"All Things For Good" and Degrees of Displeasure

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

The following is a very quick question as a) I am rather at a loss how to answer it and b) I haven’t really done a whole lot of previous research on it. In any case:

We are told in Sacred Scripture that all things work together for (the) good for those who are called according to God’s purpose. Since this is the case, then, why do we react to various “negative” things that happen to us in this life with any degree of displeasure (whether it be in sadness, anger, disappointment…)? Should we not, as it were, count it all joy when we go through trials? If we are to count it “all” joy, is there really any room for sadness or any like emotion? There are indeed a lot of "all"s here, which may be worth noting…

Some may say that, while we should rejoice in the ultimate effects of suffering, i.e., growing stronger/closer to God/etc, we are permitted sadness at the events themselves in their, if you will, immediacy of effect. Indeed, Paul himself says that he would’ve wept bitterly if his companion would’ve died, had God not, as he says, had mercy on him. Christ Himself is said to have wept on at least one occasion. Still, we have those “pesky” allls…!

But, taking the example of Paul just cited and taking the latter proposition as true, to what degree are we to express the kinds of emotions of displeasure of which I spoke above? Paul, after all, seems to suggest that he would’ve been positively heartbroken at the loss of his friend and ally in the spreading of the Gospel, and we assume that this is because he would’ve missed him, not for some reason such as their work in the Gospel(?). Whatever the case may have been, he would’ve apparently bee deeply moved by that loss. Yet, in another passage, Paul states that he has learned how to get along with much or with little, stating that he is content in whatever circumstance he finds himself. So, is there a set “degree” of expression of displeasure with circumstance to whcih we should all hold? Does, and should, such vary from person to person?

I am not only interested in what individuals on this forum think on this subject, but also what Catholic commentators have said on it, both ancient and contemporary. Also, has their been any authoritative/infallible teaching on the subject?

Gratias vobis.

 

[St_Francis]

I might understand what you are asking, but I’m not sure I know the answer.

For example, how did Mary and Joseph react when Jesus stayed at the Temple? Not their reaction when they’d found Him, but before, when He was, in their eyes, lost? Was Mary panicking, as I would have been? Or was she very calm?

The only thing I can think of is: In all things give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you all. (1 Thess 5:18)

I had to confess telling “a white lie,” because I didn’t want to hurt someone’s feelings, and the priest said maybe God had arranged that so the other person would learn a lesson and I had messed it up.

So, I don’t know if any of this helps, but there it is.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

OK, sort of a continuation on my first post:

I was also thinking of Jesus when he “sweat blood” in the garden. Here, He was evidently very distressed at what He was about to go through. But, was He distressed at the prospect of intense physical pain? Of separation from God? Of the sinfulness of others? Of taking those sins on Himself? In most of these cases, if they were true, how would Paul’s statement about “counting it all joy” in suffering and other similar statements in Sacred Scripture fit in here? Since Christ was about not only Himself to be glorified but also to redeem the world from sin, shouldn’t He have only rejoiced from the beginning at what He was about to experience? Even when He was suffering on the Cross, shouldn’t He have counted that “all joy” (at least in His Mind/Spirit, if you will, though He would’ve obviously reacted as a matter of course to physical pain).

Fro those who may need clarification, I’m just trying to reconcile the presence ofemotions other than joy in men and even in Jesus when Paul advises us to count instances of suffering as “all joy”.

On yet another point, why are we to help others, particularly in the Christian community, in various types of (even worldly/physical) distress if those Christians are to count these experiences as “all joy” and if those experiences make them stronger? Instead of helping them, would it not be better to admonish them to be completely joyful in them becaue of their strengthening effects? Even if we disagree with that statement, we must point out that the reason (apparently) for alleviating their distress lies in their mental/emotional/spiritual suffering (rather than in any total rejoicing). After all, very much of human suffering/pain lies in the mind/soul, wherein also joy resides. Also the distress/suffering of others which we are to alleviate where possible implicitly contains some lack of joy/contentment in it, else we wouldn’t be called to alleviate it, if our purpose in alleviating it is in love to restore the other person’s joy through the alleviation of suffering.

Again, how are we to count an event of suffering “all joy”, while, at the same time, being distressed to whatever degree because of it?

 

[Beryllos]

… We are told in Sacred Scripture that all things work together for (the) good for those who are called according to God’s purpose. Since this is the case, then, why do we react to various “negative” things that happen to us in this life with any degree of displeasure (whether it be in sadness, anger, disappointment…)? Should we not, as it were, count it all joy when we go through trials? If we are to count it “all” joy, is there really any room for sadness or any like emotion?..

While there may exist rare individuals who are capable of feeling joyful about all things, I do not think we as Christians are called upon to cultivate that attitude in ourselves. Joy is not a virtue on the same footing as faith, hope, and charity.

(Romans 8:28) We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.

Paul was writing about hope. He did not mean that we must be joyful about our trials, pains, and suffering, and he certainly did not mean that we should be joyful about evil and sin. Elsewhere in the same chapter he wrote:

(Romans 8:22-23) We know that all creation is groaning in labor pains even until now; and not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, we also groan within ourselves as we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Paul used the metaphor of labor pains. As we suffer, we should be like a mother in labor, who does not welcome the labor pains but groans, and yet bears the pain willingly in the hope of joy that will come.

This reminds me of the passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about divine providence (302-314). Here is a very brief excerpt:

(from paragraph 302) The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it.

In Romans 8 once again, Paul explains how it is that we can remain hopeful as we suffer:

(Romans 8:31-39) What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, how will he not also give us everything else along with him? Who will bring a charge against God’s chosen ones? It is God who acquits us. Who will condemn? It is Christ [Jesus] who died, rather, was raised, who also is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword? As it is written:
“For your sake we are being slain all the day;
we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[St_Francis]

Hmmm, this is tricky. Maybe joy is defined differently? Like overall I have joy that God loves me enough to send His Son to die for me, but I am currently very sad that something objectively sad happened? So there is joy underneath some of these other, more temporary feelings?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

All great responses and well-thought-out/reasoned, however…

What about that pesky “all” in Paul’s statement that we are to count it “all” joy when we suffer for the reasons he gives? If “all” is present, then there is no room for anything else such as sadness…, it would seem.

 

[St_Francis]

All great responses and well-thought-out/reasoned, however…

What about that pesky “all” in Paul’s statement that we are to count it “all” joy when we suffer for the reasons he gives? If “all” is present, then there is no room for anything else such as sadness…, it would seem.

I think there can be joy in sorrow. Altho I am sad, I have the underlying joy, and additionally, I can have the joy that my suffering is for a good purpose. Could either or both of those be the answer?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Could “all” in the passage stating “count it all joy” etc. be some Hebrew idiom simply meaning “very much”? This would leave some room for sadness but also express joy at the fact that our faith is being strengthened in and even despite that sadness? Any Hebrew scholars out there? Is there support for this possibility?

Also, in terms of “all” things working together for good: Perhaps Paul is saying that, once we see things from a properly Christian worldview, we can see that, ultimately God is working (providentially) all things for our good, even though, some events in themselves may be bad and, thus, to be taken as sorrowful, at least, to some degree. We can, may even have the right and may even be expected to feel negatively about a particular situation, but there is also positive that can come out of every event for the Christian who takes a properly Christian worldview. For instance, a Christian sees God’s strength in his weakness. Or, a Christian sees that he himself and his faith is made stronger by trials. A given event itself may not be in itself a good to be joyful at, but, rather, the peripheral effects on the Christian if he has a right worldview work to his ultimate good. The event itself is not to be rejoiced at, but its peripheral effects are. Perhaps even God would consider it an unnatural response of the Christian to rejoice at a negative event with reference to the event itself.

After all, if we were not at all to react negatively to certain events, God would very likely have not supported the nullification of those events. He perhaps would not have taken such a strong position on sin if the one sinned against was not at all to feel negatively impacted by the sin committed against him. If God expected us not at all to be affected by negative events, He would not have such an aversion to sin, because there would be no need for it, since we should have no negative reaction to it. Indeed, does not God hate sin because it effects us negatively? Sin is antithetical to Love because sin does not have our best interests at heart, if that makes sense. If God wished that we merely change our reaction to a purely positive one, He could’ve taught that and, arguably, should’ve taught that alone, instead of teaching against the commission of sin.

Is there validity in this understanding?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Of course, Paul could, in fact, be looking back to the OT story of Joseph wherein God used his capture and trip to Egypt for the ultimate good of both the Egyptians and God’s own people. Would the case of Joseph qualify as some Providential rather than direct intervention-kind-of-work of God? Is His Permissive Will somehow at work here? (Of course, all these questions are irrelevant, at least to this particular thread, if Paul was not thinking of this particular situation at all when he wrote of all things working together for good to God’s called. However, if Paul is thinking of this passage, it may even make a stronger case(?) for being justified in lamenting the negative situations themselves but rejoicing in God’s ultimately, somewhere down the line, working all things out for good(?). However, would this mean “for good” in this life in a very immediate/literal/physical way and/or for good in one’s spiritual life both here and for eternity? Could Paul (and/or could we) take the OT Joseph passage as mere allegory or can it be taken literally and generally applied to all of us? (Again, all this is irrelevant to this thread if you don’t believe Paul is thinking back to the OT Joseph account.)

Then again, Paul may not have been thinking of this passage at all.

What do you think Paul is referring to here and why?

 

[fhansen]

Salvete, omnes!

The following is a very quick question as a) I am rather at a loss how to answer it and b) I haven’t really done a whole lot of previous research on it. In any case:

We are told in Sacred Scripture that all things work together for (the) good for those who are called according to God’s purpose. Since this is the case, then, why do we react to various “negative” things that happen to us in this life with any degree of displeasure (whether it be in sadness, anger, disappointment…)? Should we not, as it were, count it all joy when we go through trials? If we are to count it “all” joy, is there really any room for sadness or any like emotion? There are indeed a lot of "all"s here, which may be worth noting…

Some may say that, while we should rejoice in the ultimate effects of suffering, i.e., growing stronger/closer to God/etc, we are permitted sadness at the events themselves in their, if you will, immediacy of effect. Indeed, Paul himself says that he would’ve wept bitterly if his companion would’ve died, had God not, as he says, had mercy on him. Christ Himself is said to have wept on at least one occasion. Still, we have those “pesky” allls…!

But, taking the example of Paul just cited and taking the latter proposition as true, to what degree are we to express the kinds of emotions of displeasure of which I spoke above? Paul, after all, seems to suggest that he would’ve been positively heartbroken at the loss of his friend and ally in the spreading of the Gospel, and we assume that this is because he would’ve missed him, not for some reason such as their work in the Gospel(?). Whatever the case may have been, he would’ve apparently bee deeply moved by that loss. Yet, in another passage, Paul states that he has learned how to get along with much or with little, stating that he is content in whatever circumstance he finds himself. So, is there a set “degree” of expression of displeasure with circumstance to whcih we should all hold? Does, and should, such vary from person to person?

I am not only interested in what individuals on this forum think on this subject, but also what Catholic commentators have said on it, both ancient and contemporary. Also, has their been any authoritative/infallible teaching on the subject?

Gratias vobis.

Often in the midst of the deepest suffering God is there. The suffering is there, and God is there. In any case, the suffering Paul described was generally for the sake of the gospel. Either way, we’re not to be stoic or indifferent, but rather to know that God is in control, and that good will come ultimately come of it. Suffering/experiencing evil, is part of our “educational process”, in terms of discipline and character building, in terms of our turning to embrace the good alone, in terms of coming to see our need for God.