‘Divine Immutability and Impassibility'

[zro_x]

Fr. Vincent Serpa on “Ask an Apologist”: Do prayers change God’s will?
“God does allow evil that a greater good may come of it. The writers of the Old Testament were writing for simple people. So they attribute human emotions to the Father that He doesn’t really have. He isn’t swayed by our behavior. But He does challenge us. And prayer IS powerful–because it changes US. Those who have been praying for your sister have been benefiting from their love for her and their own unselfishness. God has already determined what He will do for your sister. Her illness may will be for the benefit of your family and all those who are praying.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10359674#post10359674

I don’t know, that sounds an awful lot like a sort of prejudice against ancient cultures. I don’t think the people of ancient Isreal, by and large, were any more simple than we are.

My guess is that the writers of the old testament included statements like “God is grieved” because, frankly, it makes a better story, for all cultures and times. Good stories stick around and spread easily.

 

[BroomWagon]

By the **Fathers ** and Doctors of our Faith? They afterall are the ones who pioneered this reading of scripture and explicitly taught that passages attributing emotion to God are not to be taken on their face as literally suggesting that God is “grieved”, or “angry” etc., outwith the general 4 senses of scripture as a whole.

I highly doubt that they were using that approach “as a convenience to dismiss what is straight out of the Bible”.

It is the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, who interprets scripture - and these are her Fathers from the early centuries speaking, in consensus, that God is impassible and scripture is not to be read literally in these verses so as to suggest that he “grieves” or becomes “angry” etc.

I think its a safe bet that they know what they are talking about, no?

Oh gee? What’s Catholic Answers known for?? Apologetics.

I think it’s a safe bet you can call Genesis 6:6 a metaphor ( knowgramming.com/2008_top_ten_metaphors.htm examples of some metaphors) but that you can not defend why that verse or other verses that look like they say God experiences say “Grief” does NOT represent God experiencing Grief or Sorrow.

But to tell others “you don’t follow the Church Fathers” etc. doesn’t seem proper then if one can not actually defend the rationale. This might go over with Catholics or some Catholics but usually, real back up is needed.

And indeed, I was feeding it right back in saying, “well, you must not agree with the Bible” when you can’t back up the rationale, but we get it, no hard feelings, I apologize if I came on strong.

We know apologetics, we may stumble on oh, something simple like “Why do we call a Priest Father” when a Protestant might point out something like a verse in the Bible says “Call no man Father”. I’ve read Karl Keatings books.

So, yes, you have a valid point, we should follow the Church Fathers but there is also a point is that beyond calling something a metaphor, in light of Bible verse, we really are not defending the notion that God has no emotions or sorrow, all we are saying is here is an excerpt from a writing of St. Thomas Aquinas that says that God experiences no emotions.

I repeated myself, but we get it, no real back up.

 

[BroomWagon]

Fr. Vincent Serpa on “Ask an Apologist”: Do prayers change God’s will?
“God does allow evil that a greater good may come of it. The writers of the Old Testament were writing for simple people. So they attribute human emotions to the Father that He doesn’t really have. He isn’t swayed by our behavior. But He does challenge us. And prayer IS powerful–because it changes US. Those who have been praying for your sister have been benefiting from their love for her and their own unselfishness. God has already determined what He will do for your sister. Her illness may will be for the benefit of your family and all those who are praying.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10359674#post10359674

Your post is real good but still, when a prophet wrote Genesis:

And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.- Genesis 6:6

We just say “the writers of the Old Testament were just attributing emotions to God (The Father) but he doesn’t really have these”, it almost comes down to why write this? There must be a grain of truth in what the writer says, again, I think the emotions can be God, but in that way, that God has emotions is unchanging. Are we to say from Genesis 6:6 God the Father had no real feeling about this and the writers of the Bible just said it grieved his heart? Or was their something like this that words tried to portray?

 

[Gorgias]

We just say “the writers of the Old Testament were just attributing emotions to God (The Father) but he doesn’t really have these”, it almost comes down to why write this?

There was a flood. The divine author of Scripture inspired a human author of Scripture to write about it, but allowed him the freedom to write in his own words, using his own perspective (that’s what the Catholic Church says that ‘inspiration’ means). However, how can we explain that God seemingly desired to kill all life from the face of the earth? It doesn’t fit in the nature of God to hate His creation! So, perhaps… as he was preparing to write, the way the human author of Scripture chose to explain how the flood could possibly came to be, was to characterize God as feeling ‘grief’ at sinfulness.

There must be a grain of truth in what the writer says

I’m not certain that we must say this. There is absolutely truth in Scripture (after all, the ‘literal sense’ of Scripture requires it), but this ‘truth’ is the truth of Salvation History, as the human author was inspired to write it, and as he saw it.

Are we to say from Genesis 6:6 God the Father had no real feeling about this and the writers of the Bible just said it grieved his heart?

Perhaps the ‘truth’ here is simply that human sinfulness is something that does not please God. That’s reasonable, and doesn’t require us to ascribe an emotion to God.

 

[BroomWagon]

Perhaps the ‘truth’ here is simply that human sinfulness is something that does not please God. That’s reasonable, and doesn’t require us to ascribe an emotion to God.

Interestingly, a synonym for “not being pleased” would be “not to be happy with” and thus, the two phrases may indeed be ascribing an emotion.

a.) I am not pleased with my meal.
b.) I am not happy with my meal.

Not to be pleased with, to be offended. These are still emotions.

 

[BroomWagon]

Genesis 6:6

And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.- Genesis 6:6

Okay, let’s see if “not be pleased” fits in.

And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was not pleased.- Genesis 6:6

Now we are into semantics, undoubtedly, the two are similar. Or at the least, both would be a negative reaction, response, feeling towards something.

Lets’ say one has a favorite sports teams, Celtic, Notre Dame, 49ers, Dodgers, whomever, they lose… it may not effect great grief in one’s heart but I can see one not being content with the loss, not being happy with the loss or not being pleased with the result. So I’d call that an emotion.

 

[BroomWagon]

Gorgias and Vouthon: Are you speaking of the Lateran Council IV’s definition of God??

Vatican I under Pope Pius IX defines God this way:

**Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, ****supremely happy in himself **and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
- Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

So, from the Vatican I Council, 1870, Vatican I, we learn that God is supremely happy in himself. Is this not an emotion? And my point has only been that God can have emotions at least in our human understanding.

---

Also, when Jesus ascended but assured his disciples another one would come, an Advocate, the Holy Spirit, to me this seems to call out emotions as well.

 

[Gorgias]

So, from the Vatican I Council, 1870, Vatican I, we learn that God is supremely happy in himself. Is this not an emotion?

No. I would say, following Aquinas, that when humans experience happiness, we do so through our “sensitive appetite”, and therefore, our experience of ‘happiness’ is a passion. However, when we ascribe states to God that, in us, would be passions, we are only doing so analogously. So, God’s ‘supreme happiness’ and a human ‘supreme happiness’ are different things. When we say it of God, we mean something different (at least, implicitly we do – or we should!).

And my point has only been that God can have emotions at least in our human understanding.

If you’re saying “we can say something of God that, if we said it of us, it would be a passion”, then you’re generally ok, I think. This doesn’t imply, of course, that what we’re saying of God is that He experiences an emotion.

 

[BroomWagon]

Vatican I, First Vatican Council: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

Chapter 1
On God the creator of all things

1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

1. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, **supremely happy in himself **and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

Now, how does “supremely happy in himself” mean that one has NO emotion?

Didn’t they agree with the Church Fathers??

 

[lakotak]

I would like to start out by saying I am only sharing my thoughts on this. I have wondered about this for a long time.

If God “is” love and justice then he cannot change. I am human, I cannot change into another animal form.

We are made in His image and He has given us emotions that are linked to our free will. We have emotions that are expressed in our human nature according to our human will for good or evil; therefore, they are changeable.

Maybe God inspired the Fathers of the Church and Scripture writers the means to relate in us in our human nature that which is in God’s unchanging state and convey to us what is right and wrong in the eyes of God so we could understand.

It seems that most of the emotions that we have come under Love and Justice, which God “is”. It seems that because God is a “being” of Love and Justice, He does not change. However He has given us the ability to be connected to Him in the emotions that we need and will change in according to our human flesh. As man, we get a glimpse into God’s being and what he desires and does not desire for us so we can understand this. Though we are changeable, we are able to peek at the unchangeable.

This probably does not make a lot of sense, but this is just a way I have looked at it. I probably have not expressed this exactly as I wanted to so don’t attack me. Be kind if you reply

 

[Gorgias]

Vatican I, First Vatican Council: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

Now, how does “supremely happy in himself” mean that one has NO emotion?

Easy. ‘Happiness’, properly considered, isn’t an emotion; the thought that it is an emotion is a recent development. Rather, happiness speaks to our intellect and to perfect goodness. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

Happiness, or beatitude, is the personal possession of a desirable GOOD, ultimately the perfect good of an intellectual nature. Accordingly, God, the sovereign uncreated good, is happiness itself. Inasmuch as creatures participate in the perfect good, they possess created happiness under various forms and in different degrees. Happiness may be considered objectively or subjectively. The good that is capable of giving a person his ultimate perfection by fulfilling his every need is called objective happiness; this is God alone, who by His infinite goodness can satisfy creatures. The actual perfection experienced by the person through a realization of his potentialities is subjective beatitude; it is the possession of the desirable object. When this actualization is ultimate, the person possesses perfect subjective happiness; until then, it can only be imperfect. Ultimately, man has but one goal: perfect happiness, which is the full realization of his potentialities through intimate, personal union with God in the BEATIFIC VISION (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, 1000). In this life, however, a limited participation in the perfect good through human activity (physical, spiritual, SUPERNATURAL, both individual and social) produces a form of happiness, natural and/or supernatural, that, although imperfect, is a beginning of perfect happiness.

(MCMAHON, T. F. “Happiness.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 636-637. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.)

Didn’t they agree with the Church Fathers??

Of course they did. It’s us, with our contemporary emotionalization of all things, such that the only thing that matters is how we ‘feel’, who are at odds with the Council Fathers…!

 

[BroomWagon]

Easy. ‘Happiness’, properly considered, isn’t an emotion; the thought that it is an emotion is a recent development. Rather, happiness speaks to our intellect and to perfect goodness. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

(MCMAHON, T. F. “Happiness.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 2003. 636-637. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Feb. 2013.)

Easy?? Where does it say “Happiness” is NOT an emotion??

So we are back to this again but it doesn’t dismiss happiness as an emotion.

You assert “happiness” as an emotion is a recent development, then we should see this in an age old book like “Imitation of the Christ”.

On the Day of Judgement, Kempis writes that a good and pure conscience will give more joy than all the philosophy one has ever learned, fervent prayer will bring more happiness than a “multi-course banquet”, the silence will be more “exhilarating” than long tales, holy deeds will be of greater value than nice-sounding words.(Chap.24)[33] - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_of_Christ (1418-1427)

Imitation of Christ does not sound out of step with our Modern Day concept of Happy.

Now, 1870 is relatively recent at that.

The Beatitudes seem to touch on Emotion in their totality.

Blessed are:
the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
those who mourn: for they will be comforted. (5:4)
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
they who hunger and thirst for righteousness: for they will be satisfied. (5:6)
the merciful: for they will be shown mercy. (5:7)
the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. (5:9)
those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:1.

Beatitude is what?

The term beatitude comes from the Latin adjective beatus which means happy, fortunate, or blissful- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatitudes

Providing one paragraph out of a book does not negate being happy as an emotion.

Of course they did. It’s us, with our contemporary emotionalization of all things, such that the only thing that matters is how we ‘feel’, who are at odds with the Council Fathers…!

You say Contemporary Emotionalization, well Vatican I was in fact, after America’s Civil War, so how recent was this change and contemporary emotionalization?

The only thing I can think of is that Latin is surely used in Vatican I, “Felicem” or other derivatives of the word Happy but that may well not change the content either. Also, Happy may be similar in usage to Joyous as well.

Otherwise, we see in 1870 was not as far back as the lifetime of the Church that long ago. I don’t see Beatitude negating emotion either.

 

[BroomWagon]

Any contentment in the possession of a good. Implies a state of well-being and not some single experience, and a relative permanence and constancy. Hence regularly used in Scripture to describe the lot of those who are blessed by God for doing his will, and the reward of the just for their faithful service on earth. Happiness is a divine gift but requires man’s co-operation to be gained. - Fr. John Hardon

“Any contentment”, a Catholic definition again. Yes, we see happiness is a permanent state with God, nonetheless, this does not rule out it being an emotion.

Aquinas believes that it is not in the nature (the properties) of God to sympathize with the experience of pain and suffering in the same way that we do. By this I mean that God’s impassible nature is such that there is no existence of passions (desires) that a human would have. I still contend (and I’d like you to provide proof against this view from the Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles if you disagree) that Aquinas believed God has emotions (not passions) such as joy and love.
saintaquinas.com/sorrow.html