Is it wrong to enjoy creation? Almost

[LethalMouse]

Best yet, Jesus said to the rich man to give up his wealth and follow Jesus. The rich man turned and walked away right?

This man long since made his choice, and was the man who needed to be there, the one from whom Jesus could use to teach His teaching.

Perhaps if you added up all rich men ever they would number 10 billion and perhaps 9,999,999,999 have and will turn and walk away.

But what of the one? We give him value only if we judgey jedges SEE him give up all and walk the seen path.

Perhaps his usefulness is in his wealth? What great things can be done? Perhaps we will never know that long in his life past he made his choice and would give it all.

Like Abraham with Issac. You as a human pressume to judge that he who did not give up all is not a holy man.

But if Jesus spoke to give up… and before he uttered a word the man dropped all that was his and walked to follow Jesus. Jesus may chose that man, to be told to pick it back up. To do something more or different.

How many wealthy gave that Mother Theresa may give healthcare? How can a church of poor wanderers muster such resource?

If God can command of Abraham but only to test. Then can God not command of others the same?

So if you were tested and passed. If you had finished and became holy, you might be called home… or you might be left here. It is what God wills.

Moreso, Jesus had a purpose. We are called to be like Jesus. If in His most extreme example, you had no mission of crucifixtion what then is the life of a Jesus?

A man whose divine strength, intelligence, and power is abundant? A man who can create sustenance and wine?

With no cross to bare? Hmm? How fun and enjoyable would be the life of Jesus with no need to die on the cross???

Quite frankly I think He would really really have a wonderful fun filled life.

Though I will add the issue with what I have said is a matter on the part of humans skilled in denial in pressumtion.

If someone reads this and becomes a cutthroat who gains riches and pretends they’d throw it all away tho theu would not. They may think themselves holier than they are.

However deep beneath denial is truth and I doubt that we can be so skilled at the denial unless our truth is dark enough to warrant it.

 

[e_c]

Lethal Mouse - I confess that I am having trouble following. Are you suggesting that the ideal life is to be a rich man who gets to Heaven?

Here’s the rub… those who are in the state of perfection don’t care if they’re wealthy. If they have it, they are using it for others. St. Louis, for instance. He would have been just as pleased to be poor. But by birth, he was in the royal line. God leads us through our circumstances. Ignatius was not looking to be martyred until he was being taken to Rome.

In any case, material poverty makes it easier to reach perfection. That’s why it is an ideal in the Gospel and is a Counsel.

Not everyone has the grace necessary to undertake the ideal. Chrysostom (or maybe Gregory the Great?) gives the example of Lot, who flourished in Sodom but fell in the cave. You must know yourself. (How should Lot have acted to avoid this? I don’t know. Maybe protected his wife better.)

 

[LethalMouse]

Lethal Mouse - I confess that I am having trouble following. Are you suggesting that the ideal life is to be a rich man who gets to Heaven?

**Here’s the rub… those who are in the state of perfection don’t care if they’re wealthy. If they have it, they are using it for others. St. Louis, for instance. He would have been just as pleased to be poor. But by birth, he was in the royal line. **God leads us through our circumstances. Ignatius was not looking to be martyred until he was being taken to Rome.

In any case, material poverty makes it easier to reach perfection. That’s why it is an ideal in the Gospel and is a Counsel.

Not everyone has the grace necessary to undertake the ideal. Chrysostom (or maybe Gregory the Great?) gives the example of Lot, who flourished in Sodom but fell in the cave. You must know yourself. (How should Lot have acted to avoid this? I don’t know. Maybe protected his wife better.)

I was not familiar with St. Louis, but the description you give here and the title Saint suggests a great example.

This is the crux, reaching for God may sorta kinda “ish” be linked in some ways to certain things that may often play out as being “better” for many. But not necessarily a factor. The best tbing we can be when reaching for God is quite simple really, and that is: What God wills us to be.

As the example of Abraham, the test so to speak wqs for Abraham’s sake. St. Louis obviously becoming a saint did not need to “destroy his life” to reach holy sainthood. And I think that we cannot know a persons heart but for theological philosophy and such we can use such guesses for a reason.

St. Joan of Arc was martyred in true form, she did not seek it considering she got an army of protection lol, but she faced it true.

St. Francis sought a martyrdom like hers. Now why? Well we could simply say to discover God.

OR we could be logical and think a bit. St. JoA had fame, legacy, a fans and heaven right?

How selfless does it sound for St. Francis to chase this now? Why did God not allow it to happen?

Perhaps St. F needed a bit of humility and better intentions?

I am an odd guy, but anyway I consider people with anxiety to be the most arrogsnt people around. They seem in a sense weak and insecure… BUT

Everything everywhere is about them right? Everything affects THEM personally. And notably they Above All Else… NEED CATERED TO!!!

Oh how weakness can be a form of strength. Esecially if walking in a room and saying “do this” warrants you getting kicked out of the room…

BUT walking in the room with a shaky hand and telling how you need that done because you can’t handle life without it… well then your will be done huh?

So outward appearance can be interesting in that we suggest making oneself weaker makes us more holy. But it does and it doesn’t. If you do so PURELY for God then yes. But much is sold kn the topic from the graces we recieve.

“Blessed are the poor” okay. Why are you poor?

Because of birth? Blessed be you.
Because of true service to God? Blessed be you.
OR???
Because you heard it said Blessed are the poor and you want blessed??? Not the same thing.

Although in theory I do suggest that if someone were lacking in mission necessity to be experiening hard knocks, AND were perfectly holy(at the point of holiness weslth is irrelevant) that their life would be quite wonderful corporeally.

Like my bible quote on my profile:

“Delight in the Lord, and he will grant to you the petitions of your heart.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Many people don’t have a clue what the “nada” doctrine is. Those who learn it on this Earth we call saints. Everyone else learns it in Purgatory. It is the core “practical” spiritual message of the Gospel: Spurn everything for the love of God, delighting only in Him. (“Nada,” Spanish for “nothing,” as in “nothing but God.”

This is a glittering generality nowadays. People don’t typically understand what this actually means “on the ground” in day to day life, at least completely. It means MORE than “not sinning.” What it means is a systematic destruction of the satisfaction of one’s appetites for created things for their own sake. In other words, if you are enjoying some created thing for a reason other than that you have found God in it, you aren’t quite there yet. Anything that is not leading you to God must be given up insofar as possible, at least until it can do its rightful job. You know that it is a well ordered pleasure (in this sense) when its experience immediately raises your heart and mind to God, and you enjoy Him more than the created thing you are experiencing.

The appetites are not bad, nor are they seeking something bad. The problem is that what they are seeking is not for the greater purpose of delighting in God. Put plainly, “worldly” enjoyment is an aberration of the true purpose of the pleasures of created things. If you eat chocolate just because you like the taste of chocolate, and not because the taste helps you to encounter God, it is an attachment that will have to be purged in order to reach spiritual perfection. If you say it’s for health reasons, well, that may be (if you live in the Middle Ages or something), but if the same thing could be accomplished with the same ease by a bitter medicine, would you still go for the chocolate? “Yes, it tastes good!” And there we have it. The heart is divided… It can’t be wholly in love with God, because it wants to enjoy a creature for its own sake.

This is an officially HARD TEACHING. If you are freaking out right now, you can begin to understand why his brother Carmelites threw St. John of the Cross in a jail cell. You can also see the logic behind Paul’s (…and Christ’s…) teaching on celibacy as well as understand the contempt that many people have for it. And such hissy fits really just prove the depth of one’s individual attachments and the lameness of attachment in general. Once one realizes he must become detached from the enjoyment of created pleasures, the thought process may look something like this: “Oh, well I’m not that attached… I can go without it whenever I want.” Then, once/if he realizes this is dishonest and misunderstands that the project is not about some individual pleasure but ALL pleasures that are not leading directly to God, he may say, “Okay, I will give up at least this kind of pleasure for a time and then I will be able to have it back soon enough, once I can enjoy God through it.” After he sees the proof of the depth of his attachment by that statement, he might say, “I think I do enjoy God through all these things, I just need to become more aware of that.” This is certainly laughable… An enjoyment of God is just not able to be missed.

The craziest thing is that many people also (rightly) state that they can lose such attachments in purgatory. The problem is that purgatory is a terrible experience - much worse than the experience of detaching oneself now - and there is no merit accrued to us after death. So we have the choice of light suffering for glory or heavy suffering for no glory. Which makes more sense?

Finally, one will hopefully be inclined to resign and to pick up his cross each day, denying himself (his appetites) in everything he can while still doing his duty. We are, after all, to renounce EVERYTHING for His sake.

People will want to say, “It’s not a sin to drink a Coke for pleasure!” Indeed, it is not a sin. But to frame it this way is just another mark of attachment… We do not become saints merely by avoiding sin, but by going above and beyond “right and wrong” and into the realm of “imperfect and perfect.” Put another way, did your best friend become such by simply not offending you, or was there something more to it? Does he just want to do what he is obliged to do, or does he want to enjoy you all the time?

For most people, to close out every single selfish pleasure at once would occasion at least one of three things - pride at taking on such a project, despair once one encounters the extreme difficulties, or bitterness over the lack of worldly consolations. (If you are happy that you can’t close out the whole world because you would be occasioning sin in yourself, then this is yet further proof of attachment…) So, instead it is better for most to ween themselves off the world, and to be sad about their weakness in needing such a slow pace.

Friendship, because it is incorporated into charity, deserves its own separate discussion.

Commence the torrent of excuses, complaints, and theological backflips to try to get out of this. (Also, re-read the part in bold and the title of the thread.)

This is how I think. Everything should be done for our service to God. I try to do this through contemplative prayer, which to me is the experience and fulfillment of the commandment to love God with all our soul, heart, mind and strength.

 

[e_c]

Yes. Enjoyment is a fulfilled desire of any kind. Attachment is a desire to enjoy something for its own sake. We should only have attachments to eternal things. Sometimes worldly things can help us enjoy the eternal things. But when they can’t, we should try to shed ourselves of them.

This is about all I can contribute. I suggest reading the two Carmelite doctors for more details. Dubay has a wonderful synthesis of their teaching (Fire Within), as does Garrigou-Lagrange (The Three Ages of the Interior Life, www.christianperfection.info).

Don’t let yourself be choked by the thorns and weeds! Be poor in spirit! Nothing but God!

Peace…