Did God the Father Suffer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
On anther Thread I heard it argued (rather unclearly) that he didn’t, so in attempts to understand I thought to ask anew. Did God the Father Suffer (i.e. at the crucfixtion)? Thanks and God bless.
 
I’ll jump in. I don’t thin anything explicit is said int eh Bible or in Catholic teaching, although I have not checked the CCC on this. But if your definition of “suffering” includes grieving, I would say there is evidence the answer is Yes, since God loves us all infinitely, and there are quite a few examples of God grieving over the death or misfortune of one of us (like Lazarus, Jesus wept).
 
That’s called Patripassianism and it has been condemned by the Church.
 
40.png
Chesster:
That’s called Patripassianism and it has been condemned by the Church.
“Patripassianism”? Why?
 
In order to suffer, God had to take on a human nature. The Father did not assume a human nature; the Son did.
 
40.png
Chesster:
That’s called Patripassianism and it has been condemned by the Church.
I think Patripassianism is that the Father and Son are the same. I don’t think this really applies.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I think Patripassianism is the the Father and Son are the same. I don’t think this really applies.
The heresy of Patripassianism is the belief that the Father also suffered on the Cross. The etymology of the name is patri for father and passionem for suffered the passion.

Patripassianism is a miss application of the Trinitarian relationship. It takes the phrase “what one can attribute to one person of the Trinity can be attributed to all persons of the Trinity” to an extreme that does not respect the absolute difference between persons in the Trinity.
 
40.png
mosher:
The heresy of Patripassianism is the belief that the Father also suffered on the Cross. The etymology of the name is patri for father and passionem for suffered the passion.

Patripassianism is a miss application of the Trinitarian relationship. It takes the phrase “what one can attribute to one person of the Trinity can be attributed to all persons of the Trinity” to an extreme that does not respect the absolute difference between persons in the Trinity.
Yes, but I think Augustine was the one who spoke of this heresy, and it pertained to the notion that God the Father became Incarnate, suffered, and died, because God the Father and God the Son were the same. I’ll have to check, however.
 
II. MODALISTS
The Monarchians properly so-called (Modalists) exaggerated the oneness of the Father and the Son so as to make them but one Person; thus the distinctions in the Holy Trinity are energies or modes, not Persons: God the Father appears on earth as Son; hence it seemed to their opponents that Monarchians made the Father suffer and die. In the West they were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are usually called Sabellians.

Catholic Encyclopedia - Monarchians
It is clear that God the Father didn’t suffer and die at the crucifixion, but I thought he was asking whether another kind of suffering took place, not in the sense the Patripassians held (which confounded the persons of the Trinity).
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
It is clear that God the Father didn’t suffer and die at the crucifixion, but I thought he was asking whether another kind of suffering took place, not in the sense the Patripassians held (which confounded the persons of the Trinity).
When Montie asked, “Did God the Father Suffer (i.e. at the crucfixtion)?” I understood that to mean in the Patripassianist sense.

However if Montie was asking whether another kind of suffering took place then the answer is, as you have pointed out, “the Divine nature is incapable of suffering”.
 
40.png
Chesster:
When Montie asked, “Did God the Father Suffer (i.e. at the crucfixtion)?” I understood that to mean in the Patripassianist sense.

However if Montie was asking whether another kind of suffering took place then the answer is, as you have pointed out, “the Divine nature is incapable of suffering”.
I don’t mean as if the Father was being crucifed but, like a futher suffering at the pain of a child. But, why would the divine to suffer or feel emontion? Why would it be exclusive to a human, I mean arn’t we made in his image? Wouldn’t it be that emtions are divine and that is something that humans have that is divine (I have heard the analogy with God and us and us and having children)? And the times God got angry at the isrealites? Or am I just loking to much into this? Thanks and God bless.
 
A lot of anthropomorphisms are used in the bible when speaking of God, particularly in the OT. These are used in a metaphorical sense. The divine nature is pure spirit and does not change or suffer. We are made in the image and likeness of God in that we resemble him in spirit, having intelligence and free will, and an immortal soul. God can and does love us infinitely, but in his divine nature he cannot suffer and die for us. He can only do that by taking on a human nature.

It was the Person of the Son who did that, and it is in his human nature that he suffered and died. But since he was a divine Person, that sacrifice has infinite value.
 
Montie Claunch:
But, why doesn’t spirit suffer?
The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity. Like the Father, the Spirit did not take on a human nature; so he can not suffer.
 
Montie Claunch:
But, why doesn’t spirit suffer?
Suffering always has a physical or emotional component; (and emotions are, at their root, also physical.) Suffering involves some disorder in ones body or emotions. Spirit is not material. Having no matter, it has no parts, and nothing which can become disordered–at least in the way of pain or emotional pain.

Now I have to back up a bit. Sin, taken purely as a rejection of God by the human will, IS disordered. And sin can lead to bodily suffering. But the movement of will is in itself not a material thing.

In any case, God could not suffer in his divine will, which is always directed to the good.
 
To suffer is to have violence done to the person. While pain is physical suffering is spiritual and can only be experienced by rational beings. Thus angels and humans can suffer. While God is obviously a rational being it is not possible for Him to suffer because one cannot do damage to God. We have to be careful of attributing things that are proper to finite beings to God.

Further, God does not have emotions in the proper sense. God is Intellect and Will and His Essence is His Existence. Emotions are related to finitude and are uniquely a human phenomenon.
 
If God is unaffected by anything then all of this human creation and interaction stuff is pointless. God could neither bless nor curse His creation if He was not in some way satisfied or dissatisfied with the free will of His creation. Prayer would have no effect or change and the intercession of the Saints would be a joke 'cause it would be in vain to attempt to “move” an immovable God to do something in particular. If God can be both pleased and displeased then is it not simply a matter of syntax to recognize a happiness or sadness? Before one Divine Person ever became human, God saw that Adam was lonely and created Eve so that man could have a companion. God is obviously moved in certain instances. If humanity is the prodigal son returning to Father in light of Christ’s atonement, the joy of the Father can only exist in light of the sorrow that preceded the reunion.
 
Montie Claunch:
But, why doesn’t spirit suffer?
Spirit suffers (fallen angels tormented in hell). I think the question is whether the Divine nature can suffer. I think you’d have to be more precise about what “suffer” means.
 
40.png
CollegeCatholic:
If God is unaffected by anything then all of this human creation and interaction stuff is pointless. God could neither bless nor curse His creation if He was not in some way satisfied or dissatisfied with the free will of His creation. Prayer would have no effect or change and the intercession of the Saints would be a joke 'cause it would be in vain to attempt to “move” an immovable God to do something in particular. If God can be both pleased and displeased then is it not simply a matter of syntax to recognize a happiness or sadness? Before one Divine Person ever became human, God saw that Adam was lonely and created Eve so that man could have a companion. God is obviously moved in certain instances. If humanity is the prodigal son returning to Father in light of Christ’s atonement, the joy of the Father can only exist in light of the sorrow that preceded the reunion.
Don’t confuse the anthropormorphism used in Scripture with the reality of the nature of God. All the things that you have spoken about have nothing to do with feelings but are rather functions of the will. Different aspects of the divine will hold different determinations. Further, on prayer we do not and should never pray to change God’s will. A true prayers is to fulfill God’s will not to make Him do what we ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top