G
grannymh
Guest
Briefly, because I am traveling.
This sounds like a great explanation of the Beatific Vision which occurs after bodily death.
Blessings,
granny
- Status
This sounds like a great explanation of the Beatific Vision which occurs after bodily death.
Blessings,
granny
F
fhansen
Guest
And yet we’re enjoined to do it now. The heart and will turned to God begins in this life, something Adam hadn’t yet achieved last we saw him.Briefly, because I am traveling.
This sounds like a great explanation of the Beatific Vision which occurs after bodily death.
Blessings,
granny
L
Louman127
Guest
I never said there could be variables in Divine revelation. The way your question looked I thought you asked me about a theological possibility. A theological question. When answering theological questions they can at face value appear contradictory but when analyzed further it is actually paradoxical.
It appeared you were asking me at what point would God have declared us perfected in our original justice state had we never fallen. The truthful answer to that is God only knows. Just as God only knows how long one would need to be in purgatory for. The only thing we can do is deduce and speculate. But when doing that type of theological analysis we need to be careful not to declare something as factual when in fact it is a theological possibility.
And I am puzzled at your question now. You asked me this:
“Yet, when I read “complete perfection” I am always curious as to what consists “complete perfection” for the founder of humankind. Please, what is meant by “complete perfection?” At the dawn of human history?”
I answered your question thinking it was a theological question and you responded with this:
“The “goal of perfection of Adam and Eve’s day” is clearly stated by the Divine Revelation flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. Obviously, Divine Revelation continued …”
So if you knew the answer to your own question why bothering asking me?
And fhansen added a very good response. Our wills need to be in accord with God’s will. That is an indicator we are on the right track to perfection. These are the variables to which I was referring to. Another variable would be at what time and at what year would we be considered perfected. Again another variable we do not know EXACTLY. I was not saying Divine Revelation had variables in it as if it were flawed or something.
I think there may have been some miscommunication.
G
grannymh
Guest
Briefly. As you may have noticed, I did not reply directly to everything in your post. I did comment in general about “variables” because these, at times, have been presented as part of free speech.
I also said “The “goal of perfection of Adam and Eve’s day” is clearly stated by the Divine Revelation flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis. Obviously, Divine Revelation continued …”
In my old neighborhood, discussion would continue with a search of Genesis verses which lead to the pertinent teachings based on Divine Revelation as duly declared by major ecumenical Church Councils. But then, my old neighborhood had investigative journalists.
When I consider Catholic theology, I usually refer to CCC paragraphs which I did in post 39. I now see that may be a strange way of looking at Catholicism on a public message board.
Yes,
often there is “miscommunication” especially when it comes to our first original parents. Most likely, that is my fault, because I learned in Catholic grade school the doctrines of Original Sin without all the theological speculations and possible variables we have today. Yikes! I must be the last person of that generation.
Considering that I am from the age of dinosaurs, maybe you need to decide if a conversation with me is worth the effort. I look forward to an answer when I can reach a computer during traveling.
Blessings,
granny:snowing:
L
Louman127
Guest
My sincere apologies. I believe the miscommunication started with my laziness and impatience. Only now has my “cloudedness” left me. I can see the error I made because of praying my daily Rosary. When I read your initial post I thought I should look up those parts of the Catechism but out of laziness I did not. Instead I took the easy route and gave a general explaination of variables. I should have been patient and read the Catechism parts you provided before jumping to an answer. The faith can’t change but it can develop and how can it develop if we don’t read and re-read what God has provided for us and investigate.
And of coarse conversation with you is worth it. If I didn’t think so that would be a lack of charity. And besides you just helped me correct some faults. I will be patient and look up those parts and pray about it.
Thank you and God Bless you!
Enjoy your travels!
-Lou
G
Genesis315
Guest
Just a small clarification to the part I bolded above. I think what you may means is that God may cleanse someone of original sin in an extraordinary way allowing them to go to Heaven, not that someone in the state of original sin could go to Heaven. Original sin is an impediment to Heaven. It’s an important distinction since sanctifying grace is necessary for anyone to go to Heaven, otherwise we fall into the heresy of Pelagianism.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thanksgiving was amazing! I will be in this part of the world for a while.
My son’s family was host for Thanksgiving. Relatives of relatives came, including “adopted” relatives. It is our tradition that whoever shows up is an automatic family member. I do have some funny stories like coming downstairs one morning, when the kids were still at home, and finding a strange young man asleep on our living room floor. His motorcycle helmet at his side.
Back to our conversation. I had to look up the word paradoxical used in post 42. Not sure how it could apply to “theology” of Original Sin – especially to the original relationship between the first human person and God as Creator in the first three chapters of Genesis. Yet, when I consider some of the off-base discussions, I wonder if a paradox is in play…
What kind of paradox is there in the general interpretation of Original Sin, if any?
In post 44, there is another interesting comment. “The faith can’t change but it can develop and how can it develop if we don’t read and re-read what God has provided for us and investigate.” It is my observation that a discussion on faith development cannot properly take place unless there is a clear understanding of the proper protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth when it comes to defining Divine Revelation as a proper doctrine.
Can the above be a start to our conversation?
Blessings,
granny
The human person is worthy of profound respect.
L
Louman127
Guest
Well one paradox I can think of right off the bat is the fact that God said to not eat of the fruit lest we die. We do in fact die but we do not actually die as in eternally. On the contrary we can live forever.
So only God can say we die and then work around that without contradicting anything in the faith. That is one way we know faith developements are authentically from God. Because there is no contradiction.
So God said we would die. So we do. But He also says we can live forever. So we do. (If we choose)
It is a paradox. How can one be told they will die but then can turn around and live forever? Well it seems contradictory but Christ came and explained everything and effected our redemption to make it possible.
We both die and live forever.
And as far as faith development, the proper place that takes place in is the magisterium. But doctors of the church haven’t always been part of that area of the Church. Theological developments can take place probably with any soul open to God but one should consult the Church on things if they are lets say getting revelations and such.
Looking at the Immaculate Conception one could deduce based on Scipture and faith teaching Mary was Immaculately conceived. But now after much human cooperation with the Holy Spirit and much language developement we are privileged to have that area of the faith in writing and in straight forward human language. So much so it is now a dogma.
Much of our faith as Catholics are wrapped in paradoxes. Especially when human understanding of the faith develope. This is where people get “caught up” trying to understand these paradoxes. Paradoxes like “If God is so infinitely good then why evil at all?” As faith developes the evil one will always place doubts in these paradoxes to try and knock some one of their track of finding the true Christian faith. Something as simple as a word in a piece of human language can “trip” somebody up and place all kinds of doubts in the simplest areas of the faith.
There is so much to the faith that language cannot grasp but in today’s world we can articulate the faith more precisely in human terms than we probably could earlier in history.
But like many Saints have said God speaks in silence.
G
grannymh
Guest
Personally, in my opinion, the basic way to validate a paradox is to examine all the details of each proposition. What is the background?
Here are the verses in question. Genesis 2: 15-17. usccb.org/bible/genesis/2
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h
16
The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden*(“http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2#01002016-i”)
17
except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j
For example. We have to find out the Who, How, What, When, Where, and Why of each verse. Who is God and who is Adam in what looks like interaction between two persons? What is the symbolism of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Or is there a tree with organic fruit which, when eaten, imparts all knowledge directly into the brain and skips the tummy? The reason that Adam’s decomposing material anatomy does not die is that God gave him and Eve, the extra gift of not having to suffer or die. But is there a requirement for this extra gift? Come to think of it, getting the knowledge from that fruit would still be a serious (mortal) sin. So we now have to consider all the consequences of disobeying the order of God.
In simple terms. In order to verify that there is a paradox, we have to tear Original Sin apart from top to bottom.
Am I making some sense?
This involves the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.
Because Original Sin is the first appearance of evil, we may find out why evil occurs. When I think about God being infinitely good, I immediately think about Genesis 1: 27. and John 3: 16-17
I can see the truth in that.
Isn’t there a verse or something in which God says: Be still and know that I am near. When we go to Eucharistic Adoration, the silence heals our broken hearts.
U
Usagi
Guest
Right. It is still Catholic dogma that those who die in Original Sin “descend immediately to Hell,” though that may include the “level” of Hell we used to call Limbo. The doctrinal development that has occurred is that the Church makes greater allowance for Divine means other than explicit baptismal grace to remove one from the state of Original Sin – something that would presumably have to occur at least in the infinitesimal moment before death, given the aforementioned dogma.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
The key point is that no one is ever owed Heaven, no matter their degree of innocence or even their good deeds. Heaven is entirely an unearned gift; one’s degree of beatitude in Heaven may be seen as a “reward” for good works, but even the ability to do those is itself a gift of grace from God.
Now, the horror of Hell is so great that having it as the only permanent alternative to Heaven has led people like our OP to question the justice of the situation. It may be that no one deserves Heaven, but do innocents or humanly “good” people deserve Hell? In wrestling with this over the centuries, Catholic theologians have held strictly to “no one is owed Heaven” while looking for ways to keep non-terrible people (especially unbaptized babies and pagans with no exposure to Christianity) out of the worst aspects of Hell. Their solutions have shifted over time from “Well, some people in Hell are punished less” to “Maybe there’s an upper level of Hell that’s still not Heaven, but otherwise offers perfect natural happiness” to “Maybe God in His mercy just gives those people sanctifying grace outside the sacraments, though He has not revealed that mechanism to us.”
Usagi
Now, the horror of Hell is so great that having it as the only permanent alternative to Heaven has led people like our OP to question the justice of the situation. It may be that no one deserves Heaven, but do innocents or humanly “good” people deserve Hell? In wrestling with this over the centuries, Catholic theologians have held strictly to “no one is owed Heaven” while looking for ways to keep non-terrible people (especially unbaptized babies and pagans with no exposure to Christianity) out of the worst aspects of Hell. Their solutions have shifted over time from “Well, some people in Hell are punished less” to “Maybe there’s an upper level of Hell that’s still not Heaven, but otherwise offers perfect natural happiness” to “Maybe God in His mercy just gives those people sanctifying grace outside the sacraments, though He has not revealed that mechanism to us.”
Usagi
G
grannymh
Guest
Paragraph 1260, universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
**1260 **"**Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." **Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
**1260 **"**Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." **Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
- Status