Divine Providence

[scameter18]

Thank you all again for your replies, especially your thorough response JohnJFarren.

I would like to clarify my question, as I have tried to do previously in this post. For one, I fully believe in the important and virtue of praying to God for His Providence, in thankfulness for all things, both spiritual and physical. For two, I understand that God allows things to happen in order to test and thereby strengthen or prove our spiritual quality, and that not all negative things that occur in life necessarily only have negative consequences, such as the good quality of redemptive suffering. And for three, I believe that God can and does perform miracles, now and throughout history, directly and through the saints, being the omnipresent Lord of the universe.

For your point, JohnJFarren, a very good point, I also believe and recognize that God is the First Cause and the Sustainer of the universe, without Whom nothing could exist and “in whom all have their being”. But when particular events in time occur, God is their ultimate origin, but the particular event may have been caused by something else, whether it be a free will of a human being, a natural law, or the chaos of sin. These are the things I am asking about.

My question, however, is not about these things. My question is in two parts. The first is the criteria upon which it is asked - the facts and truths that I recognize which make the question itself possible. These are: the proliferation of chaos and negativity throughout the universe due to original sin; God’s institution of natural laws to govern the physical universe; and the fact that God’s miracles are necessarily rare.

The question itself, resting on these criteria, is: does God directly, personally cause or ma(name removed by moderator)ulate events in the physical universe outside of miracles, or does He allow the universe to primarily function by natural law, the chaos of original sin, free wills, etc.?

If the answer is the latter option, or if we cannot know what kinds of events are directly caused by God or not, why do we give thanks to God for all good events, and why do we pray for a specific outcome? Is it purely for spiritual benefit, in hope of a miracle, or does God directly intervene in nature on a daily basis?

This is my question. I hope this can clarify it and make it easier to answer concisely. This is a very curious and meaningful question to me and, I feel, to all people who consider Christianity, as well as a point of contention between Christianity and modern atheism, so I would like to find an answer. Thank you all again for your replies and God bless.

 

[JohnJFarren]

COME HOLY SPIRIT … POSSESS US 5 April 2010
Warm Greetings scameter … and everyone –
Thanks for your further clarification of your two-part question. I think and understand slowly … but God usually gets me to the destination. Let me share with you what I understand about your question and its answers.

        You did write that, "This is a very curious and meaningful question to me ..."  Holy Spirit has several Names > Holy Spirit .. Advocate (professional legal defender) .. Paraclete (not professional but one who comes to the side of one in need) .. and I've always given an additional Name, **Meaning**.  The earthly, observable, able to be sense, Jesus told us that it was necessary that he leave us so that Holy Spirit could be sent and we could receive Him.  It is necessary that we progress from the "literal" to the "spiritual."  (Just a side remark about "meaning.")

        I consider the criteria involved in your question carefully.  An important comment about this criterion > "God's institution of natural laws to govern the physical universe."  

        It's important to realize that these physical laws are not arbitrary.  In other words, these laws are reflections of God, they are integral to the "meaning" of material, finite, being.  Otherwise we would involve ourselves in Nominalism and William of Ockam, a good and holy man, I believe, who defended God's Freedom even to make murder beautiful and right if God should so choose.  Point= not arbitrary.

        To the first part of your question > God, having established the laws of the physical universe, does not directly and personally activate these laws, apart from God's working a miracle, but rather indirectly *shares* His Power in these physical laws, as secondary and real causes, which function on their own -- automatically, if you will .. keeping in mind, of course, that God is First Cause.

        And so, yes, God does allow the universe to primarily function by natural law, and the chaos of original sin, and the free will of His creatures.  There are things that God wills infallibly to happen .. the Incarnation, our Redemption, our Salvation .. and others.

/////////////////////////////////////////

        To the second part of your question > We give thanks to God for all good events, even though they are worked through secondary causes (natural laws or saints or angels) for the simple reason that God is the Knowing and deliberate First Cause.  The good things still come to us because of God.  (If this isn't satisfying, please prod me further.)

        And we pray for this or that specific outcome, although God's decision regarding it was made in eternity, because His eternal decision was made *considering* the prayer He Knew we would make .. or not make.  (Yes, we are in deep water here .. and I'm willing to go deeper.)

        An added thought > God does *not* have FOREknowledge, strictly speaking.  God Knows creaturely events in their actual existing.  There are no "movie previews."

        I believe these things I have said are accurate .. BUT I'm open to disagreement or challenge or sharing.
        May Holy Spirit possess us all .. that God may be ALL in all (1 Cor 15:28).     John  JohnJFarren  [email]Trinity5635@aol.com[/email]

 

[tonyrey]

In the following, I must take a different view point.  “… we are not allowed to suffer unnecessarily.”  The extreme sufferings of the Jews and others in the Nazi holocaust were clearly not necessary .. and certainly not directly willed by God.  It is true that from any and all evils God will draw greater good.

An excellent post, John. I just wish to point out that God does not allow unnecessary suffering but His gift of free will enables man to cause unnecessary suffering. So, paradoxically, unnecessary suffering is an element in Divine Providence because otherwise man would be incapable of love.

 

[scameter18]

To JohnJFarren,

Excellent post again, with many good points. You’re understanding my questions very well and now addressing them precisely, so I thank you for that. I will answer four points you made.

First: Your “side comment” about meaning is very interesting. Indeed, Holy Spirit is, I think, Wisdom itself, or the channel of love in whom God communicates Himself. The message communicated is Christ, the Logos and Purpose of the universe. Naturally, the Father is the Mind from whom all things come, but not outside the rest of the Trinity. As you elucidated, the laws of nature, and indeed the very structure of nature and the spiritual realm, are reflections of God, as I delineated above. Like our own subcreation, God’s Creation was a loving outpouring of Himself. Although He created from nothing, the universe was not unreflective of the Heart of its Creator, again as with human subcreation. Sin, in this sense, is the universe not fully reflecting God, a sort of “smudge on the mirror” so to speak. Very interesting.

Second:

JohnJFarren:

To the second part of your question > We give thanks to God for all good events, even though they are worked through secondary causes (natural laws or saints or angels) for the simple reason that God is the Knowing and deliberate First Cause. The good things still come to us because of God. (If this isn’t satisfying, please prod me further.)

This is exactly my dilemma. If the good things of the world are usually done through secondary causes, as you said, should God be thanked for the very events or choices themselves, or only for being the Creator First Cause? Or, does being thankful to Him rest more on the fact that by the very nature of created things, God made good things possible, and thus whenever they happen they should be ultimately attributed to Him, since without Him they would not even be possible? Please, go further.

Third:

JohnJFarren:

And we pray for this or that specific outcome, although God’s decision regarding it was made in eternity, because His eternal decision was made considering the prayer He Knew we would make … or not make. (Yes, we are in deep water here … and I’m willing to go deeper.)

What do you mean by “God’s decision regarding it”? And, if God created things with our prayers in mind, how can that be specific and particular enough to account for particular events? Please, go deeper.

Fourth:

JohnJFarren:

An added thought > God does not have FOREknowledge, strictly speaking. God Knows creaturely events in their actual existing. There are no “movie previews.”

If you wouldn’t mind elaborating a bit here? As it sounds currently, I’m not sure I agree. God, being outside of time and fully possessing omniscience, He knows all things, even the choices of free agents - hence why the Blessed Virgin had an Immaculate Conception and was elected for the Incarnation, because God knew that she would be sinless her entire life beforehand.

 

[JohnJFarren]

FAITH AND TRUST IN GOD’S LOVE 6 April 2011
Greetings scameter and tonyrey … and others –
To share and stimulate thought makes me glad. I thank God to share … both giving and receiving.

You wrote, precisioning, “If the good things of the world are usually done through secondary causes .. should God be thanked for the very events or choices themselves .. or only for being … the First Cause?”  And, on the same point, you wrote, “Or, does being thankful to Him rest more on the fact that … God made good things possible … and thus they should be ultimately attributed to Him …?”  

Here we’re looking at an EITHER/OR.  Not meaning to be funny .. but my response is YES. Period.  The word “more” above says that credit goes to both God and creature.  And I think the word “more” points us toward a correct answer.  (This kind of reminds me of how Aquinas frequently would approach a question > “Well, yes .. and also no …”  And away he’d go.)

Insofar as God is Infinite Being and the First Cause of ALL creatural activity, God is *more* to be created with the doing of the good thing.  AND .. insofar as the human creature (or the angelic creature) is an active agent, really and truly free, causing a good thing, certainly credit must be given to the creature.  Even in the case of creaturely agents that are not free, some lesser “credit” -- by analogy? -- might be given (animals, emotions?)

Not merely from Scripture, Revelation, but from reason alone (philosophy) .. “it is God Who works in us, for His good purpose, both to *will* and to *accomplish*.”  **Phil** 2:13.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the following it’s essential that the use of the word PRIOR rather than BEFORE .. and the use of the word SUBSEQUENT rather than AFTER be most carefully employed.  Forgive what may seem to be my rambling at this point, but it’s necessary to express what I understand.

God did make in eternity a free decision to create.  Creation might never have happened.  Let’s examine that Decision to create.  There is a prior to the Decision and a subsequent to the Decision.  (No time or time-before or time-after is present here.  Rather we are considering an ORDER of things.  Example > The Son is Begotten PRIOR to the Spirating of the Holy Spirt.  The Holy Spirit Exists SUBSEQUENT to the Single Principle, Father and Son, Spirating.)

PRIOR to God’s Decision to create .. *nothing* finite existed.  To Know is to Know *something*.  We can't know no thing.  No-thing is unknowable.  About creation PRIOR to the Decision God could Know only the infinite *possibilities* that could be present in such possible creations.  BUT .. God does Decide to create .. and SUBSEQUENT to that Decision .. all the actualities of the entire creation are present and known to God in their actuality .. and in all the interacting between and among God and free creatures.

Now consider what is included in the whole creation actually present and Known to God.  All the free choices any creatures will ever make, good ones and bad ones.  ALSO present > The antecedent graces God will give to all people .. and all the graces to work with their decisions, greater and lesser graces .. and all the graces to work to accomplishment what He works in them -- all the Mercies, to some more and to some less -- and all these things intertwined -- inter-existed -- Divine and human .. and all this in its actuality in an (ugh!) “instant.”  (Sorry for the point in time, an instant.)
Yes, we are touching here on predestination.  Perhaps we should touch on that.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
THIS IS #1 OF MY POSTING // NUMBER #2 WILL COME RIGHT AFTER / THEY SAY I’M TOO LONG / SO TWO POSTINGS RIGHT NOW
I’ll close now sharing with you God’s Love and Mercy and Power and Wisdom.
John JohnJFarren Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[JohnJFarren]

FROM JohnJFarren / #2 THIS CONTINUES #1 RIGHT ABOVE You mentioned the beautiful subject of the Blessed Virgin and the Immaculate Conception, and, of course, the Incarnation. Gabriel came to Mary and asked her to become pregnant by the Holy Spirit and to bear in her womb the Messiah, the one awaited for. Mary said yes. Could Mary have declined? Yes, otherwise her response would not have been a free choice response. Now, this free YES from Mary, God wanted done, positively done, done without fail. What kind of actual grace did God work in Mary to absolutely insure that the Incarnation would take place? (I am going to try hard to avoid certain words like “infallibly” and “efficacious” and “sufficient” because these words have been used by different people with different, even opposite, meanings.)

What kind of grace did God work in Mary to draw freely and without fail Mary’s YES?  Keep in mind that God doesn’t work ON us but rather IN us, from *within* the free will, creating the free will.  God used a particular kind of actual grace that worked the free will of Mary as God wanted it worked .. freely.  I believe God used this kind of grace, at least sometimes, with Moses and with St Paul.  And with others we don’t know.

Usually God does not use this kind of grace with us.  God uses a grace which, if we begin to respond He will work further .. step by step .. to accomplishment (completion).  This kind of grace is both able to succeed and often does .. or to fail and sometimes does fail .. because we choose to fail.  Jesus said, “Without me you can do nothing.”  Right.  AND that can also be correctly read, “Without me you CAN negate, do no-thing.  You don’t need me for that.”
Is anyone EVER given actual grace that will result infallibly in failure.  ABSOLUTELY NOT.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I’d like to share one more thing about God’s working in us to *will* and to *accomplish*.  To sum up what I mean here I’ll say > For me to scratch my arm (a good thing) God must work in me to accomplishment the actual scratching of my arm.  All through creation there can be no exception to this working to accomplishment by God .. in the creature .. whatever (good) the creature does.
            God's Blessing on all of us!           End for now.        John

 

[scameter18]

Thank you once again for your very interesting and informative posts, I’m very much enjoying this conversation.

To address your first post:

Your answer in the first part of this post to my original questions is very interesting to me, because I feel it also reveals something larger about the nature of sin and its origins in the free will of free beings, namely humans and angels/demons. When God created all things in Creation, whether physical, angelic or otherwise, He did it entirely in reflection of His mind and will, thus all things were perfect in accordance with Him. God only made good things possible. But, out of His infinite love, He gave certain beings free will. With this free will did not come the physical possibility of things being opposed to His original intentions, because that would give creativity to sin. Rather, free will opened up the possibility of corruption, of us having the power to corrupt things in the created world against God’s original purposes. This is what occurred at the Fall, and at Satan’s own fall - without them, there would be no sin, and all things would be as God intends.

Thus, when a good thing happens, whether by our choice or by animals, natural laws, etc., it is ultimately “attributable” to God, because without our sins, it would have been good already. Even further, free will is a truly mysterious creation of God, because it seems to confer on free beings a measure of God’s own freedom. With free will, we are able either to conform to God’s good will, or to rebel against Him and sin. When we choose the good, we are not creating something good - we are merely electing to follow God rather than sin. But with “sub-creation”, especially the arts, humanity partakes of God’s own creativity in a way beyond all else. The Catechism says that things such as the arts, economics, government and culture are purely man’s creation. Though God is still the ultimate First Cause, these things are our own sub-creations, sharing in God’s own creativity.

I feel that my questions are finally answered. We give thanks to God and ask for His aid because, in truth, whenever an event or choice turns out good, it is simply returning to God’s original intention for it - and if something negative happens, God does “allow” it, but it is ultimately blameable to free agents, not God. As Pope Benedict XVI said, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, we are “exorcising the world” by restoring it to God’s will.

For the second part of your first post, my issue with your ideas expressed here about God’s omniscience is, while taking into consideration God’s timelessness, you still seem to place God within the temporally-finite conception of man. For example, you say:

PRIOR to God’s Decision to create … nothing finite existed. To Know is to Know something. We can’t know no thing. No-thing is unknowable. About creation PRIOR to the Decision God could Know only the infinite possibilities that could be present in such possible creations. BUT … God does Decide to create … and SUBSEQUENT to that Decision … all the actualities of the entire creation are present and known to God in their actuality … and in all the interacting between and among God and free creatures.

The key phrase here is “We can’t know no thing.” God is beyond our capabilities, even more than our normal logic would naturally see. Before Creation, God was simultaneously existing in the future - meaning, after the moment of Creation, and simultaneously at every moment of the existence of Creation. Thus, at this moment, God exists before Creation, and at its end. There is no “this moment” to God. To say “before Creation” is to limit God to a specific moment. If we could see the moment of Creation, we would not know anything about Creation. But we are limited to one focus at a time - God is not. Thus, He knows all things, even before they existed and afterwards, simultaneously, just as He can hear the prayers of multiple people at once, a gift He also confers to His saints.

 

[scameter18]

And to address your second post:

We seem to be dealing here with two special points, which to me are two of the key Catholic doctrines of morality and the human soul, and two very misunderstood points: free will, and empowerment. Before my conversion to Catholicism, I shared the understanding of free will that most express: I thought free will meant the freedom to choose one option or another, without being forced either way. This is true, but not the fullest extent of free will. True free will, Catholic free will, involves empowerment. In Catholicism, true freedom is not simply the ability to choose one or another option, because not all options are right - how is it free to choose wrongly? If we choose wrongly, we enslave ourselves to sin and error. Rather, true freedom is sinlessness and the correctness of God’s Wisdom.

Thus, true free will is a will free from sin, able to freely choose the good without encumberment. Empowerment is given by God as grace. This empowering grace is not a forcing pressure to choose one option or another. Rather, it is a cleansing, healing grace which gives us the strength of will - the “armor of God” - enabling us to remove and forget our sins and thus freely choose the good. Grace is God’s “help”.

As far as this applies to me, I think you are right about God giving her “actual grace”, meaning full empowerment without any encumberance from sin. But I do not think this was a one-time gift at the Visitation, but rather the work of the Spirit at her Immaculate Conception. By being fully washed of original sin, and then never sinning venially or mortally her entire life, she was completely without the haze of sin. Her vision and her will were perfectly free. Thus, while retaining her freedom to choose one way or another, the same freedom her equally-sinless ancestor Eve possessed, with her complete freedom she chose the good. I think the form this type of grace takes in other situations is usually a one-time thing, such as Christ’s “enslavement” of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, i.e. his conversion, but it is a lesser form of Mary’s constant state of being “full of grace”, while essentially accomplishing the same feat - completely freeing the will to see and do the good, without forcing it to. I believe St. Paul had the freedom, even on the road, to deny Christ, but already being pious at heart and receiving the actual grace of Christ’s Presence, he chose the good and converted.

We are now having two simultaneous conversations, though I feel my original topic is concluded, at least on my part. I have not had this deep of a philosophical/theological conversation in some time, and I admit it is just as enjoyable as I remember. You are a very intelligent, obviously devout person and I have deeply enjoyed this discussion. There is no need for it to end here.

 

[JohnJFarren]

THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL 7 April 2011
Hi scatmeter –
I also am enjoying our interchange. In dialogue our object is to share. To give and to receive. I continue
In theology and philosophy different kinds of freedom, free choice, are considered. There is freedom of contradiction, the freedom to act or not to act … there is freedom of contrariety, the freedom to choose among several things. The freedom to choose between good and evil is not really a freedom but rather an abuse of freedom.

        In Heaven we will continue to have and exercise both that of contradiction and that of contrariety.  Two exceptions > We will not be free to reject God in the Beatific Vision ..  nor to commit sin.

       Can it be said that God Loves Himself freely?  Not by a free choice that could be its opposite.  Not by a free choice among goods.  I'm not sure if there's a specific term to denote this freedom or not .. but I suggest "freedom of nature" or "perfect freedom."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

        You wrote, "[In the original creation] ... all things were perfect in accordance with Him [God].  God only made good things possible."  This statement as it stands includes Adam and Eve and their powers of free choice.  God gave them free will .. but free will of its essence does not include the imperfection of being able to sin.  We will continue to have free will in Heaven.

        I think you and I differ in our understanding of the original state in which God created man.  I do not view the first two chapters of Genesis as in any way historical, literal.  I understand "Adam" to be the totality of humanity.  I do not understand the beginning condition of man to have been glorious or very good, let alone perfect.  I am not at all radical in thinking this way.  The Church has many theologians, dear to her heart and in good standing, who understand man's beginning in this way.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

        Yes, I agree we are "exorcising the world," restoring it to God's Will.  I believe we are all called by Jesus to take a real yet secondary part in the Redemption and Salvation of the world.  We, the brothers and sisters of Christ .. are, all together, with Christ as our head .. The Whole Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ.  And if we are to share in Christ's glory -- and be worthy to do so -- we must share in Jesus' sufferings and death.  There is a great spiritual death we must die before we can enter Heaven.  It is a death to self-centeredness .. and it is a "death, a "transformation" into Jesus, even of our good self.  As St Paul said, "I live now, not I but Jesus Christ lives in me."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

        There is much you have shared about God's Omniscience and humans and grace and actions.  And I look forward to responding/sharing over the weekend.  Tomorrow and each Friday I spend most of the day in our hospital bringing Holy Communion to many patients, sometimes 30-35 .. 8 floors, 4 wings each, gone over twice to catch any I had to pass by.  It upsets me when I see this Eucharistic service rushed or treated lightly.  I do this devoutly, thanks to God's grace, with no rush, and a tiny paragraph "homily."  On the way back to my house there are three separate women to whom I bring Communion.  I'm going to cut off for now and take it easy.  Tomorrow's a heavy day -- and I'm very anvcient.

        I look forward to picking up your thread and sharing back on the weekend.  Blessing!   John

 

[scameter18]

Can it be said that God Loves Himself freely? Not by a free choice that could be its opposite. Not by a free choice among goods. I’m not sure if there’s a specific term to denote this freedom or not … but I suggest “freedom of nature” or “perfect freedom.”

Do you mean, does God have free will? Or specifically, does God love Himself? If the former, I have asked myself that question before, and it seems to me that He does not have the “freedom” to sin as we do, because even that possibility could restrict and contradict His Divinity, but that He does have complete freedom in the Catholic sense, meaning freedom from sin and error, as Christ is called full of grace. If your question is the latter, as we say in Mass, “in the unity of the Holy Spirit”. The Spirit is the Love which binds the Persons eternally together, and pours out as Creation. Indeed, by my own theology, the primary reason for God being Trinitarian, Creative and many other things He is and does, is out of love - or affirmation - of Himself. Otherwise, His Divinity would lack in some way, would be dark and unalive to some degree, thus not truly Divine.

I think you and I differ in our understanding of the original state in which God created man. I do not view the first two chapters of Genesis as in any way historical, literal. I understand “Adam” to be the totality of humanity. I do not understand the beginning condition of man to have been glorious or very good, let alone perfect. I am not at all radical in thinking this way. The Church has many theologians, dear to her heart and in good standing, who understand man’s beginning in this way.

In this we do differ. While the Catechism teaches that Genesis uses “figurative language”, especially in the Eden account, it is also necessary for original sin that we have two original parents (which, by my thinking, is also logical, since two parents would be the origin of any size group of humans), and it is necessary that these parents, living in the Edenic paradise (as Eden means) were without physical or personal sin at their creation. Otherwise, the Eden account is contradicted, and the Fall is nonexistant. But, if you do not wish to have a discussion about the historical validity of Eden in this topic, that is fine. If you would like, I have another topic specifically about Eden where we could continue this topic: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=533169

It is a death to self-centeredness … and it is a "death, a “transformation” into Jesus, even of our good self. As St Paul said, “I live now, not I but Jesus Christ lives in me.”

I agree, but further on this point, within the context of Christ’s fulfilling Redemption and the fact that the Church is Heaven on earth, we can begin the process of redemption now. We do die, primarily in baptism (spiritually), but we also rise to new life. The things that die in baptism are the negative, while the good things already there are “redeemed”, i.e. brought to fulfillment (but not truly replaced, as all good comes from God) by Christ.

There is much you have shared about God’s Omniscience and humans and grace and actions. And I look forward to responding/sharing over the weekend. Tomorrow and each Friday I spend most of the day in our hospital bringing Holy Communion to many patients, sometimes 30-35 … 8 floors, 4 wings each, gone over twice to catch any I had to pass by. It upsets me when I see this Eucharistic service rushed or treated lightly. I do this devoutly, thanks to God’s grace, with no rush, and a tiny paragraph “homily.” On the way back to my house there are three separate women to whom I bring Communion. I’m going to cut off for now and take it easy. Tomorrow’s a heavy day – and I’m very anvcient.

I look forward to picking up your thread and sharing back on the weekend. Blessing! John

You are a truly intelligent and wise individual, and this extra aspect of your life here described evidences your abundance of charity as well. If I may ask, are you a priest or deacon perhaps? I look forward to continuing our excellent discussion, and I wish you all the best in your service. God bless.

 

[JohnJFarren]

THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL 10 April 2011
Shared Blessing scameter18 –
I also find our exchange both enjoyable and challenging. In the Love of Jesus Christ is our sharing.

Of course God is not able to sin.  And so, in our human speaking we say He is not “free” to sin.  But as you have pointed out, that is not of the perfection of free will.  The free will you and I have is like the Liberty Bell, it has a crack in it!  The crack removed by the Beatific Vision, our freedom and free choice power will be perfected.

God does have freedom, free choice, to create or not to create.  God didn’t create because God was lonely.  Ridiculous, of course.  Because of overflowing Infinite Love God created.

Strictly speaking, God did not create to get glory.  Again, ridiculous.  It’s true and right that God does and must get glory from creation .. but that’s not why He created.

I will examine the thread you suggested .. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=533169 .. with interest.  I have not done so yet.  I would like to share with you .. in a separate email some pivotal ideas of Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.  I’ll send that email after you’ve had a chance to read this one.

Indeed “the fall” must be preserved.  Otherwise there would be no need for a Redemption.  “The Fall” is directly connected to “Original Sin.”  But more on this in my other separate email.

I agree that the process of Redemption is now and something future we wait for.  I have experienced for a long time now that I have one foot standing in time/space/becoming and the other foot in Eternity.  The foot in time needs no description.  We’re all suffering it.  The foot in Eternity requires God’s gift of faith/trust/DivineLove.  With that gift we can *experience* (touch) in Jesus Christ .. in the darkness of faith .. the Reality of God.  We cannot physically see nor audibly hear God -- but we can *spiritually* TOUCH Him and be with Him and receive and give back Divine Love.  Do we not *eat God* in the Eucharist!  “Now is the day of Salvation.”

I have been very fortunate in my long life .. and I have suffered intensely because of God’s working in me.  That continues.  I was never a priest or in prep for the priesthood.  I am not a deacon.  Years ago I earned two master’s degrees, one in Religion (Theology) and the other in Philosophy.  I had the best of teachers.

What God can do “is beyond our capabilities …”  True.  Yet what God can do does not involve going   contradictions.  This following statement is nonsense but I’ve used it upon occasions > God cannot stand on one foot and hit himself with a hammer while he commits the sin of stupidity.  God does not Know what does not exist.  God Knows Being and being.

Consider, contrary to fact, that God did *not* create.  God would indeed Know the uncountable *possibilities* of all possible -- but not the fulfilled actualities .. because they don’t exist.  *Prior* to God’s Eternal decision to create .. and *subsequent* to God’s Eternal decision to create are entirely and *really* distinct.

The following paragraph is a side issue that forcefully intruded on me because .. at one point you referred  to “more than our *logic* says.“  I was very fortunate many years ago to have an excellent metaphysics teacher.  And several years later I delved into the gift of God, Jacques Maritain.  I learned clearly to differentiate the various *tools* of philosophy from philosophy itself.  Ancient logic, modern symbolic logic, epistemology, history of philosophy, and more -- these are not philosophy but the tools philosophy uses.  Phiilosophy is the study of BEING.  All being, actual and potential, Infinite and finite, Originated and Unoriginated …  I make this point because I don’t think most present-day philosophers know it.  Unbelievable?  Not at all.

The very heart of philosophy is metaphysics.  Years ago when I was about to begin my studies in philosophy, I collected various catalogues from different schools.  I was stunned.  In the listings of what was offered in the various philosophy departments *I could not find Metaphysics* except in one.  I correctly concluded that not even recognizing metaphysics and offering it, those colleges had little to offer me.  And my choice proved right many times.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I have not meant to skip over anything in your sharings.  If I have not paid attention to something you mentioned, please bug me.

Not only prior .. but even after .. I’ve posted this sharing, I will post the lengthy response of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to an Italian journalist to a question involving “Original Sin.”

I pray for and wish you, scameter, what God Wills for every one of us .. GOD.
John   (JohnJFarren)   [email]Trinity5635@aol.com[/email]

 

[JohnJFarren]

IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER 10 April 2011 110410
Blessing to you, scameter –
Here is the copy I said I’d send. Enjoy. It’s stimulating. John

This matter of the need in this present time for a better formulation of the doctrine of Original Sin was important to Pope Benedict XVI while he was Cardinal Ratzinger. Because of the importance of the matter I  quote here exactly and at length. All I am printing here is from The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vitterio Messori, Ignatius Press, 1985.

/////////////////////////////////////

In response to his interviewer, Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said, “If Providence will someday free me of my obligations, I should like to devote myself precisely to the theme of ‘original sin’ and to the necessity of a rediscovery of its authentic reality. In fact, if it is no longer understood that man is in a state of alienation (that is not only economic and social, and, consequently, one that is not resolvable by his efforts alone), one no longer understands the necessity of Christ the Redeemer. The whole structure of the faith is threatened by this. The inability to understand ‘original sin’ and to make it understandable is really one of the most difficult problems of present-day theology and pastoral ministry.

Interviewer= “But perhaps it is necessary, I interject, to reflect on the linguistic level also: is the old expression ‘original sin’, which is of patristic origin, still adequate today?
“It is always very dangerous to change religious language. Continuity here is of great important. I hold that the central concepts of the faith, which derive from the great utterances of Scripture, cannot be altered: as, for example, ‘Son of God’, ‘Holy Spirit’, Mary’s ‘virginity’ and ‘divine motherhood’. I grant, however, that expressions such as ‘original sin’, which in their content are also directly biblical in origin but which already manifest in expression the stage of theological reflection, are modifiable. At all events, one must proceed with great care: the words are not unimportant. ; rather they are closely bound to the meaning. I believe, nevertheless, that the theological and pastoral difficulties in the face of ‘original sin’ are currently not only of a semantic but also of a deeper nature.”

Interviewer= “What does that mean in particular?” Cardinal Ratzinger continues.
“… these difficulties of more or less ‘scientific’ origin are not yet the root of the present-day crisis of ‘original sin’. This crisis is only a symptom of our profound difficulty in perceiving the reality of our own selves, of the world, and of God. Discussions with the natural sciences, with for example paleontology, certainly do not suffice, even though this kind of confrontation is necessary. We must be aware that we, too, are in the presence of prior understandings and prior decisions of a philosophic character.”
“This Christian truth is, on the one hand, a mystery; but on the other, it is also, in a way, evident. What is evident: a lucid, realistic view of man and of history cannot but stumble upon their alienation and discover that there is a rupture in relationships:  in man’s relationship to himself, to others, to God. Now since man is preeminently a being-in-relationship, such a rupture reaches to the very roots and affects all else. The mystery: if we are able to penetrate to the depths the reality and the consequences of original sin, it is precisely because it exists, because the derangement is ontological, because it unbalances, confuses in us the logic of nature, this preventing us from understanding how a fault at the origin of history can draw in its wake a situation of common sin.”		

	
Interviewer= “Adam, Eve, Eden, the apple, the serpent … What should we think of them?”
Cardinal Ratzinger responds, “”The biblical narrative of the origins does not relate events in the sense of modern historiography, but rather, it speaks through images. It is narrative that reveals and hides at the same time. But the underpinning elements are reasonable, and the reality of the dogma must at all events be safeguarded. The Christian would be remiss toward his brethren if he did not proclaim the Christ who first and foremost brings redemption from sin; if he did not proclaim the reality of the alienation (the “Fall”) and, at the same time, the reality of the grace that redeems us, that liberates us; if he did not proclaim that, in order to effect a restoration of our original nature, a help from outside is necessary; if he did not proclaim that the insistence of self-realization, upon self-salvation does not lead to redemption but to destruction; finally, if he did not proclaim that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to abandon oneself to Love.”

/////////////////////////////////////

Scameter, there’s a great deal here to think about. And a vast amount more on other important matters in the rest of the book.
I hope this will be meaningful to you. Jesus and Mary Bless you and yours!
John (John J Farren)     [email]Trinity5635@aol.com[/email]

 

[scameter18]

Thank you very much for your copying of Pope Benedict’s interview. He is certainly one of my favorite theologians, both before and after becoming Pope. His ideas were pivotal in leading me to Catholicism. One of the first Catholic nonfiction books I read was his Jesus of Nazareth, to me one of the greatest theological works of the past two centuries at least. I am looking forward to reading the sequal. I absolutely agree with the ideas you quoted here, about original sin. From my discussions with modernists and atheists online - including many Christians and even Catholics - I have seen a complete lack of recognition of original sin, at least intellectually. They tend to acknowledge original sin once it is necessary, such as when they become sick or abused by injustice. At that point, original sin becomes quite obvious. Yet they seem incapable of believing in it fully, much less recognizing its origins and God’s salvation from it. As Pope Benedict said, explaining this topic is certainly a central topic of modern apologetics and theology.

Strictly speaking, God did not create to get glory. Again, ridiculous. It’s true and right that God does and must get glory from creation … but that’s not why He created.

I have actually written and thought much about this topic, particularly about love as affirmation of Being, Who is God, and Whom all existence reflects. While glory pertains more to the human perception of God, I believe that He created, and indeed, the reason for the Trinity itself, is to accomplish the highest affirmation of Being possible. For example, there can be no exclusiveness or loneliness (as with non-Trinitarian monotheism), there must be constant movement and creativity, and, the highest affirmation possibly, the Redemption, where sin is converted into something even higher than its original state. By loving, we affirm - and so by loving God, we affirm His Divinity, taking part in it mystically. While God does not specifically “need” us, I believe He is connected to us - we are not simply here without purpose. God loves and creates out of love, as you said. And in so doing, Being is affirmed as perfectly as it should be.

Do we not eat God in the Eucharist! “Now is the day of Salvation.”

Exactly. In the Power of Christ, God made the finite Infinite, and the sinful redeemed into Divinity. In the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Eucharist, Heaven meets Earth and fulfill one another, rising both to a level beyond even natural completion as was seen in Eden. The Resurrection was glorious not only because Christ conquered death, but because He did die - as we do - and precisely by dying and being afflicted by sin and mortality (without personal guilt of course), by this specific act, He rose up the sinful world to a higher redemption.

God would indeed Know the uncountable possibilities of all possible – but not the fulfilled actualities … because they don’t exist. Prior to God’s Eternal decision to create … and subsequent to God’s Eternal decision to create are entirely and really distinct.

They are distinct in time, yes, and in our mind, bound by time. But when God created, “prior” to Creation, He simultaneously existed throughout time, both before, during and after the moment of Creativity. It is precisely His Timelessness that makes Him capable of knowing the past, present and future simultaneously, working all things at once for His Plan. However, within time, prior to Creation, God did not necessarily know exactly what He was going to create. If He did, that would make His creativity too constructed, rather than an expression of pure love through the tools of logic. Creation is a reflection of His Being. I think that God, prior to Creation, “knew” the themes that His Creation would include and exhibit, especially the Salvation Story. This was the impetus for Creation. However, we must keep in mind that the Persons of the Trinity are different. There are things only the Father knows, for example. I would say that the Father knew all that would be made throughout time, but that the Son and Spirit were ignorant of it until its Creation, at which time they gained all knowledge, though while Incarnate even the Son’s information knowledge of limited, however voluntarily, to fit ours.

Phiilosophy is the study of BEING.

I agree. While all things relate to Being, philosophy is the application of reason to understand it, and, paired with theology, to understand Being Himself. It pleases me to hear that you are a student of philosophy - and not how many now mean philosophy, simply as a “philosophy of —”, just a guide manual to perform more “important” practical pursuits like science. Most philosophers, and people in general, seem to have abandoned the metaphysics, as you said, to the realm of religion - which they accordingly abandon too.

This conversation continues to be deeply enjoyable, reminding me of my love of philosophy. May the blessings of Christ and the love of the Blessed Virgin be with you always.

 

[JohnJFarren]

THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL 14 April 2011 110414
Good Brother scameter –
I am looking forward to sharing my responses to your last posting (right above).

Because of schedfule and an important writing I must do today … I must delay until Sunday maybe Monday my response.

Some very important items concerning Trinity, Persons … but must wait.

Every Blessing in Mary and Jesus Christ and Trinity! John

 

[scameter18]

That’s perfectly fine my friend, I’m looking very forward to your responses. God bless you in all that you do and may the Blessed Mother and your Guardian Angel forever protect you.

 

[JohnJFarren]

FIRST OF TWO POSTS / THE OTHER FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELYIN HIM (JESUS CHRIST) ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER 17 April 2011 110417
Greetings scameter … and others –
It’s true as you wrote that “God does not specifically ‘need’ us…” Absolutely speaking, of course God doesn’t need us. And yet in His self-communicating act of creation, God freely chose to subject Himself to needing us. He became a slave … to serve us … and to serve His Father. So (Aquinas style) yes and no. God chose to need us … and to risk it!

    You remind me of what St Athanasius wrote.  You wrote, "In the Power of Christ, God made the finite Infinite, and the sinful redeemed into Divinity."  St Athanasius wrote, "God became man so that man might become God."  In the East they call this Theosis or Divinization.

    You also mentioned "Modernism."  A great enemy of the Church?  Yes.  Often by men, sincere of heart, who wanted to make understandable the faith to modern man.  I share with you, immediately following, the words of Karl Rahner.  "Modernism" was many things.  It's interesting to try to focus on exactly what all these men held in common.  That's not easy.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
MODERNISM – 1890-1910 By Karl Rahner

A collective term for certain false or distorted theological views which arose about the year 1900 out of the legitimate desire (indeed the abiding duty) to proclaim the Christian faith to the men of that time in an adequate manner. In this connexion the following errors came to light in France, England and Italy:

that theology is a matter of feeling …
that religion is a product of the subconscious …
that neither of these must be constrained by reason, which has only a
very minor role to play in religion …
that revelation is an awareness of an interior religious need, the bearers
of revelation being such merely because they best objectify this need …
that these objectifications, when ossified, become Tradition …
that dogma is only a symbolic expression of these objectifications, which
like them must change with the progress of civilization …
that there is a natural need to communicate one’s own objectifications of
religion to others …
and that when this is done the Church results.

These views were coupled with an extremely subjective biblical criticism. They were condemned, together with other errors by Pius X in the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pacendi. He also prescribed the anti-Modernist oath which is still required ***of all who undertake any office in the Church (including professors of theology). It must be added that during the polemics against Modernism, which proposed wrong solutions to many problems it had grasped aright, numerous adherents of Modernism were embittered by clerical intrigues and driven out of communion with the Church. To this day “Modernism” unfortunately remains a term used for spiteful invective by arrogant people in the Church who have no idea how difficult faith is for men of our time.
From Theological Dictionary, Rahner & Vorgrimler, Herder and Herder 1965, entry Modernism.
***On May 31, 1967, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith substituted for the Oath Against Modernism a brief Profession of Faith
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Blessing! John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[JohnJFarren]

SECOND OF TWO POSTINGS / FIRST IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES THIS ONE The following is very important. You wrote, “However, we must keep in mind that the Persons of the Trinity are diffrerent.” We must clarify this. It is closer to the truth to say the Persons are distinct but not different. Why? Because of what you wrote right after that, “There are things only the Father knows … but that the Son and Spirit were ignorant of until its creation.” This cannot be. It’s important to know some ways in which the Three distinct Persons Are One. In the Trinity there is only One Intellect, only One Free Will, only One Consciousness. The Divine Intellect IS the Divine Free Will IS the Divine Consciousness. Each Divine Person IS the One Divine Nature, IS the totality of the Trinity. In the Trinity there are NO differences … there are only distinctions. Distinction between Persons … distinction between Processions.

    I'll attempt to give an imaginary human example. A man and a woman love each other.  They want to become truly one.  Now this is literally impossible .. except that in their love they produce a baby, a one, in whom "they are both one."  That's the best we humans can do.  But suppose .. just suppose the impossible .. that both the man and the woman were able to give themselves totally, each, their very being, to the being of the other .. so that now the man is totally the being man/woman and the woman is totally the being woman/man -- and now there is NO DIFFERENCE between them because there IS only ONE being.  Their previous distinctions remain always.

    In Jesus Christ, the Second Divine Person became forever a creature, a real human being.  Now, in Jesus Christ, there are *two* intellects, *two* free wills, *two* consciousnesses .. and that humanity of God will develop essentially the same as you and I develop.  Jesus' human intellect will know what the Father tells him, will do what the Father tells him to do .. and not other.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In closing I remind myself and you that Philosophy studies being … and only insofar as reason and experience enables it. Theology studies God’s revelation … what is essentially beyond reason. Theology may make use of Philosophy and of the other lesser sciences … but Philosophy and the other sciences have no authority nor ability to speak of Theology, matters of God’s revelation. Today, of course, we’ve got this all mixed up. All the lower sciences pontificate about what is beyond them. And, unfortunately, those in Theology sometimes make conclusions about the lesser sciences without knowing about them first … and so make mistakes and occasion poor views of themselves and of God’s revelation.

    From my computer I'm looking out the back window into a very beautiful day, sunshine, green things beginning to grow, and those first flowers of the season.  And also my heart goes out to the many people who have suffered very severely in our country from violent winds.  God, please have Mercy!
    Blessing!   John (JohnJFarren)   [email]Trinity5635@aol.com[/email]

 

[Sheadad]

Hello to all, sorry I don’t have a previous post to paste here, but I had a question for those of you that are obviously WAY above my head on this subject. Here it goes, in relation to Devine Providence, I understand that the Church teaches that God intervenes for occasional, or miraculas reasons. I’m sure in that spirit of reasoning, he intervenes for His good will and pleasure coupled with the harmony of our will aligning with his (in relation to praying for the safe return of a relative from a plane trip). What doesn’t make sense to me is that if God were to case intervention in our termoral existance upon our request (prayer), how do we reconcile prior events that lead to that occurance? In easier context, in order for the plane to return safely, it would have to have the presuppose that the fuel tanks that may have ruptured in flight, would suddenly be OK. However those fuel tanks had been deteriorating over time and had gone “unchecked”, due to lack of safety protocol in part because of a staff member’s fatigue, from staying up late helping his daughter with math homework, etc… Do you see what I’m getting at here? Our temporal state, or our existance in time seems to have a continuity, a devine flow that would make more sense if it had all been designed that way from creation. Notwithstanding the notion of free will as an integral part of that design, why can’t it be both? That this devine plan includes what is happening (in terms of what we are currently perceiving in time), and what occured from the fall until our ultimate reconciliation/damnation (accepting that Christ knew what was revealed to him by the father, ex. Gates of Hades, how Peter would die, only the father in heaven knows when (when the son of man will return)).

I hope that what I’m suggesting here is not against accepted doctrine, I’m just trying to understand how the fluidity of temporal events leaves room for Devine Providence , (or a sudden injection of event changes) as it’s commonly (I’m supposing) understood. Or, is Devine Providence in intregal aspect of our existance in totality? I’m drawn to Thesselonians 5:18. “Give thanks in all things as this is the will of God for you in the Lord Jesus Christ.” We’re to give thanks in all things, good and bad, that these “things” or events, circumstances are the will of God for those of us in the Lord. Which leads me to a possible conclusion that Devine Providence may be excercized by He who knows that we may turn away from him in sin and in that this existance is in a constant state of flux and events and circumstances in our lives are orchestrated by him to reveal His will to us.

See how easily I bounce back and forth? Please help me oh masters of Theology.

Blessings to all,
Shaun

 

[scameter18]

To this day “Modernism” unfortunately remains a term used for spiteful invective by arrogant people in the Church who have no idea how difficult faith is for men of our time.

To address the material about Modernism you quoted from Karl Rahner, specifically this passage, I would say that he is a bit generic here about the Church and its contemporary use of the term Modernist. In truth, Modernism remains much the same heresy it was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the attempt to answer the problems of the times, which were in truth not completely new or original problems, with the atheistic and materialist tendencies of the times themselves. They made the Church nothing but human culture, God nothing but an illusion to satisfy us emotionally, and the Bible with absolutely no theological or spiritual value beyond the Golden Rule. This is obviously far from Catholicim. While it is true that some modern Catholics can verge on Traditionalism or even Puritanism and adopt a defensive hostility towards anything except orthodox Catholicism, Modernism remains a very active heresy in modern times. Again this is addressing him - you seemed to agree with these points.

This cannot be.

In the Bible, Christ said that even He did not know the time of His Second Coming - only the Father did. I read this long ago and have been trying to hunt down the passage again, but it is evident throughout the Gospels, even after the Resurrection, that Christ grew in knowledge and did not know everything about His life, but that the Father knew absolutely everything and revealed things to the Son throughout His life. While much of this was primarily due to Him being humbled as a human being and thus growing in experience as all humans do, Christ as the Son also seemed to be not only distinct but different from the Father, while sharing the same essence as God with all three Persons. This is a central issue to me and one which I am still trying to understand, as I think all Christians do, the Trinity being the supreme Mystery. If you can give a sourced and/or elaborated answer to this I would very much appreciate it. To provide a specific question, when two different bodies become one, they cannot still be distinct, otherwise they would conflict in some way. The Persons are not identical, and so they are different from one another, as well as being distinct in personhood, while being united in essence. Thus, how could two different things (meaning, possessing different qualities) become one without conflict unless they retained differentiation?

Theology may make use of Philosophy and of the other lesser sciences … but Philosophy and the other sciences have no authority nor ability to speak of Theology, matters of God’s revelation. Today, of course, we’ve got this all mixed up.

I agree, as you elaborated further. It is very unfortunate when a scientist makes a theological claim as if it is scientifically certain. People trust scientists, unfortunately even when they make claims outside their authority. I am only now beginning to understand the distinct roles of reason and faith in conversion. Indeed, reason cannot confer faith - it can open us, and support us afterwards. But faith, as the Catechism says, is the recognition of God’s Divine authority and obedience to it. Faith is then given as a grace reward for this obedience, freeing us to begin our life of Christian conversion. Hence why when people use rational apologetics as if it can give conversion, they are wrong. It can only help, not substitute.

Spring is certainly upon us - and at such a perfect time, in Lent and now Holy Week, when death brings life once more. I will join my prayers to yours. I live in the south, and so I felt some of those disastrous winds. May God help them.

God bless.

 

[scameter18]

Sheadad:

I hope that what I’m suggesting here is not against accepted doctrine, I’m just trying to understand how the fluidity of temporal events leaves room for Devine Providence

A question is never against doctrine unless spiritual doubt or a presupposed desired answer is involved, which doesn’t seem to be the case here. A desire to understand is intrinsic to faith. This is the essence of what I have been attempting to grasp here, and I’ve come to some basic conclusions, one of which is speculative. The more concrete ones are:

1. The natural state of the physical universe is perfect, fully in harmony with God’s will. Only by the free sin of creatures is the universe corrupted from this original perfection. Thus, when a good thing happens, we are giving God thanks for good existence and being possible at all and in that specific situation. For example, if someone discovers a new medicine, it is only because God created it and made medicine possible, and the healing involved simply returns things to their original goodness, which is from God.
2. When God performs a specific miracle, which in order to be a miracle is necessarily rare, He in His omnipotence can go against the laws of nature which give the continuity you mentioned. Normally, existence functions by these laws, and also by the sin in the world. But if God so desires, He can go against nature for His purposes. For example, with the plane trip instance, He could simply sustain the fuel, not allowing it to deplete, until they arrived. Just as if someone has cancer, He can just make it disappear. This is His power and the essence of a miracle.
3. I believe that God performs many “minor miracles”, fulfilling the prayers of the faithful, on a daily basis. Essentially, anytime good occurs and sin is not allowed to win, it is by God’s power. Free will does not create good - it just chooses the option of God’s offered goodness. The precise mechanism by which these “minor miracles” occur is mysterious, and probably always will be, but by faith we can know that it is true.

And this is the speculative one, which I am still developing:

-Based on answer 3 above, I think that angels have a greater role in daily physical events than many suppose. Consider this verse: “After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.” (Revelation 7:1 NIV) There are many other instances of angels having power over the earth in this book. While Revelation is often ignored, it is Biblical and very Catholic, and often more literal than supposed. It seems to me that God created existence, and then Satan and his demons began to try to destroy it. Angels then started combating against them, trying to restore the earth to its original state or to at least prevent destruction and chaos. And this seems to still be the case today. So, whenever something negative happens, it is a demon’s victory; but the good that comes from it, such as a forest fire bringing new life, or the occurance of good in nature period, is enacted by angels.

Now, to keep in accord with note 3, angels are given power by God and throughout the Bible act as His intermediaries on the earth. So, when something good happens it is a miracle from God, worked through His angels. This is not a doctrine (to my knowledge), and my understanding of it is still lacking, but it is something to consider.

I hope I answered some of your questions. God bless.