Divine Impassibility

[ChristIsTheWay]

I have some questions about divine impassibility, which so far has confused me. As I understand it, it means God does not suffer or have passions. Is this Catholic teaching? I’ve encountered various criticisms of it, some of which include allegations that God is indifferent to our suffering, does not love us, etc. Seems kind of an extreme reaction to the idea of impassibility but I am not very familiar with any of it.

 

[FCEGM]

I have some questions about divine impassibility, which so far has confused me. As I understand it, it means God does not suffer or have passions. Is this Catholic teaching? I’ve encountered various criticisms of it, some of which include allegations that God is indifferent to our suffering, does not love us, etc. Seems kind of an extreme reaction to the idea of impassibility but I am not very familiar with any of it.

This is a question that often comes up in a discussion of Hell. Yes, you express the Catholic teaching. In God is all joy and peace and glory, thus there can be nothing in Him which allows for eternal sadness - either in Himself or in those who participate in His glory.

This by the Church Father Theodoret addresses in part God’s immutability:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2897&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=750252

And you might find this to be a helpful look at the subject:

saintaquinas.com/sorrow.html

 

[I_love_rocks]

Are you sure???
God has no sufferings???
God is indifferent to our sufferings???
Really??

I do not think that is correct - at all.
We know that in Heaven there is no suffering, no lust, no sinful passion, no pain, no death…

We know that the grace to suffer Holy Indifference to: slander, attacks, etc such as what St. Paul suffered comes from the Holy Spirit.
We know that the Holy Trinity is “ever-placid”.

But God has no sufferings? God is eternal and as such, is not limited by time or space. We enter into the suffering and passion of Christ at Mass, at Eucharist, during Lent, and at other times as a supernatural mystery. He plumbed the depths of suffering. Ecce Homo! Has anyone *ever *suffered as God has suffered?

In the novena of the Divine Mercy… God [Jesus] speaks of the suffering it causes Him when souls reject His mercy and graces… the suffering it causes Him when a soul is luke-warm…

God collects all of our tears…(Revelations). He is not indiffernt to our sufferings. He has entered into the flesh and experience of all of mankind. He lives in us and we are yoked to Him in our lives.

To me that means - if I have Cancer, and I belong to God, call upon His Name, and He lives within me - He suffers all the agonies of the Cancer in my physical body and walks with me under the weight of the cross I have been given. The same for any pain, ailment, injury, disease process, mental illness, or human condition which is in pain such as those who are mocked, rejected, isolated, tortured, abused…
He suffers with us and lifts us out of it to experience a higher plane with Him - Holiness, perseverence, faith, hope, love, compassion… and ultimately everlasting joy.

God’s not indifferent to anything His children experience. We are precious in HIs sight. we cannot be precious AND the object of His indifference.

Where may I find that God is indifferent to me in any solid Catholic doctrine?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

This is a question that often comes up in a discussion of Hell. Yes, you express the Catholic teaching. In God is all joy and peace and glory, thus there can be nothing in Him which allows for eternal sadness - either in Himself or in those who participate in His glory.

This by the Church Father Theodoret addresses in part God’s immutability:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2897&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=750252

And you might find this to be a helpful look at the subject:

saintaquinas.com/sorrow.html

Thanks. I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly review your first link but I’ve read over your second link. It was a nice summation. After I posted this thread, I found this article: mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml

As I understand so far, God is pure, actualized love. This pure love does not change because it is perfect and complete. We finite humans experience it depending on where we are at in life. If we are receiving God’s pardon for our sins, we experience His unchanging, perfect love as mercy and forgiveness. When we suffer and are comforted by God, we perceive His unchanging, perfect love as compassion. When we reap the consequences of our sins, this also the unchanging, perfect love of God. I suppose many more examples could be offered but what sticks out is that God’s impassibility should not be interpreted as a cold and emotionless indifferentism. He does love us and that love never changes, we only perceive it as changing depending on our personal circumstances? Is that accurate?

Are you sure???
God has no sufferings???
God is indifferent to our sufferings???
Really??

I do not think that is correct - at all.
We know that in Heaven there is no suffering, no lust, no sinful passion, no pain, no death…

We know that the grace to suffer Holy Indifference to: slander, attacks, etc such as what St. Paul suffered comes from the Holy Spirit.
We know that the Holy Trinity is “ever-placid”.

But God has no sufferings? God is eternal and as such, is not limited by time or space. We enter into the suffering and passion of Christ at Mass, at Eucharist, during Lent, and at other times as a supernatural mystery. He plumbed the depths of suffering. Ecce Homo! Has anyone *ever *suffered as God has suffered?

In the novena of the Divine Mercy… God [Jesus] speaks of the suffering it causes Him when souls reject His mercy and graces… the suffering it causes Him when a soul is luke-warm…

God collects all of our tears…(Revelations). He is not indiffernt to our sufferings. He has entered into the flesh and experience of all of mankind. He lives in us and we are yoked to Him in our lives.

To me that means - if I have Cancer, and I belong to God, call upon His Name, and He lives within me - He suffers all the agonies of the Cancer in my physical body and walks with me under the weight of the cross I have been given. The same for any pain, ailment, injury, disease process, mental illness, or human condition which is in pain such as those who are mocked, rejected, isolated, tortured, abused…
He suffers with us and lifts us out of it to experience a higher plane with Him - Holiness, perseverence, faith, hope, love, compassion… and ultimately everlasting joy.

God’s not indifferent to anything His children experience. We are precious in HIs sight. we cannot be precious AND the object of His indifference.

Where may I find that God is indifferent to me in any solid Catholic doctrine?

Is it kind of confusing, isn’t it? If, however, I’m on the right track in correctly understanding divine impassibility, I think we can say that impassibility does not equal lack of emotion or detachment from the suffering of His creation.

 

[FCEGM]

Thanks. I haven’t had a chance to thoroughly review your first link but I’ve read over your second link. It was a nice summation. After I posted this thread, I found this article: mrrena.com/2004/suffer.shtml

As I understand so far, God is pure, actualized love. This pure love does not change because it is perfect and complete. We finite humans experience it depending on where we are at in life. If we are receiving God’s pardon for our sins, we experience His unchanging, perfect love as mercy and forgiveness. When we suffer and are comforted by God, we perceive His unchanging, perfect love as compassion. When we reap the consequences of our sins, this also the unchanging, perfect love of God. I suppose many more examples could be offered but what sticks out is that God’s impassibility should not be interpreted as a cold and emotionless indifferentism. He does love us and that love never changes, we only perceive it as changing depending on our personal circumstances? Is that accurate?

An example of this would be the soul suffering in Hell; it suffers because the Fire of Divine Love is experienced as wrath since there is nothing of that soul that corresponds to Divine Love through the grace of likeness to the Son.

 

[FCEGM]

God’s not indifferent to anything His children experience. We are precious in HIs sight. we cannot be precious AND the object of His indifference.

Where may I find that God is indifferent to me in any solid Catholic doctrine?

I think you are confusing God’s impassability - which is with His knowledge, immutability, immensity, etc., etc., a quality of His Divinity - with indifference.

 

[I_love_rocks]

I’m not confused. Not about what I posted. I didn’t know what Impassability was, but I’m fairly certain it is not what was stated earlier. It was in a post before me which defined it as / or speculated - either way… that God has no suffering and is indifferent to our sufferings. That was agreed with in the next post. I could not agree with that. If that’s not it then please feel free to correct the person who stated it. I was debating these points. Please, I don’t want a pile of links. Say what you mean plainly. But please do not attribute to me that I said Impassability means God’s indifference towards us. That is precisely what I was 100% in vehement disagreement with. Thank you.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I’m not confused. Not about what I posted. I didn’t know what Impassability was, but I’m fairly certain it is not what was stated earlier.

I stated, “As I understand it [impassibility], it means God does not suffer or have passions. Is this Catholic teaching?” That is what I understood the Church’s teaching to be.

It was in a post before me which defined it as / or speculated - either way… that God has no suffering and is indifferent to our sufferings. That was agreed with in the next post.

After I stated my brief summation of the Church’s teaching on impassibility, I presented some of the criticisms that have been offered. Many, perhaps most, theologians and philosophers have rejected this classical tenet of theism. They often offer up the criticisms I mentioned. I did not mean to imply that I was speculating that the Church taught these criticisms, i.e. divine indifference. Though I can not speak for FCEGM, I think FCEGM’s agreement was that my very brief summation of the Church’s actual teaching was correct, that is, divine impassibility means that God does not undergo suffering or passions. It is very closely related to divine immutability and is, as far as I can tell, a logical consequence of immutability. I do not think FCEGM meant to imply that the criticisms were correct. That is how I understood FCEGM’s responses.

I could not agree with that. If that’s not it then please feel free to correct the person who stated it.

I did not mean to imply that God is indifferent to our suffering. That charge is a common criticism leveled at impassibility, especially by open theists and process philosophers, as well as some otherwise pretty orthodox Christians.

I was debating these points. Please, I don’t want a pile of links. Say what you mean plainly. But please do not attribute to me that I said Impassability means God’s indifference towards us. That is precisely what I was 100% in vehement disagreement with. Thank you.

I don’t believe anyone on this thread is in agreement with the criticisms leveled at impassibility.

 

[I_love_rocks]

Okay, I’m sorry. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize - it seemed like something I could not agree with the way I interpreted it. And I was wrong. I thank you for taking the time to correct me. I realized, after I posted that I had gotten really upset and probably was misunderstanding what you were really trying to say.
There’s a quote from our Lord which he spoke to St. Faustina - found in her diary, Notebook VI section 1628 - an excerpt “… It is not always within your power to control your feelings. You will recognize if you have love if, after having experienced annoyance and contradiction, you do not lose your peace…” I was very convicted by that, and beg pardon for my knee-jerk (over)reacting to what I interpreted as an attack on God’s tender love and the great suffering of His soul over those who reject Him. It’s not an excuse, but an acknowledgement of my circumstances and behavior, but I really was very tired and sore, and not walking in love. Please forgive me for my ignorant response(s), and for any offense I have caused you. God bless you, and may He forgive me. Peace.

 

[Tomster]

The activity whereby God creates the worlds involves no alteration in God’s life, which has always included it. Creative and miraculous powers involves no new state or procedure within his timeless fullness. Whatever God is in any respect, he is changelessly. The meaning of Eternity shows that God as Subsistent Creator has never been other than he is. His free creative act is itself necessarily eternal, though its finite product is naturally subject to time and change. God’s constant providence in our world and in the unseen is included in his one creative activity. To will a series of changes is not to change the will. Thus answers to prayer, miracles, the intermediate state of disembodied souls, the preparation of heaven are not revisions or after thoughts in the Divine plan of the ages, but form an intregal part of one supreme interrelated purpose, the inner significance of which can never be adequately realised in our present state of probation.

Immutability in the life of God is thus the antithesis of inertness, and is in contrast to the relative incompetence of beings that are subject to successive variation. Changelessness implies intensity of value in the Infinite as, on the highest plane, unifying the qualities of the static and dynamic. Human beings normally attain their social values gradually through changing experience. But qualities which are occasional in men are permanent in God. Triune Deity involves these perfections in one all-comprehensive experience which is always identical with its being. God does not need to change in order to act. God is act. Divine knowledge is not an acquisition; God is truth. The implications of all being are in him self-known and eternally realised. In that sublimest Companionship the Blessed Trinity does not need to learn to love. Love is in no way subsequent to being; it is intregal to the very life of Deity. God is love.

Hence all theories suggesting that “passibility” is needful to God in order that he may be sympathetic to human beings, fall far short of that loving kindness and emotional compassion which is intrinsic to God’s own triune experience. Every quality which such theories disiderate has been in God always, without his needing per impossible to submit to the imperfection involved in change. Self-limitation is impossible to God in regard to any of his attributes, for all attributes are identical with his subsistent essence and are thus necessarily eternal. Is it not the exquisite delicacy of “the lilies of the field” an exemplification of unutterable tenderness as well as of inscrutable greatness? Thus not only all that creatures can acquire by changing, but literally all that being can be, in value, understanding, emotion, and active sympathy, the God who answers prayer is unchangeably in very essence.

:coolinoff:

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

After I stated my brief summation of the Church’s teaching on impassibility, I presented some of the criticisms that have been offered. Many, perhaps most, theologians and philosophers have rejected this classical tenet of theism. They often offer up the criticisms I mentioned. I did not mean to imply that I was speculating that the Church taught these criticisms, i.e. divine indifference. Though I can not speak for FCEGM, I think FCEGM’s agreement was that my very brief summation of the Church’s actual teaching was correct, that is, divine impassibility means that God does not undergo suffering or passions. It is very closely related to divine immutability and is, as far as I can tell, a logical consequence of immutability. I do not think FCEGM meant to imply that the criticisms were correct. That is how I understood FCEGM’s responses. . .

Yes, you understood my responses correctly.

 

[FCEGM]

The activity whereby God creates the worlds involves no alteration in God’s life, which has always included it. Creative and miraculous powers involves no new state or procedure within his timeless fullness. Whatever God is in any respect, he is changelessly. The meaning of Eternity shows that God as Subsistent Creator has never been other than he is. His free creative act is itself necessarily eternal, though its finite product is naturally subject to time and change. God’s constant providence in our world and in the unseen is included in his one creative activity. To will a series of changes is not to change the will. Thus answers to prayer, miracles, the intermediate state of disembodied souls, the preparation of heaven are not revisions or after thoughts in the Divine plan of the ages, but form an intregal part of one supreme interrelated purpose, the inner significance of which can never be adequately realised in our present state of probation.

Immutability in the life of God is thus the antithesis of inertness, and is in contrast to the relative incompetence of beings that are subject to successive variation. Changelessness implies intensity of value in the Infinite as, on the highest plane, unifying the qualities of the static and dynamic. Human beings normally attain their social values gradually through changing experience. But qualities which are occasional in men are permanent in God. Triune Deity involves these perfections in one all-comprehensive experience which is always identical with its being. God does not need to change in order to act. God is act. Divine knowledge is not an acquisition; God is truth. The implications of all being are in him self-known and eternally realised. In that sublimest Companionship the Blessed Trinity does not need to learn to love. Love is in no way subsequent to being; it is intregal to the very life of Deity. God is love.

Hence all theories suggesting that “passibility” is needful to God in order that he may be sympathetic to human beings, fall far short of that loving kindness and emotional compassion which is intrinsic to God’s own triune experience. Every quality which such theories disiderate has been in God always, without his needing per impossible to submit to the imperfection involved in change. Self-limitation is impossible to God in regard to any of his attributes, for all attributes are identical with his subsistent essence and are thus necessarily eternal. Is it not the exquisite delicacy of “the lilies of the field” an exemplification of unutterable tenderness as well as of inscrutable greatness? Thus not only all that creatures can acquire by changing, but literally all that being can be, in value, understanding, emotion, and active sympathy, the God who answers prayer is unchangeably in very essence.

:coolinoff:

This is a keeper, Tom - your sweat was worth it.

 

[FCEGM]

Okay, I’m sorry. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize - it seemed like something I could not agree with the way I interpreted it. And I was wrong. I thank you for taking the time to correct me. I realized, after I posted that I had gotten really upset and probably was misunderstanding what you were really trying to say.
There’s a quote from our Lord which he spoke to St. Faustina - found in her diary, Notebook VI section 1628 - an excerpt “… It is not always within your power to control your feelings. You will recognize if you have love if, after having experienced annoyance and contradiction, you do not lose your peace…” I was very convicted by that, and beg pardon for my knee-jerk (over)reacting to what I interpreted as an attack on God’s tender love and the great suffering of His soul over those who reject Him. It’s not an excuse, but an acknowledgement of my circumstances and behavior, but I really was very tired and sore, and not walking in love. Please forgive me for my ignorant response(s), and for any offense I have caused you. God bless you, and may He forgive me. Peace.

 

[Tomster]

This is a keeper, Tom - your sweat was worth it.

At your service Frances. :knight1:

May our Risen Lord bless you abundantly!

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Okay, I’m sorry. Thank you for correcting me. I apologize - it seemed like something I could not agree with the way I interpreted it. And I was wrong. I thank you for taking the time to correct me. I realized, after I posted that I had gotten really upset and probably was misunderstanding what you were really trying to say.
There’s a quote from our Lord which he spoke to St. Faustina - found in her diary, Notebook VI section 1628 - an excerpt “… It is not always within your power to control your feelings. You will recognize if you have love if, after having experienced annoyance and contradiction, you do not lose your peace…” I was very convicted by that, and beg pardon for my knee-jerk (over)reacting to what I interpreted as an attack on God’s tender love and the great suffering of His soul over those who reject Him. It’s not an excuse, but an acknowledgement of my circumstances and behavior, but I really was very tired and sore, and not walking in love. Please forgive me for my ignorant response(s), and for any offense I have caused you. God bless you, and may He forgive me. Peace.

No worries, my friend. I was also offended by the accusations that critics of impassibility level at the teaching. I probably could have been clearer in my OP but I was pressed for time.

The activity whereby God creates the worlds involves no alteration in God’s life, which has always included it. Creative and miraculous powers involves no new state or procedure within his timeless fullness. Whatever God is in any respect, he is changelessly. The meaning of Eternity shows that God as Subsistent Creator has never been other than he is. His free creative act is itself necessarily eternal, though its finite product is naturally subject to time and change. God’s constant providence in our world and in the unseen is included in his one creative activity. To will a series of changes is not to change the will. Thus answers to prayer, miracles, the intermediate state of disembodied souls, the preparation of heaven are not revisions or after thoughts in the Divine plan of the ages, but form an intregal part of one supreme interrelated purpose, the inner significance of which can never be adequately realised in our present state of probation.

Immutability in the life of God is thus the antithesis of inertness, and is in contrast to the relative incompetence of beings that are subject to successive variation. Changelessness implies intensity of value in the Infinite as, on the highest plane, unifying the qualities of the static and dynamic. Human beings normally attain their social values gradually through changing experience. But qualities which are occasional in men are permanent in God. Triune Deity involves these perfections in one all-comprehensive experience which is always identical with its being. God does not need to change in order to act. God is act. Divine knowledge is not an acquisition; God is truth. The implications of all being are in him self-known and eternally realised. In that sublimest Companionship the Blessed Trinity does not need to learn to love. Love is in no way subsequent to being; it is intregal to the very life of Deity. God is love.

Hence all theories suggesting that “passibility” is needful to God in order that he may be sympathetic to human beings, fall far short of that loving kindness and emotional compassion which is intrinsic to God’s own triune experience. Every quality which such theories disiderate has been in God always, without his needing per impossible to submit to the imperfection involved in change. Self-limitation is impossible to God in regard to any of his attributes, for all attributes are identical with his subsistent essence and are thus necessarily eternal. Is it not the exquisite delicacy of “the lilies of the field” an exemplification of unutterable tenderness as well as of inscrutable greatness? Thus not only all that creatures can acquire by changing, but literally all that being can be, in value, understanding, emotion, and active sympathy, the God who answers prayer is unchangeably in very essence.

:coolinoff:

Absolutely beautiful! I don’t get why so many of the philosophers and theologians I’ve read have such an issue with impassibility or why they so horribly mangle the doctrine when they criticize it. Their caricature possesses no resemblances to the Church’s real teaching.