catechism 41 interesting thought

balshan

Well-known member
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. the manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator

Do all creatures bear a certain resemblance to God? Only man is said to be made in God's image. Gen 1:27. Really creatures perfections name God? Are creatures perfect in any way?
 

balshan

Well-known member
Does this mean that creatures born with a deformity are not perfect and therefore with this RC understanding of God less made in God's image.
 

Teresa

New member
Does this mean that creatures born with a deformity are not perfect and therefore with this RC understanding of God less made in God's image.
Jesus' love and esteem of the blind, crippled and lepers etc would indicate a special love of God for these 'creatures' so no, that doesn't follow.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Jesus' love and esteem of the blind, crippled and lepers etc would indicate a special love of God for these 'creatures' so no, that doesn't follow.
You are correct, then perfection in the animal kingdom. Does the catechism mean every creature even say dogs sin and become imperfect?
 

Teresa

New member
You are correct, then perfection in the animal kingdom. Does the catechism mean every creature even say dogs sin and become imperfect?
I'm not familiar with your perspective. God gave us creatures and plants to serve human beings. When they do that they are fulfilling their purpose. Pope Francis made a point of discouraging humans from treating animals as humans with human rights.

This is what the Catechism teaches about animals.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196



2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.



2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.



2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I'm not familiar with your perspective. God gave us creatures and plants to serve human beings. When they do that they are fulfilling their purpose. Pope Francis made a point of discouraging humans from treating animals as humans with human rights.

This is what the Catechism teaches about animals.

2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196



2416 Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.



2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.



2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
It is not my point of view it comes from catechism 41. We are not discussing making animals suffer, we are not discussing stewardship, you are changing the topic. Catechism 41 says "all creatures". Do not change the op.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. the manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator

Do all creatures bear a certain resemblance to God? Only man is said to be made in God's image. Gen 1:27. Really creatures perfections name God? Are creatures perfect in any way?

Everything resembles God in some respect, after all, how can an artist create without putting his stamp on the art?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
A stamp does not resemble the artist.
If an artist creates a stamp, the stamp reflects the creativity and ingenuity of the artist. With regards to God, all living creatures resemble God's life, which is only inherent to Himself; nature can resemble the power and beauty of God; the universe the grandeur and infinitude, etc.
 

balshan

Well-known member
If an artist creates a stamp, the stamp reflects the creativity and ingenuity of the artist. With regards to God, all living creatures resemble God's life, which is only inherent to Himself; nature can resemble the power and beauty of God; the universe the grandeur and infinitude, etc.
Oh my where do you get that from? God life involves moving around on all fours eating grass, really. Does God even need to eat, shower - what is His life like? But no you are avoiding the claims made in catechism 41. Is that because you don't agree?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Oh my where do you get that from? God life involves moving around on all fours eating grass, really. Does God even need to eat, shower - what is His life like? But no you are avoiding the claims made in catechism 41. Is that because you don't agree?
Not at all, I completely agree with the point in the catechism. It's not about one-to-one correspondence but analogical resemblance. For instance, let's take a fly. It is a being and insomuch as it has existence it analogically resembles the One who has existence as His very nature, from which all existence comes. The fly is also alive and likewise shares a little of the life of God, who is infinite life and by whom anything that lives has its life sustained. The fly has certain faculties too, such as movement, sensation and knowledge, which are shadowy reflections of God's omnipresence and omniscience. This is pretty basic Catholic theology.

I think Lewis makes the point excellently in Mere Christianity:
Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God's, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the "living God." But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and the creativeness of God. [And he goes on...]

As to your first questions though, God in his human nature did need to eat and shower.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Not at all, I completely agree with the point in the catechism. It's not about one-to-one correspondence but analogical resemblance. For instance, let's take a fly. It is a being and insomuch as it has existence it analogically resembles the One who has existence as His very nature, from which all existence comes. The fly is also alive and likewise shares a little of the life of God, who is infinite life and by whom anything that lives has its life sustained. The fly has certain faculties too, such as movement, sensation and knowledge, which are shadowy reflections of God's omnipresence and omniscience. This is pretty basic Catholic theology.

I think Lewis makes the point excellently in Mere Christianity:
Everything God has made has some likeness to Himself. Space is like Him in its hugeness: not that the greatness of space is the same kind of greatness as God's, but it is a sort of symbol of it, or a translation of it into non-spiritual terms. Matter is like God in having energy: though, again, of course, physical energy is a different kind of thing from the power of God. The vegetable world is like Him because it is alive, and He is the "living God." But life, in this biological sense, is not the same as the life there is in God: it is only a kind of symbol or shadow of it. When we come on to the animals, we find other kinds of resemblance in addition to biological life. The intense activity and fertility of the insects, for example, is a first dim resemblance to the unceasing activity and the creativeness of God. [And he goes on...]

As to your first questions though, God in his human nature did need to eat and shower.
So you have all persons of God in the human body of Jesus. So is space the name of God.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
So you have all persons of God in the human body of Jesus. So is space the name of God.
No. Where are those claims being made?

The claim made by the catechism and Christians throughout history is that aspects of God are reflected in His creation, and that through them we can come to know God (or know Him better).
 

balshan

Well-known member
No. Where are those claims being made?

The claim made by the catechism and Christians throughout history is that aspects of God are reflected in His creation, and that through them we can come to know God (or know Him better).
You did, you used the term God - which is the term for the Godhead. I asked for examples and then asked questions which remain unanswered still.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
You did, you used the term God - which is the term for the Godhead. I asked for examples and then asked questions which remain unanswered still.
The claim made is that created realities resemble God in some way. I listed lots of examples. This doesn't mean that there is - as I also stated - a one-to-one correspondence but an analogical one.

Please read over the Lewis passage I quoted from "Mere Christianity".
 

balshan

Well-known member
The claim made is that created realities resemble God in some way. I listed lots of examples. This doesn't mean that there is - as I also stated - a one-to-one correspondence but an analogical one.

Please read over the Lewis passage I quoted from "Mere Christianity".
I read it.
 
Top