CCC Discussion: The Desire For God

[TriuneUnity]

That is an interesting observation. To exclude that desire however seems to me to indicate a more distant God rather than personal God who implants such desires.

I don’t see that at all, St. It does not indicate a distant God. It indicates a distant humanity. If anything, it demonstrates the mercy, love, and power of God far more that He would condescend to stoop down to our level, become one of us, redeem us, and call Him to communion with Himself, when there was absolutely no reason for Him to do so. By rights, He could have simply wiped humanity out and been perfectly just to do so, given our offenses.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…It does not indicate a distant God. It indicates a distant humanity…

Contarini essentially described Bonhoeffer’s position as the desire for God as not basic to human nature. God created human nature. There I go trying to use logic again. LOL.

Unless Bonhoeffer’s angle is that due to the fall of man, the desire for God has been extinguished, thus a distant humanity.

 

[Contarini]

That is an interesting observation. To exclude that desire however seems to me to indicate a more distant God rather than personal God who implants such desires.

I’m not sure that God’s “personality” is the issue (to me a strictly personal conception of God is far too distant), but I agree that rejecting the “religious a priori” causes some problems in terms of our doctrine of God and creation. That is the big problem I have with Bonhoeffer’s position as I understand it. But I may not understand it very well. It’s cryptic, and people interpret it in very different ways (he made these suggestions in letters written from prison shortly before his execution by the Nazis, which both gives these ideas interest and moral authority and makes them hard to interpret, since he never had the chance to systematize or clarify them). The more I study the matter the more convinced I am that the “death-of-God” folks badly misinterpreted Bonhoeffer. But maybe I’m misinterpreting him just as badly and for the same reasons (I have a particular axe to grind–like TriuneUnity I have a lot of concerns about the “seeker-sensitive” model of Christianity, and I teach evangelical students so this is a point I’ve tended to emphasize).

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

Contarini essentially described Bonhoeffer’s position as the desire for God as not basic to human nature. God created human nature. There I go trying to use logic again. LOL.

Unless Bonhoeffer’s angle is that due to the fall of man, the desire for God has been extinguished, thus a distant humanity.

Yes, your latter statement would be accurate. God created man holy, righteous, and morally perfect. God cannot create something which is inherently evil, as humanity is today. The Fall corrupted the original creation and has resulted in a humanity which hates God, loves itself, and is in open rebellion. The Apostle Paul describes the natural, unregenerate man in none too flattering ways.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. - Eph. 2:1-3

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Rom. 8:7-8

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. - Rom. 1:28-31

I cannot reconcile those statements with the view that mankind is just a little off kilter in his basic nature, or that he has a natural desire for God.

 

[Contarini]

Yes, your latter statement would be accurate.

Is that based on your reading of Bonhoeffer or on your own theology?

I’m no Bonhoeffer expert. In the *Letters and Papers from Prison *extracts he doesn’t seem to be appealing explicitly to the Fall, but rather to what he sees as the development of modern society. (This is where the “secular Christianity” folks of the 60s found Bonhoeffer helpful.)

Of course, the point could be that the apparent “religious a priori” is just another expression of human fallenness. That would be a Barthian way to go–but in these passages Bonhoeffer distances himself even from Barth to some degree. And he speaks of finding God in human joy and fulfillment and strength rather than in human weakness and insufficiency–not really the language either of Barth or of traditional Lutheranism.

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is that based on your reading of Bonhoeffer or on your own theology?

I’m no Bonhoeffer expert. In the *Letters and Papers from Prison *extracts he doesn’t seem to be appealing explicitly to the Fall, but rather to what he sees as the development of modern society. (This is where the “secular Christianity” folks of the 60s found Bonhoeffer helpful.)

Of course, the point could be that the apparent “religious a priori” is just another expression of human fallenness. That would be a Barthian way to go–but in these passages Bonhoeffer distances himself even from Barth to some degree. And he speaks of finding God in human joy and fulfillment and strength rather than in human weakness and insufficiency–not really the language either of Barth or of traditional Lutheranism.

Edwin

Sorry if that confused, Edwin. I am referring to the position of Lutheran orthodoxy and our confessions when I state that man is distant from God because of the fall, and not because God created mankind that way.

 

[Izdaari]

I agree with #27-30. As with #31-35 (which I saw first), I don’t see any of this as distinctively Catholic, but merely Christian.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I agree with #27-30. As with #31-35 (which I saw first), I don’t see any of this as distinctively Catholic, but merely Christian.

I think you’ll find that most teachings of the Catholic Church are not distinctively Catholic, but also shared by various other non-Catholic Christians.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I think you’ll find that most teachings of the Catholic Church are not distinctively Catholic, but also shared by various other non-Catholic Christians.

I think you’ll find that all teachings of the Catholic Church ARE distinctly Catholic. All other “non-Catholic Christians” (those not in full communion with Holy Mother Church) broke away from the Catholic Church in heresy and have adopted heretical or false doctrines as truth, or follow the doctrines of those who did. The fullness of truth resides in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All other beliefs have some (varying) measure of truth, but the FULLNESS OF TRUTH resides nowhere else.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I think you’ll find that all teachings of the Catholic Church ARE distinctly Catholic.

For something to be distinctive means that it is different. Izdaari - who is not Catholic - finds that the Catholic teaching regarding the desire for God is not different from his/her understanding.

 

[Izdaari]

I think you’ll find that most teachings of the Catholic Church are not distinctively Catholic, but also shared by various other non-Catholic Christians.

Aye, and so I consider Catholicism to be a valid branch of Christianity, though not my branch. But as I continue through this series of polls, I’m sure I’ll find at least some points I can’t agree with.

 

[Izdaari]

For something to be distinctive means that it is different. Izdaari - who is not Catholic - finds that the Catholic teaching regarding the desire for God is not different from his/her understanding.

Just so!

(It is her, btw)

As I understand it, the OP’s point is to discover which Catholic teachings differ from the other Christian churches. In #27-35, I haven’t found any.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Continued from post #19 of CCC Discussion: The Knowledge of God according to the Church related to paragraph #29:

chaunceygardner:

What if this paragraph of the Catechism is referring to “overthrowing” evil, as is suggested? Does attempting to do so indicate a person who is moving away from God? If I started a movement to eliminate as much evil as possible from my part of the world (or all of it, if that was possible) then would others attempt to stop me because it was not the will of God? Does this mean that those who are trying to stop the evil of abortion are lessening their bond with God? That God does not want them to “revolt” against this evil? Isn’t one role of most religions providing an oasis of moral righteousness in a world of secular immorality?

This is a fascinating essessment and I do appreciate your thoughts. I do think that someone’s misplaced righteousness can move them away from God in the form of self-righteousness. Someone could revolt against the evil of abortion by misplacing their efforts to defeat it in a manner that is inconsistent with God’s will.

I don’t see Jesus in terms of a revolutionary but as a reformer of souls. But nonetheless, I see where you are coming from in the sense that the ‘revolt against evil’ language isn’t consistent with the other items listed within paragraph 29.

chaunceygardner:

I think the goof is that the phrase was written totally opposite of what was intended. If the words “revolt against” were removed, it would make sense. If the phrase was changed to “supporting evil in the world” or “allowing evil in the world”, or “to revolt against moral good in the world”, it would make sense with the rest of the sentence. But not as it reads now.

Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through supporting evil in the world: I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.
Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through allowing evil in the world. I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.
Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through revolt against moral good in the world. I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.

chaunceygardner:

And what could be “misplaced” about revolting against evil? What wrong reasons could there be? The only ones I can think of is if one evil was replaced with an equal or greater evil, or if the actions that were used to fight the evil were themselves morally wrong and broke God’s commandments. Is that what the Catechism is talking about here, in a veiled sort of way?

Someone may have the intention of doing the moral good through revolt, but instead cause unintended consequences as a result of doing such actions.

Perhaps I would revise paragraph 29 to something like this:

Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through revolt against evil in an manner inconsistent with the will of God (or something to that effect).

Edited to add: I can’t think where revolt is a good thing. Reform? Yes. Revolt? I’m not so sure.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Continued from post #19 of CCC Discussion: The Knowledge of God according to the Church related to paragraph #29:

This is a fascinating assessment and I do appreciate your thoughts. I do think that someone’s misplaced righteousness can move them away from God in the form of self-righteousness. Someone could revolt against the evil of abortion by misplacing their efforts to defeat it in a manner that is inconsistent with God’s will.

I don’t see Jesus in terms of a revolutionary but as a reformer of souls. But nonetheless, I see where you are coming from in the sense that the ‘revolt against evil’ language isn’t consistent with the other items listed within paragraph 29.

Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through supporting evil in the world: I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.
Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through allowing evil in the world. I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.
Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through revolt against moral good in the world. I can accept that as a revision in the Catechism.

Someone may have the intention of doing the moral good through revolt, but instead cause unintended consequences as a result of doing such actions.

Perhaps I would revise paragraph 29 to something like this:

Explicitly rejecting the bond with God through revolt against evil in an manner inconsistent with the will of God (or something to that effect).

Edited to add: I can’t think where revolt is a good thing. Reform? Yes. Revolt? I’m not so sure.

I inadvertently left item #28 unchecked in the poll, when I meant to not check par. 29, for reasons indicated here and in the other thread. Sorry about that.

My “fix” would be to leave this phrase out, since there are plenty of other examples listed and this one is confusing. Or to go with one of the three options above that you like.

I can think of circumstances where revolt can be a good thing. The fight for American independence is one big example. Again, considering the various meanings of “revolt”, there could be many circumstances where individuals will rightly “renounce”, “rebel” or “turn away” from something they deem morally wrong or evil. We tend to give “revolt” a negative connotation, but there is a long history of revolts that occurred for good reasons, and had positive consequences.

I am afraid this is taking us into other topics and away from the subject at hand. But it does relate to how we read that part of Par. 29. I really think that it lost something in the translation.