Does God require penance from us?

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it injurious or beneath an all-supreme being to Love or is that just an anthromorphism?

Who knows–maybe there are real truths behind athromorphisms that don’t reduce God.

Can people handle that concept or is that even below their dignity?

 

[ryanoneil]

In the catechism…
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm
This is a better explanation. Except it doesn’t express to whom the harm is done… which must be to us.

However elsewhere it goes to talk about God needing to be satisfied
616 It is love “to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as
redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved
us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us,
because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have
died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the
sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in
Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces
all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind,
makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/616.htm

I realize you don’t accept this type of language, but if the Bible anthropomorphizes God why shouldn’t His Church. I don’t think The Church is confussed at all. We can only grasp and reach to explain something that is beyond our understanding. None of us are perfect like God. We have been focusing to much on negative anthropomorphism of God. Instead lets talk about God’s love.

Part of God’s loves for us is wanting us to be in Heaven with Him. Who can deny this? We have to be carefull though, when making a statement like this. Because if we say God wants something, we imply that he is lacking something, and therefore imply that he is imperfect.

Do you see where I’m going with this? We can only describe God the best we can.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I told you that the Catholic stance, which you want me to cite, is faulty You’re saying “Where is the Catholic proof…”

No, I’m asking you for Biblical proof of your assertion that the emotions God feels and how the responses He undertakes supposedly “change” his nature.

You have cited a total of 6 verses from the Bible to support the fact that God “does not change”, but absolutely none that support your claims that God can never respond of His own free will.

Obviously, there seems to be no way to explain the many possible definitions of “injury” to Montalban, so there is likely no way to answer his constantly repeated question of “How can you injure God?”

Apparently, the English language is wrong, and Montalban is right. “Injuring” God is to put Him in the hospital somehow - apparently, it can mean nothing else.



Later.

Chris

 

[Reader_Arsenios]

I had, and indeed still have, a long and running conversation with a Protestant on another board, who continually argues that it is GOD Who is RECONCILED TO MAN bu the ultimate act of reconciliation of Christ’s death by torture on the Cross… It is God Who is atoned, not man, by that event, in his view… It is GOD WHO CHANGES, now that his offended sense of honor has been appeased by the tortuous and slaughterous death of His Son on the Cross…

He thinks that only the death of His Son COULD APPEASE HIM…

I have not been able to talk him out of that evil notion…

IF one is living a repentant life, in Communion with God, and then one SINS, one then immediately joins with Peter in his fall from Grace upon denying Christ thrice… And great is that fall, and bitter are the tears of repentance… And sweet the joy of restoration of Communion…

And it is such that we experience such a disaster as God being offended and pulling back His Grace from us, and indeed we do not want to offend God by ANY sin… For we are in intimate relationship with him in the New Covenant of his Body and Blood, and THAT marriage bed we will keep undefiled at ANY cost…

Yet the truth is, in spite of our stating it this way, that it is our own soul that ends up, by the very action of a serious sin, turning itself away from God… The extending and the withdrawal of Grace is a cyclical and ongoing part of discipleship, granted us by God for our own building up… But the darkening of the nous by the doing of a serious sin, and the prolonged recovery time of our restoration, is due to the serious wounding of our soul thereby, and has nothing at all to do with God being offended…

To ascribe a theological ontology to God’s offendability is to enter into the theological sandbox of the Scholastic and Rationalistic Schools that substitute the fallen human intellect for true repentance unto knowledge of God [theology]…

We live in a paradox as human beings, in that we are morally responsible victims of demonic incursions… It is not God Whom we have to worry about offending - That fear is but the BEGINNING of Wisdom… It is the DEMONS with whom we are to worry about joining…

To get man to worry about offending God, as if God then is our enemy, is a desirable demonic goal…

Arsenios

 

[LilyM]

To get man to worry about offending God, as if God then is our enemy, is a desirable demonic goal…

Arsenios

To you, Arsenios, and to Montalban, I again ask, why do we need God’s forgiveness through the priest for something we have done which only injures ourselves or others and NOT God as well?

Does not an Orthodox priest, in the sacrament of Confession, forgive you your sins in God’s name? Please clarify this particular point. If I am misunderstanding here I want very much to know.

 

[mardukm]

To get man to worry about offending God, as if God then is our enemy, is a desirable demonic goal…

You’ve got it the other way around brother. You are worried about offending someone only if you are concerned about your relationship with that person. Eastern Orthodox thinking seems so alien to me sometimes.

Sister LilyM,
As you probably have realized, the Eastern Orthodox for the most part reject the doctrine of the Atonement - the substitutionary nature of the Sacrifice of Christ.

Rest assured that not all Orthodox are like this. The Oriental Orthodox, a distinct body from the Eastern Orthodox, also believe in the doctrine of the Atonement. So don’t feel alone in your defense of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LilyM]

You’ve got it the other way around brother. You are worried about offending someone only if you are concerned about your relationship with that person. Eastern Orthodox thinking seems so alien to me sometimes.

Sister LilyM,
As you probably have realized, the Eastern Orthodox for the most part reject the doctrine of the Atonement - the substitutionary nature of the Sacrifice of Christ.

Rest assured that not all Orthodox are like this. The Oriental Orthodox, a distinct body from the Eastern Orthodox, also believe in the doctrine of the Atonement. So don’t feel alone in your defense of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Marduk.

But do any of the Orthodox go so far as to reject the necessity of confession to and absolution by a priest in terms of forgiveness of sins?

Do they deny the power that Christ gave to the Apostles to forgive sins (in God’s name of course, since they have no authority to forgive sins unrelated to themselves on their own behalf)?

Do they deny the requirement to confess our sins, as St James states in his epistle? Clearly this must be confession to a priest, since again no mere man has the authority to forgive your sins in toto.

What words of absolution does an Orthodox priest pronounce over his penitent in the administration of the sacrament? (I realise these may vary from group to group)

 

[tdgesq]

Thanks Marduk.

But do any of the Orthodox go so far as to reject the necessity of confession to and absolution by a priest in terms of forgiveness of sins?

No, they very much agree with the necessity of the sacrament of confession for the forgiveness of sins.

Do they deny the power that Christ gave to the Apostles to forgive sins (in God’s name of course, since they have no authority to forgive sins unrelated to themselves on their own behalf)?

No they do not deny this. In fact, their bishops claim the apostolic succession (and Catholics agree) to administer the sacrament of confession.

Do they deny the requirement to confess our sins, as St James states in his epistle? Clearly this must be confession to a priest, since again no mere man has the authority to forgive your sins in toto.

They do not deny this at all. They would also say that it must be a confession to a priest.

What words of absolution does an Orthodox priest pronounce over his penitent in the administration of the sacrament? (I realise these may vary from group to group)

I don’t know the answer to this one. What I do know is that some of the Eastern Orthodox you are hearing from are not representative of the majority of EO. If you really want an answer to specific questions, you need to go the Eastern Christianity forum.

 

[Montalban]

I realize you don’t accept this type of language, but if the Bible anthropomorphizes God why shouldn’t His Church.

You mean the Orthodox Church

You can, so long as your realise the limitations in doing such.

Unfortunately look at the consequences here where wave after wave of Catholic is launching into heresy by saying that God can be injured, hurt, upset, etc. And that we can cause this to happen to him.

I don’t think The Church is confussed at all. We can only grasp and reach to explain something that is beyond our understanding. None of us are perfect like God. We have been focusing to much on negative anthropomorphism of God. Instead lets talk about God’s love.

That would be great but your church has built up a whole system of workings based on a God that needs to be satisfied.

Part of God’s loves for us is wanting us to be in Heaven with Him. Who can deny this? We have to be carefull though, when making a statement like this. Because if we say God wants something, we imply that he is lacking something, and therefore imply that he is imperfect.

Do you see where I’m going with this? We can only describe God the best we can.

And there’s better than saying he’s getting so angry we’ve got to pay some penalty to make up for it.

 

[Montalban]

To you, Arsenios, and to Montalban, I again ask, why do we need God’s forgiveness through the priest for something we have done which only injures ourselves or others and NOT God as well?

We don’t need God’s forgiveness through the priest, in the sense Catholics get it.

When we talk about ‘forgiveness’ it’s a way of saying how we can be reconciled with God. God’s not turning around and saying “Okay, I forgive you”. He’s always loving us. We accept that love to be returned to God. That’s the only sense that we’re forgiven

Does not an Orthodox priest, in the sacrament of Confession, forgive you your sins in God’s name?

Not as far as I’m aware. He’s simply a witness to us confessing that we have separated ourselves from God through sin.

 

[Montalban]

You’ve got it the other way around brother. You are worried about offending someone only if you are concerned about your relationship with that person. Eastern Orthodox thinking seems so alien to me sometimes.

But God can’t be offended. You just fell into the trap of ascribing to God ideas based on how you might relate to another person. Yes, we would feel that way towards another person, because that person is flawed and can be subject to anger and so on. If we’re concerned about offending that PERSON we’d be doing that. But God is not a flawed person.

Sister LilyM,
As you probably have realized, the Eastern Orthodox for the most part reject the doctrine of the Atonement - the substitutionary nature of the Sacrifice of Christ.

Yes, because we accept God is perfect and doesn’t have a list of things he wants done.

For Catholics God is this being that is subject to change based on how we act - so we’re affecting God. If you don’t believe this then trawl through the many posts by Catholics here who believe that they’re so powerful that they can change God’s state.

Rest assured that not all Orthodox are like this. The Oriental Orthodox, a distinct body from the Eastern Orthodox, also believe in the doctrine of the Atonement. So don’t feel alone in your defense of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

Blessings,
Marduk

Forgive them if it’s anything like the ideas I’ve seen advertised here. God is perfect. He does not change. No matter how much you think you can change him.

 

[Montalban]

No, they very much agree with the necessity of the sacrament of confession for the forgiveness of sins.

Only to the degree that we believe that it restores us to God, not that God has ‘rejected’ us and is waiting for us to do something to make him smile.

They do not deny this at all. They would also say that it must be a confession to a priest.

Not *to *a priest. But before one.

I don’t know the answer to this one. What I do know is that some of the Eastern Orthodox you are hearing from are not representative of the majority of EO. If you really want an answer to specific questions, you need to go the Eastern Christianity forum.

Well if you know any EO who believe in your idea of an imperfect tempremental God, let me know.

 

[tdgesq]

Only to the degree that we believe that it restores us to God, not that God has ‘rejected’ us and is waiting for us to do something to make him smile.

Now this is the strawman fallacy. You identified your last set of fallacious arguments incorrectly. Since I never stated that God ‘rejected’ us and is waiting for us to do something to make him smile, you are arguing with a strawman. Somebody you made up.

It would be nice and if you addressed arguments I actually make, like that you have failed to provide a standard for interpreting New Testament statements that refer to God’s emotions.

Not *to *a priest. But before one.

Yet another example of how you didactically insist upon precision in some explanations, but not others. The love stream comes to mind. Somebody’s doing the tapping and Somebody else is giving the tapper exactly what was requested at the time it was requested - not just some amorphous undefined love. Precision doesn’t seem to matter to you here.

Well if you know any EO who believe in your idea of an imperfect tempremental God, let me know.

I don’t know of any EO who believes in an imperfect God. I don’t know of any Catholic that does either. I do know of Orthodox that believe God’s personality includes emotions. They don’t have the same problem as you finding that this makes God imperfect:

“It is said that the Father and the angels have great joy and celebration when one sinner turns and repents.” An excerpt from St. Clement of Alexandria found on the GO Australia website in support of true repentance in the sacrament of confession. members.optusnet.com.au/%7egoawa/repentance.html

Aren’t you under the jurisdiction of the GO in Australia?

Here’s another one:

"THE TRUTH AS TO THE PERSONALITY OF GOD

Q. Who is right as to the personality of God?

A. The Churches, except the Christian Scientists, because the Holy Scripture attributes to God, mind, emotion, and will, which are the three attributes of all personality."

This time from an Orthodox Catechism. christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/catechis.html

I choose to believe these sources rather than you.

 

[LilyM]

We don’t need God’s forgiveness through the priest, in the sense Catholics get it.

When we talk about ‘forgiveness’ it’s a way of saying how we can be reconciled with God. God’s not turning around and saying “Okay, I forgive you”. He’s always loving us. We accept that love to be returned to God. That’s the only sense that we’re forgiven

Not as far as I’m aware. He’s simply a witness to us confessing that we have separated ourselves from God through sin.

So he doesn’t offer absolution in God’s name? He doesn’t forgive people their sins as Christ empowered and James commanded that the Apostles do? Just says that God’s already forgiven them? That’s NOT what Jesus taught the Apostles to do.

And why the power to RETAIN sins - deny absolution - if God’s already forgiven all and the priest is just a witness?

No wonder you don’t see the importance of confession - the way you describe it it has no real purpose. Which is certainly not what Christ intended.

So what is the exact wording that your priest would use in Confession then, to indicate that your sins are forgiven?

 

[Montalban]

Now this is the strawman fallacy. You identified your last set of fallacious arguments incorrectly. Since I never stated that God ‘rejected’ us and is waiting for us to do something to make him smile, you are arguing with a strawman. Somebody you made up.

Your English is appalling. You mean “Something you made up” and there’s so many negatives in “You identified your last set of fallacious arguments incorrectly.” as to lose all meaning of what it is you’re actually objecting to.

However, you are the one who said God can get emotional, so it’s not a straw-man. That’s your argument.

It would be nice and if you addressed arguments I actually make, like that you have failed to provide a standard for interpreting New Testament statements that refer to God’s emotions.

Now this is a repeated error of yours. I gave you the framework when I said you must realise God is perfect

Yet another example of how you didactically insist upon precision in some explanations, but not others.

Not at all. Leaving alone the ‘didactically insist’ part, I told you to start with God being perfect

I don’t know of any EO who believes in an imperfect God. I don’t know of any Catholic that does either.

You do. You state you can change God.

I do know of Orthodox that believe God’s personality includes emotions. They don’t have the same problem as you finding that this makes God imperfect:

Who is ‘they’?

“It is said that the Father and the angels have great joy and celebration when one sinner turns and repents.”

Indeed, it is said that he does. Does that mean that he does?

 

[Montalban]

So he doesn’t offer absolution in God’s name? He doesn’t forgive people their sins as Christ empowered and James commanded that the Apostles do? Just says that God’s already forgiven them? That’s NOT what Jesus taught the Apostles to do.

What’s any of this got to do with God being made to react to human foibles anyway?

 

[LilyM]

What’s any of this got to do with God being made to react to human foibles anyway?

It’s totally relevant - forgiveness is only necessary from someone you’ve offended or otherwise affected negatively in some way.

If I punch out my sister who’s sitting next to me (as a hypothetical example) I don’t need to apologise to you or seek your forgiveness unless you’re somehow affected by the fact.

But if, as you say, God never changes, and never feels anything akin to human emotion, then what we do to ourselves or each other can’t possibly affect Him in any way that requires His forgiveness.

So forgiving sins in His name is unnecessary and irrelevant - in fact it is wrong to do so since it gives the false impression that He IS affected and offended by what we do.

Yet that is exactly what Christ asked the Apostles to do. They weren’t forgiving sins in their own name, clearly, they weren’t directly or indirectly affected by most of the sins of others. So what else could they have been doing but forgiving in God’s name for offences against Him?

And answer my question - what words does the priest use to you in confession to indicate that you are forgiven? It’s important that I know, for a right understanding of the Orthodox view.

 

[tdgesq]

Your English is appalling. You mean “Something you made up” and there’s so many negatives in “You identified your last set of fallacious arguments incorrectly.” as to lose all meaning of what it is you’re actually objecting to.

Lol! So now it’s my English skills that are under attack? No, I meant “somebody.” You are creating another person (not me) who you have making arguments that you then attack. No person here is making those arguments, so why are you attacking them? There is only one negative in that sentence genius. Trust me, I’ve held my tongue more than once about your atrocious spelling in this thread. Thanks for the English lesson. It was about as useful as the logic lesson you gave.

However, you are the one who said God can get emotional, so it’s not a straw-man. That’s your argument.

It is not my argument that God ‘rejected’ us. I’m sure some people here find it as pernicious as I that you would quote a word that I never used. The arguments that I’ve made you can’t or won’t answer. Thus your need to divert the argument.

Now this is a repeated error of yours. I gave you the framework when I said you must realise God is perfect

I do realize God is perfect. That tells us nothing about how to interpret the multiple and repeated statements related to God’s emotions in the New Testament. According to you, they can’t be emotions, because emotions would make God imperfect. Then what are they? If they aren’t to be taken literally, then what non-literal interpretation are we to accept?

Who is ‘they’?

Now you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge the two direct quotes given to you; one from a Church Father and another from a well known Greek Orthodox catechist. St. Clement adheres to it, or else he wouldn’t have included it. If it was a heresy taught by Clement then your Church wouldn’t have included it in its discussion of confession and true repentance.

It’s at a point that I’ll let the viewers decide who conforming to the faith and who is substituting their personal views for the view of the Church.

 

[Montalban]

It’s totally relevant - forgiveness is only necessary from someone you’ve offended or otherwise affected negatively in some way.

If I punch out my sister who’s sitting next to me (as a hypothetical example) I don’t need to apologise to you or seek your forgiveness unless you’re somehow affected by the fact.

So you equate God with someone who gets angry - *as a person does

But if, as you say, God never changes, and never feels anything akin to human emotion, then what we do to ourselves or each other can’t possibly affect Him in any way that requires His forgiveness.

But what we do to each other can separate ourselves from God

So forgiving sins in His name is unnecessary and irrelevant - in fact it is wrong to do so since it gives the false impression that He IS affected and offended by what we do.

It’s irrelevant to this debate unless, of course, you take your stance here that God gets angry akin to your sister.

Neither you nor any other Catholic posting here has yet to grasp the fundamental flaw of putting God into such human-like behaviour.

 

[Montalban]

Lol! So now it’s my English skills that are under attack? No, I meant “somebody.” You are creating another person (not me) who you have making arguments that you then attack.

No. If I were creating other arguments that is not a person. It’s a thing. No wonder you’re having problems here with concepts about God. You think God acts just like any other person.

There is only one negative in that sentence genius. Trust me, I’ve held my tongue more than once about your atrocious spelling in this thread. Thanks for the English lesson. It was about as useful as the logic lesson you gave.

No, there were two. ‘Fallacious’ and ‘incorrectly’. If you’re in doubt, ask your school teacher next time to explain.
But alas it was as ‘useful’ because you’ve not learnt anything here.

It is not my argument that God ‘rejected’ us. I’m sure some people here find it as pernicious as I that you would quote a word that I never used.

It is your argument - by saying God needs to be reconciled because we’ve injured him.

The arguments that I’ve made you can’t or won’t answer. Thus your need to divert the argument.

As noted you have immense difficulty in comprehending even the sentences you create.
And you demand that I make evidence I’ve already done so. You don’t say how a all-powerful God can be affected by one of his creation. And you ascribe a ‘person’ to an argument!

I do realize God is perfect. That tells us nothing about how to interpret the multiple and repeated statements related to God’s emotions in the New Testament.

And here’s you again demanding this key. Starting with the axiom that God is perfect than any language attributing to him personality, akin to human traits is faulty. I’ve mentioned this in almost every thread to you since you asked for this ‘key’ to interpretation. If I spell it out any more plainly perhaps you might get it. You don’t have to agree with it, but to claim I’ve not stated this is faulty on your part.

According to you, they can’t be emotions, because emotions would make God imperfect. Then what are they? If they aren’t to be taken literally, then what non-literal interpretation are we to accept?

More of the same question

Now you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge the two direct quotes given to you; one from a Church Father and another from a well known Greek Orthodox catechist.

That’s more falsehood from you. I responded to it.

This seems to be the way you argue;
You write poorly worded posts advertising your lack of knowledge on such things as ‘straw-man’ argument, and even what is a ‘person’. You continue this by confusing God (perfect) with a person (faulty)

St. Clement adheres to it, or else he wouldn’t have included it. If it was a heresy taught by Clement then your Church wouldn’t have included it in its discussion of confession and true repentance.

It’s only a heresy if you say that God is literally angry. If you want to use terms such as that as a way of conveying how WE separate ourselves from God (as opposed to your concept that God separates himself from us), then that’s fine. And yes, you do make that argument by saying that God changes in his relationship with us and becomes angry. In fact, so angry that he demands we accept all manner of punishments (under the banner ‘penance’)

When I point out that anthropomorphism were used, you want to know how to tell what verses are to be interpreted what way. I answer. You ask again. I answer. You ask again. I answer.