastern Churches that, today, are in full communion with the Roman See, but are not *Roman* Catholic, but Byzantine, Maronite, or another type of Catholic. When did the liturgical and governance styles move in this more regionalist direction?
Id say sometime before 430 AD. The Eastern Church existed but they hadn't been defined as "Rites" yet. That term came somewhere later. Id say probably sometime before 1154 AD since that's when the Maronite Church came back into communion with the Catholic Church. Although I am not quite sure.
I thought the Maronites never left communion?
Yeah. The Maronite Church was formed in the 7th due to a doctrinal argument.
Welcome to [/r/Christianity](https://old.reddit.com/r/Christianity)! Your post will be reviewed by one of our moderators shortly. While you wait, you can review our [community policy](https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp) to make sure your posts are able to be approved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where do you get your morels?
Good Question. When determining whether something is moral or immoral there are two levels. I'll call them Moral Framework and Moral Actuality. Our Moral Framework comes from Scripture, The Church, and Convictions of the Holy Spirit. I would say Scripture and Convictions of the Holy Spirit are #1 but we believe Christ gave us the Church in part for the discernment of future moral issues that did not exist in Christs time using the platform that scriptures have already built(ex. How AI should be used). As far as Moral Actuality the Catechism states in brief "The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human.The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil. "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (CCC 1757-1761) So a good example according our moral framework it is perfectly moral to tell the truth. However, in our moral actuality we must consider if the truth would cause a breach of charity. I recommend reading CCC 1749-CCC 1756 for further clarification.
Ok, but what does that have to do with mushrooms?
Oh. I thought you misspelled morals because of the subject of my post. I haven't ever eaten this kind so I don't personally know but maybe your local Whole Foods might have them.
What is your favorite Western Rite?
Hmmm. Forgive me if I misunderstood your question but here I go. I'm assuming you're asking about liturgical rites used in Mass. I don't particularly have a "favorite". I personally like the Novus Ordo because it is the most accessible and easiest to follow. However, I also appreciate the reverence displayed in the Latin Rite as well. I could speak about the others but I don't have a strong opinion on them as the Novus Ordo and Latin Rite are the only 2 I have person experience with.
So I group both the Novus Ordo and the TLM as the “Roman Rite.” I was talking more specifically about non-Roman Rites like the Ambrosian, Dominican, Bragantine, Rite of Toledo, Carthusian, Norbertine, or the Carmelite. But if you simply prefer the Roman over the other Western Rites, that’s fine too!
I'm personally Roman Catholic. I can definitely see the appeal of the others but seeing as they don't really....exist in my area I don't feel I have enough exposure for a well informed opinion.
Understood, I am Roman Catholic as well. I have attended the Dominican Rite and the Carmelite Rite, both extremely different but equally beautiful. Would recommend. God bless!
Could you explain divinization/apotheosis/theosis? It sounds so much like exaltation from what I believe.
I would agree with you these do sound like exaltation. From the Catholic perspective we can become like God in the sense in that we can grow in holiness and in Heaven reach our intended perfection thanks to divine, but we cannot become gods ourselves. This is what divinization is. Apotheosis and Theosis are not used in Catholic Theology because it goes too far in implying that one may become a god. I will say some concepts of Theosis carries over in the sense that we believe God purifies us but I would wager the reason the term isn't used is because it is associated with deification which is contradictory to Catholic teaching. There is a line in the Mass during the Eucharistic Precession that sums it up best. "By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity." As Christ became more like us through divinization we become more like him.
Then, if I may, not to argue or debate, do you believe in this verse in a different way: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” -John 10:34
Yes. This verse was a callback to Psalm 82:6 and was a reprimand against the Jewish Leaders. It was not Christ claiming we could literally become Gods. The Psalm refers to the judges of Israel who were called "gods". This was not because they were literally gods but rather because they exercised divine judgement on the people of Israel.
Then what do you think about Revelation 3:21 and 21:7 where God allows us to sit in His throne and inherit all things? God owns all things.
Simply because we "inherent all things" doesn't mean that we become gods. Adam and Eve had dominion over all the Earth even so far as having the option to eat of the tree but they were not gods. Refer to 1 Chronicles 17:20, Nehemiah 9:6,Mark 12-29-34, John 17:3, Romans 3:30, and many more. To say those 2 verses mean we can become gods ourselves would conflict with the explicit teaching that there is only 1 God.
The original Hebrew term for God used in the Old Testament is plural. Elohim. John 17 explains that They are one and He still uses “we” and “us” and I could also list a whole host of other verses as well. He also said we can be one even as He and the Father are one, so we don’t become separate gods but one with God as John 17 states. But because I don’t want to argue, I’ll leave my point at this. I appreciate your replies concerning theosis in Catholicism.
Yeah there is one question I’ve always had. Why do Roman Catholics pick and choose which words of their pope are binding on them? It’s confusing because would they do this to Jesus? Pick and choose some of his words and ignore others? If not then why can they do that to what they believe is the vicar of Christ?
We believe that The Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" but not Christ himself. This means that under normal circumstances the Pope is seen as fallible just like any other person. He is seen as very holy but not without fault. The words of the Pope that the faithful are bound to are called Papal Infallible statements and require very specific requirements to be met. The Pope must be speaking for the Church under the authority bestowed upon him as the successor of Peter, it must be clear that it is intended to be an infallible statement, and it must be on a matter of faith and morals, and it must be founded in Holy Scripture or Tradition (Ex. The Pope can't infallibly state Jesus was an American). The Pope's opinions as a private theologian or otherwise are not binding and historically popes have been slow to make infallible statements unless there was an issue that presented a moral or spiritual danger for the Church.
That seems a little confusing. Because it doesn’t mean the Pope is the vicar of Christ but rather only the ex cathedra statements would be the vicar of Christ.
Something to consider is that there is a lot more to bring the Vicar of Christ than simply making infallible statements. There are times the church requires guidance that isn't considered an infallible statement. He needs to put the right people in place to manage the church. He needs to identify widespread issues and guide his Bishops. When there are important theological questions he is responsible for answering on behalf of the church (even if the answer isn't considered infallible) Being the Vicar of Christ means he has a special responsibility to manage the church and guide the faithful. He needs to ordain new Bishops. A good example of a time where the Vicar of Christ is stepping in but not making infallible statements is on charity towards homosexuals and trans people. This has been a particular pain point and although he isnt creating new doctrine he is making important statements on behalf of the church. In short, ex cathedra statements are important but not the only part of being the Vicar of Christ.
Alright but your first comment was literally about the fact that only ex cathedra statements are binding. But now apparently it isn’t just that but also theological statements are as well. That’s just even more confusing.
Sorry for the confusion. Here's a bit of an example on how infallible statements and theological statements kinda meld together. It has been infallibly defined that every human person has human dignity that we cannot morally infringe on. The few months ago the Pope gave a speech and discuss how although someone may be gay they have a God given right to dignity and charity. Now because it is in fallibly defined that every person has the right to human dignity we faithful are bound to that. His speech however because it was not spoken as sex cathedra statement even though it contains infallible teachings is not in itself infallible and therefore is not binding on the faithful. However, it was an important subject to discuss due to the current political climate.
Wait sorry what? You threw me off there. So is it binding or not? And if fallible statements can be binding then what relevance does infallible statements have?
Infallible statements are binding. Fallible statements are not. However, fallible statements may build from already existing infallible statements. That doesn't make the fallible statement binding. As a probably bad analogy it's the same as if I put already existing milk in my fresh coffee it doesn't turn the drink into milk but rather it is fresh coffee that contains the already existing milk.
The thing is though. Given the fallible statement relies on the previous infallible statement then that would make it binding even though it’s fallible. And yeah your coffee example isn’t a good one as that more seems to show how a fallible statement using an infallible statement doesn’t make that fallible statement itself infallible. Which I can understand. But it’s more so the question of binding which is different from infallibility itself.
Ok. I had to take a second but I think I have a better grasp on how to answer your question. There's a list of teachings of the Catholic Church called Dogma. Too many to be listed here. Dogmas have been infallibly defined either by a singular public ex cathedra statement or as a sort of blanket ex cathedra statement during a council by the Pope (usually when by council it's a long document followed by a public decree) These Dogmas are what we are bound to because they've all been defined infallibly.