If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

[John_Martin]

This doesn’t really answer my question, which was: How can it be demonstrated that God answers all prayers (as was originally asserted)? The scenario you have put forward would be indistinguishable, from the point of view of the person praying, to God not answering prayers. So it seems to me that the assertion that God answers all prayers is not demonstrable and is just a matter of faith.

Well, as Catholics, we are bound to know the God that James knew, as Paul and Peter also knew, and if you read the first chapter of his letter, the first five or six verses, or so, you will see we do not believe God answers all prayers of all people.
You will also note that we pray many times every day, “Deliver us from evil”, where we are also actually asking our Father to not give us what we ask if it will hinder our attainment of blessedness, hinder our attainment of seeing him face to face in joy.

We as a people and individually have a journey to complete, to reach the term of that journey, and we ask for the things we need to be able to successfully reach the end. We are not praying for things that have nothing to do with completing our journey. That is for people who think the 80 years of this life is the place of final meaning, so they want the American Dream before they die, they want to fulfil a “bucket list” and so prayer for them is for things that are supposed to give fulfilment apart from heaven and without heaven and without union with God - prayer instead for union with some temporal value. Any answer they have is the same as God giving rain on the Just and on the Unjust equally - it is not related to their praying.

 

[ynotzap]

No. you apparently have the order incorrect. Here is what the creed states:
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
So Jesus was not man before he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary. God, not being man, first came down from heaven, then He was incarnate and became man.
In any case, there was movement. So once again it shows that God is not unmoved.

If I told you Heaven is not “Up”, would you believe me When God supposedly came down, was He not Spirit and then He became man. Does a Spirit occupy space? Down is a direction for material things. The words as applied are symbolic of a spiritual truth, not a literal interpretation. There are many such situations in the Bible that shouldn’t be taken literally, and there are some that should. Who, or what authority is there to define. We see it as the Magisterium of the Church, with Christ backing it up by His promise to be with His Church Jesus, God is the Unmoved Mover, the source of all motion, if you say as God, He moves, you are saying He can change, for movement is change, a passage from Potency to Act, then you are saying that God is not God, He shows signs of being moved by another, iow, He is created. He is Pure Act, no change, no movement, He moves others, but not Himself. Any movement on the part of Christ was because He became human, it didn’t effect His divinity, He still is a Divine Person, not a human person even though He had a human nature, the Hypostatic Union. How does one express spiritual truths, by using human terms that sometimes are not totally adequate to capture the whole truth, so we do the best we can.

 

[Tomdstone]

If I told you Heaven is not “Up”, would you believe me When God supposedly came down, was He not Spirit and then He became man. Does a Spirit occupy space? Down is a direction for material things. The words as applied are symbolic of a spiritual truth, not a literal interpretation. There are many such situations in the Bible that shouldn’t be taken literally, and there are some that should. Who, or what authority is there to define. We see it as the Magisterium of the Church, with Christ backing it up by His promise to be with His Church Jesus, God is the Unmoved Mover, the source of all motion, if you say as God, He moves, you are saying He can change, for movement is change, a passage from Potency to Act, then you are saying that God is not God, He shows signs of being moved by another, iow, He is created. He is Pure Act, no change, no movement, He moves others, but not Himself. Any movement on the part of Christ was because He became human, it didn’t effect His divinity, He still is a Divine Person, not a human person even though He had a human nature, the Hypostatic Union. How does one express spiritual truths, by using human terms that sometimes are not totally adequate to capture the whole truth, so we do the best we can.

It is true that many Protestants do take the Catholic nicene creed metaphorically. Protestants will also say that the words of the Last Supper and of the Consecration at Mass are to be taken metaphorically and that " The words as applied are symbolic of a spiritual truth, not a literal interpretation".

 

[Bahman]

The Catholic creed said at Mass says that God came down from heaven. God is spiritual, but still, He came down from heaven. This is another example of why God is not unMoved. If He were unMoved, He would not be able to come down from Heaven.
If God were unMoved, He would not be able to effect the miracle of Transubstantiation as a response to the prayers of the Mass.
God responds to our prayers. God creates the universe. God comes down from heaven. God walks in a garden on earth. God responds to the sin of Adam and Eve. All this indicates that God is not unMoved.

All things that you said is against the meaning spirituality. You didn’t answer my question: Do you believe that God is spiritual?

 

[ynotzap]

It is true that many Protestants do take the Catholic nicene creed metaphorically. Protestants will also say that the words of the Last Supper and of the Consecration at Mass are to be taken metaphorically and that " The words as applied are symbolic of a spiritual truth, not a literal interpretation".

That’s where protestants and catholics differ. We hold that when Jesus said at the Last Supper “This my body and this is my blood…” we take these words literally, not symbolically, and we give the reasons why.

 

[ynotzap]

This doesn’t really answer my question, which was: How can it be demonstrated that God answers all prayers (as was originally asserted)? The scenario you have put forward would be indistinguishable, from the point of view of the person praying, to God not answering prayers. So it seems to me that the assertion that God answers all prayers is not demonstrable and is just a matter of faith.

If the prayer was sincere, and contribitutable to his salvation, although it may take a lifetime to realize it, it will be answered, it is not only Faith, but demonstration eg. Monica prayed for St. Augustine’s conversion (her son) and so he was, and became a great Saint and teacher, she prayed aproximately 26-30 years. She also became a great Saint in doing so. When a person prays, he is acknowledging God, even if he is asking the wrong thing. That demonstrates some belief. God in His love, and justice, which governs people’s lives, and His desire to save souls will respond in His own way. God may not answer directly, especially if the request is not conducive to a person’s salvation, but He realizes the person’s real needs, and in His providence supplies those needs. You can ask people who were is this type of situation, if their prayers were finally answered in a better way. That would be demonstration.

I for one prayed for something, and God didn’t grant it at the time I asked it, as a matter of fact, I prayed many times, and received no answer, but as time went by, I could see that my requests needed some real understanding on my part. My request was finally answered in time. God knew my real needs, I just thought I knew. A prayer in sincerity will be answered in God’s way Why hope, if what we hope for is not attainable. Hope is real, a virtue, and it can be demonstrated that what is hope for is attainable. Yes , it is a matter of Faith, and it can be demonstrated by witness. If a person prays, God gave him the grace to pray, it is a matter of Faith. God does not issue a grace, that is wasted, it comes back fruitful, He is an efficient God

 

[Tomdstone]

All things that you said is against the meaning spirituality. You didn’t answer my question: Do you believe that God is spiritual?

Partly, but not entirely. God is spiritual but also partly material as is seen from the Eucharist which becomes God after the words of the Consecration through the miracle of Transubstantiation. the material appearances are Bread and Wine, but the essence has changed and it is the Body, blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Tomdstone]

That’s where protestants and catholics differ. We hold that when Jesus said at the Last Supper “This my body and this is my blood…” we take these words literally, not symbolically, and we give the reasons why.

So with Christians it is more or less pick and choose what you want to take metaphorically and what you want to take literally in the Bible?

 

[ynotzap]

So with Christians it is more or less pick and choose what you want to take metaphorically and what you want to take literally in the Bible?

No, it is accepting the teachings of the Magisterium with the Pope as the Head, representing Jesus on earth, believing that Jesus has gifted the Pope with infallibility, when speaking “from the Chair (ex cathedra)” Jesus said to Peter, " I will be with you to the consummation of the world, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against you" It’s not belief in the Pope, but in Jesus Christ speaking through the Pope when speaking on matters of faith, and morals. We don’t pick and choose, many other faiths do. It is the result of much reasoning by many and asking God to either confirm it or reject it, and if the Pope in agreement finds no rational reason to reject it,with much prayer, then he steps out in Faith, and proclaims it as a doctrine of faith Jesus keeping His promise is our guarantee that we have the truth.

 

[John_Martin]

Partly, but not entirely. God is spiritual but also partly material as is seen from the Eucharist which becomes God after the words of the Consecration through the miracle of Transubstantiation. the material appearances are Bread and Wine, but the essence has changed and it is the Body, blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Well, actually, the bread and wine do not become God - they become the flesh and blood of Jesus, they do not become his soul and divinity, just as your body is not your soul. But your own soul is with your body, making it living, and so, Jesus soul and divinity are present wherever his body and blood is present (in the Sacrament).

We eat his body and blood (we cannot eat his soul or divinity, since they are not made of matter, and we require matter to chew on it and sip it). But, as I said, where his body and blood are, his soul and divinity make it a living body and blood that we are eating and drinking, And as our bodies assimilate his flesh and blood into the makeup of our own bodies, his soul and divinity also animate us now, so that we also participate in the divine life with our Lord.

Also, it is not the essence that changes - it is the substance, the individual bread and wine are now become fully the body of Christ and the complete blood of Christ, so that when you eat that apparent wafer, you are fully consuming the complete body of Christ, and the next person in line is fully consuming the complete body of Christ, and so on.

 

[Tomdstone]

No, it is accepting the teachings of the Magisterium with the Pope as the Head, representing Jesus on earth, believing that Jesus has gifted the Pope with infallibility, when speaking “from the Chair (ex cathedra)” Jesus said to Peter, " I will be with you to the consummation of the world, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against you" It’s not belief in the Pope, but in Jesus Christ speaking through the Pope when speaking on matters of faith, and morals. We don’t pick and choose, many other faiths do. It is the result of much reasoning by many and asking God to either confirm it or reject it, and if the Pope in agreement finds no rational reason to reject it,with much prayer, then he steps out in Faith, and proclaims it as a doctrine of faith Jesus keeping His promise is our guarantee that we have the truth.

Your reasoning is circular because you say that the infallibility of the Magisterium depends on a statement from the Bible. But the literal and not metaphorical Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse depends on the Magisterium. The Eastern Orthodox interpret verses such as that quite differently and still, the Roman Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church provided that they are properly disposed. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the infallibility of the Roman pope.

 

[John_Martin]

Your reasoning is circular because you say that the infallibility of the Magisterium depends on a statement from the Bible. But the literal and not metaphorical Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse depends on the Magisterium. The Eastern Orthodox interpret verses such as that quite differently and still, the Roman Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church provided that they are properly disposed. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the infallibility of the Roman pope.

Actually, we are not basing it on a sentence in the Bible - that is simply a record of the statement.
We are basing it on a sequence of witnesses to Jesus’ own declaration, beginning with the eye-witness account of the Apostles, who confirmed that Jesus gave such authority. After all, the New testament was not written until years after, and Paul himself confirms things like it when he describes the Eucharist wording and meaning as something he received (from the witnesses, not from a Bible verse he interpreted). The Apostles were the original Magisterium, and it continues unto today. It is the Magisterium, and infallibility of the Pope that constructed the Church’s document (which we called the Bible) so that we would have a record of the saving events to guide the teaching of the Church, which is however the role of the Magisterium, and not the role of individual interpretation of the writings.

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually, we are not basing it on a sentence in the Bible - that is simply a record of the statement.
We are basing it on a sequence of witnesses to Jesus’ own declaration, beginning with the eye-witness account of the Apostles, who confirmed that Jesus gave such authority. After all, the New testament was not written until years after, and Paul himself confirms things like it when he describes the Eucharist wording and meaning as something he received (from the witnesses, not from a Bible verse he interpreted). The Apostles were the original Magisterium, and it continues unto today. It is the Magisterium, and infallibility of the Pope that constructed the Church’s document (which we called the Bible) so that we would have a record of the saving events to guide the teaching of the Church, which is however the role of the Magisterium, and not the role of individual interpretation of the writings.

It remains to explain why the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Roman Catholic interpretation. The reject the infallibility of the Roman Pope.
You appear to be throwing out those verses in Scripture and in the Nicene Creed which indicate that God is not unMoved.

 

[ynotzap]

Your reasoning is circular because you say that the infallibility of the Magisterium depends on a statement from the Bible. But the literal and not metaphorical Roman Catholic interpretation of that verse depends on the Magisterium. The Eastern Orthodox interpret verses such as that quite differently and still, the Roman Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church provided that they are properly disposed. The Eastern Orthodox do not accept the infallibility of the Roman pope.

The infallibility depends on the statement made by Jesus Christ. I did not say, and I wish you wouldn’t twist my meanings, that the infallibility depended on the Magisterium, nor the Pope, but on the promise of Christ to Peter, the Magisterium uses the intelligence of human Catholic theologians to discern as best they can, as any sincere person would to acquire truth, and in faith, step out on the promises of Jesus to guide it. Like I said you are immovable, if your motive is to just refute, and not to seek, to protect your own beliefs, then whatever I say, if it opposes your beliefs is a waste of time. I do not have the power to change your mind, and I can live with that. I stand by my beliefs and reasons, and make an account for my Faith, I haven’t heard as much from you, except to quote the Catholic faith and offer it for grounds of discussion. Where do you stand, what do you believe, and what do you understand, what are your convictions? Apparently not the same as mine.

 

[Tomdstone]

The infallibility depends on the statement made by Jesus Christ. I did not say, and I wish you wouldn’t twist my meanings, that the infallibility depended on the Magisterium, nor the Pope, but on the promise of Christ to Peter, the Magisterium uses the intelligence of human Catholic theologians to discern as best they can, as any sincere person would to acquire truth, and in faith, step out on the promises of Jesus to guide it.

No, the infallibility depends on the Roman Catholic interpretation of a statement in the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox have a different interpretation of that statement and many others as do the Protestants. And the Jews have their interpretation of statements in the Old Testament which Catholics say foretell the coming of the Messiah Jesus.
I have shown that the Bible, the Incarnation, the Catholic creed, and as well the miracle of the Transubstantiation all show that God responds in love to our prayers and to our human condition. If I understand you correctly, you claim that you have to be admitted to a higher level of . esoteric understanding to see why what humans call motion is really not motion, and to see that God is unMoved, even though all the solid and sound evidence that I have put forth shows the contrary. IMHO, the knowledge we have about God should be available and readily understandable by an average kind soul and not require some secret esoteric hidden spiritual or arcane philosophical teachings which are reserved for a specific elite group of ivory tower philosophers and hidden from the masses

 

[Bahman]

Partly, but not entirely. God is spiritual but also partly material as is seen from the Eucharist which becomes God after the words of the Consecration through the miracle of Transubstantiation. the material appearances are Bread and Wine, but the essence has changed and it is the Body, blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.

That is simply your belief which to my understanding is against the concept of spirituality.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is simply your belief which to my understanding is against the concept of spirituality.

It is not simply my personal belief. Transubstantiation is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church has a similar belief. Would you mind if I asked you a few questions:

1. do you believe that God is a Trinity?
2. do you believe in the Incarnation of Jesus?
3. Do you believe in the truth of the Roman Catholic Church and its teaching on the Eucharist?

 

[John_Martin]

It remains to explain why the Eastern Orthodox do not accept the Roman Catholic interpretation. The reject the infallibility of the Roman Pope.
You appear to be throwing out those verses in Scripture and in the Nicene Creed which indicate that God is not unMoved.

I am not throwing anything out - it is 100% true that God is unmoved by us, and it is 100% true that the Father hears and answers the prayers of his people, sees their suffering, and is quick to help them.
I pray to him many times in a day, expecting him to turn and hear me and answer me, yet I also know he is unmoved (he is fully complete, where being moved means being set in motion toward a different place of completion. I know that all his work is “operation” - only a complete thing can “operate”. If something is not yet complete, it cannot function correctly or at all, but God is fully complete, so his interaction with us is “Operation”. And when we pray, and when we do things virtuously, we are “operating” also like our Father, because when we pray and do things virtuously, this comes out of our union with God, our new creature-hood, where we are his Children, and now operate as such in this world.

 

[ynotzap]

No, the infallibility depends on the Roman Catholic interpretation of a statement in the Bible. The Eastern Orthodox have a different interpretation of that statement and many others as do the Protestants. And the Jews have their interpretation of statements in the Old Testament which Catholics say foretell the coming of the Messiah Jesus.
I have shown that the Bible, the Incarnation, the Catholic creed, and as well the miracle of the Transubstantiation all show that God responds in love to our prayers and to our human condition. If I understand you correctly, you claim that you have to be admitted to a higher level of . esoteric understanding to see why what humans call motion is really not motion, and to see that God is unMoved, even though all the solid and sound evidence that I have put forth shows the contrary. IMHO, the knowledge we have about God should be available and readily understandable by an average kind soul and not require some secret esoteric hidden spiritual or arcane philosophical teachings which are reserved for a specific elite group of ivory tower philosophers and hidden from the masses

Then you accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being wrong in her teachings, and that it does not rely on Jesus’ promise to be with her in guiding her followers in His truth, that she misinterprets Christ’s words. If you can prove that then you have done something to date that no one has done. A child can believe the truth with no problems, but adults have a real problem. I never implied that one has to have a deeper, theo-philosophical understanding to believe the truth. but there are those who use their intelligence and mislead the faithful , and in order to protect the truths of our faith, from a rational perspective we have to dig deeper into understanding the truth. I think I already stated that this kind of thinking is not for all, and not necessary for all, leave it to the theologians and metaphysicians to resolve these problems, but as usual, you have your mind made up and misinterpret my motives, and thoughts. There is not secret esoteric, hidden spiritual or arcane philosophical teachings which are reserved for the special elite group of ivory tower philosophers and hidden from the masses, that’s your private interpretation. Did you ever doubt yourself? If that were so why are you on the philosophic forum.?

 

[Tomdstone]

If that were so why are you on the philosophic forum.?

Because I think that God responds to our prayers, especially the prayers of the Mass and so it is a serious error to say that He does not respond and He is unMoved by the prayers of Consecration at the Mass.