Papal candidates - Short List?

[BroomWagon]

On that I am with you 100%

However I don’t think anyone here is doing that. We are simply curious about and desirous to find out who is going to be our next Holy Father.

The only people trying to make it like a secular election are the media. Look at some British newspapers concerning poor Cardinal Turkson and you’ll see it first-hand

I would take EWTN’s lead, we will have weeks and weeks of this process to discuss whom the next Pope will be but there is no harm done in knowing who the candidates will be. To be informed about this.

---

As to your earlier post about God not having emotions, I’m not sure about that.

I see the Holy Trinity in One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they would be looking at this and as to what they think, one could say anything. They are impressed that come Catholics are concerned or they know that some of us may have desires that a certain Cardinal comes to the fore and is chosen to be the next Vicar of Christ. One could say they are sad Pope Benedict XVI has resigned.

 

[BroomWagon]

No, that was not what I was saying. We can discuss all we want (that’s why I’m here ), but it doesn’t really effect the outcome.

I was paraphrasing the saying “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” I don’t mean that God is up in heaven looking down on us through derisive laughter. That would be unsettling.

I think it’s natural for us to be curious and try to figure things out. I know that’s what I’m doing. But I also think it’s beneficial to remind ourselves to put all our speculation in perspective and not take ourselves too seriously. We don’t want to go overboard and paint the whole process as some sort of secular election motivated solely by pragmatic considerations.

Those are your projections, this is Rocco Palmo’s opinion:

“Even if everybody’s clamoring for speculation on potential successors, right now, it would seem that any pondering of papabili is more an exercise in comedy than anything else.”

Okay, he sees this as an exercise in comedy, likewise, it should be fair to comment on his remark. This remark seems derisive and insulting to just place on a comments board because it insinuates the mere discussion of whom the next Pope will be is an “exercise in comedy” and your remarks “an exercise in futility” by anyone who does it.

So you can say “I’m here discussing this too but it won’t effect the outcome”. Alright, we get that and that is obvious. You can say that about comments on sports teams, politics or whatever. So, to me, that sounds kind of belittling to point that out to people. I don’t think anyone is being forced to be here.

 

[LisaA]

I would take EWTN’s lead, we will have weeks and weeks of this process to discuss whom the next Pope will be but there is no harm done in knowing who the candidates will be. To be informed about this.

---

As to your earlier post about God not having emotions, I’m not sure about that.

I see the Holy Trinity in One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they would be looking at this and as to what they think, one could say anything. They are impressed that come Catholics are concerned or they know that some of us may have desires that a certain Cardinal comes to the fore and is chosen to be the next Vicar of Christ. One could say they are sad Pope Benedict XVI has resigned.

I agree, this is a learning opportunity. Given the sudden decision, the learning curve for us out here far from Rome, will be steep. When Blessed John PaulII was in his final illness it was clear there would be a new Pope in the near future. I was coming into the Church at that time and doing a lot of reading on CAF and other sources about the Cardinals who would be voting and one of whom would be Pope.

It’s a very interesting process and given the new Pope will likely be younger and thus Pope longer than Pope Benedict XVI, one we may not see happening again for decades.

Lisa

 

[Vouthon]

As to your earlier post about God not having emotions, I’m not sure about that.

It is a traditional teaching that God is impassible (without emotions). Check out the Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Its known as Divine impassibility.

God is Love, the self-emptying love between the Three Persons. He doesn’t change, emotion denotes change from one state to another.

From Aquinas:

“…Again, in every passion of the appetite, the patient is somehow drawn out of his usual, calm or connatural disposition. A sign of this is that such passion, if intensified, brings death to animals. But it is not possible for God to be somehow drawn outside His natural condition, since He is absolutely immutable, as has been shown…”

 

[BroomWagon]

I agree, this is a learning opportunity. Given the sudden decision, the learning curve for us out here far from Rome, will be steep. When Blessed John PaulII was in his final illness it was clear there would be a new Pope in the near future. I was coming into the Church at that time and doing a lot of reading on CAF and other sources about the Cardinals who would be voting and one of whom would be Pope.

It’s a very interesting process and given the new Pope will likely be younger and thus Pope longer than Pope Benedict XVI, one we may not see happening again for decades.

Lisa

And the fact, this next Pope may be in that office for the next 20, even 30 years. So I think this is why many Catholics find this important to discuss and not that it is idle speculation along with the idea that we won’t influence it to any effect as well. In that we could be praying.

 

[Vouthon]

From Scripture Catholic:

scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#scripture-II

Does God have emotions?
Ray: John, how do we understand God’s anger? I have heard some apologists say that God doesn’t really have anger, and other apologists argue that God is an extremely personal God who has emotions. Isn’t it fair to say that God has emotions? Or are the descriptions of God’s anger in Scripture purely metaphorical? I understand that Catholic theology teaches us that God is moved by our sacrifices and, because of our sacrifices (which are united to the sacrifice of Christ), God grants us His mercy. Thus, it seems reasonable to say that He has an emotive disposition. But does this mean God changes? What do you think?

J. Salza: Ray, Catholic theology does not teach that God is “moved” by our sacrifices, for God cannot be “moved.” He is unmovable and immutable. He does not change. God is the Prime Mover who is doing the moving. God is the one who moves people by His grace to satisfy His justice through sacrifice. This is possible because of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ, to which our sacrifices are united in order to be efficacious (see Col 1:24).

It is true that God responds to human actions. Our Blessed Mother has revealed to us that God is “offended” by sin. But when we say God “responds” to sin, this implies no change in God, for God’s will is immutable and cannot change (Mal 3:6; Num 23:19; Jam 1:17). God’s responses to good and evil come from His same immutable will. Rather, when we say God “responds” to sin or is “offended” by sin, we mean that God wills to punish sinners to restore justice and to move the sinner to repentance because God wills all men to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).

God fulfills His will by constantly giving man grace to repent. If man repents, God forgives. If man does not repent, God punishes. God’s “response” (whether its forgiveness, punishment, or both) comes from His same immutable will to save the sinner or to punish the unrepentant sinner. Hence, Aquinas teaches that God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some men to be damned as a manifestation of His justice (He wills damnation for those who have opposed His will by dying unrepentant). With that as a background, let’s address your question.

Does God have anger? Yes He does. Scripture clearly teaches that God has anger in many places (Ex 4:14; Deut 13:17; Jos 7:1; Judg 2:12; 2Sam 24:1; Isa 5:25; 2Kg 17:11; Rom 2:5; 5:9; Heb 3:11; Apoc 14:10). Does God have emotions? No He does not. Why? Because, using Thomistic terminology, emotion requires passivity and potentiality (that is, the ability to change). Because God cannot change, He cannot have emotions. As Aquinas teaches, God is pure act with no potentiality because, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality (something can change from potentiality to actuality only by a being in actuality, and God is the First Being). This is why it is proper to call Scripture’s description of God’s anger as metaphorical (which Aquinas does) insofar as there is a likeness or analogy between human and divine anger, but also vast differences between them. They are neither purely equivocal nor univocal.

This means that there is a difference between human anger and divine anger. Human anger is a passion or emotion, while divine anger is not. Instead, God’s anger is a judgment of divine justice. The “anger” in Scripture describes God’s vengeance against those who oppose His will. Speaking in purely human terms, God’s anger is perfectly righteous and predictable, never arbitrary or spiteful. For humans, anger is in the sensitive appetite (and God doesn’t have a sensitive appetite). For God, anger is in the will because it is part of God’s justice, and God wills justice.

Both Scripture and the Church teach that God’s anger (or His justice) is appeased by sacrifice. Sacrifice propitiates or appeases God’s anger (or judgment) against sin by restoring the equality of justice. This equality refers to the relationship between the offender and the offended. In terms of human justice, if I harm another person, I must restore that person to the position he was in before I harmed him. For example, if I steal someone’s car, I must return the car to him or buy him another car to restore justice. In terms of divine justice, properly speaking, I cannot take anything away from God because He has everything.

However, sin deprives God of the love and obedience we owe Him as a matter of justice. By repenting and doing penance, we are able to restore the equality of justice between us and God by submitting our will to His which honors and pleases God. Aquinas says, “A sacrifice properly so called is something done for that honor which is properly due to God, in order to appease Him” (Summa Theologica, III, Q.48, Art. 3). As I mentioned, our ability to appease God through sacrifice is itself a grace from God, who moves us to do it. As Augustine says, when God accepts our works He is simply crowning His own gifts.

Christ, of course, made the perfect and superabundant satisfaction for sin by His suffering and death. Aquinas says, “Christ’s voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ” (Summa Theologica, III, Q.49, Art. 4). I hope that answers your question on the distinction between anger and emotion as applied to God.

In Christ,
John Salza

Top

I hope that explains it better than me

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it true that if you bet on a Papal election that it is grounds for excommunication? I read that was the case centuries ago–is it still the case?

My guess would be that the next pope would be a Latin American–but if all the Italian cardinals could agree on one candidate from Italy then an Italian could be the next pope.

I don’t think that an American could be elected.

Whatever the Holy Spirit does is great and is God’s will.

ANY man elected pope is a surprise–God chooses him and he like all the rest of us is unworthy but with God’s help he can lead the Church.

 

[BroomWagon]

It is a traditional teaching that God is impassible (without emotions). Check out the Summa by St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Its known as Divine impassibility.

God is Love, the self-emptying love between the Three Persons. He doesn’t change, emotion denotes change from one state to another.

From Aquinas:

Jesus weeps in the Bible, John 11:35. This seems to show God has emotions.

 

[Vouthon]

Jesus weeps in the Bible, John 11:35. This seems to show God has emotions.

God the Son in his full humanity has emotion like the rest of us. In essence God doesn’t. Neither do the other two Persons. It would be a logical impossibility I think to suggest that God can shift from one emotional state too another. He is Love, Itself, one pure, eternal act of divine love - the mutual self-emptying of the Three Persons. Such biblical language that attributes emotion the church, even Fathers such as Augustine and Theodoret, have interpreted metaphorically for the benefit of men.

The *Scripture Catholic *article explains it better than me.

BTW we’re getting off topic, so we better quit this or we’ll derail the thread

 

[BroomWagon]

From Scripture Catholic:
scripturecatholic.com/misc_qa.html#scripture-II
I hope that explains it better than me

On the other hand, if one means (when one asks whether God has emotions), can one truly and literally, not just in an improper or metaphorical sense, say that God is pleased with us or is angry with us? the answer is, Yes, in the relational sense explained above. That is, it is true to say that we are related to God as one who pleases is related to the one who is pleased, and that God has what is necessary to be related to in this way. We are related to God as one who elicits anger is related to the one who is angry, and God is in his own being what is necessary to be the term of this relation. Each of these predications indirectly tells us something about God. When we learn through Scripture, through the teaching and liturgy of the Church, and through our own meditation and prayer, how God is calling us to relate to him, then we learn ever more about the transcendent being to whom it is possible and appropriate to relate to in this way.
-** Dr. Patrick Lee, Franciscan University, Steubenville**

• www2.franciscan.edu/plee/doesgodhaveemotions.htm

I think that explains it well. God Bless St. Thomas’s view, looks like it is not an absolute according to this theologian at Franciscan University.

 

[Vouthon]

I think that explains it well. God Bless St. Thomas’s view, looks like it is not an absolute according to this theologian at Franciscan University.

I think that the theologian above is simply trying to broaden theology in this respect. He puts forth two divergent views from my brief scan of the article. He admits that God is Impassible (its doctrinal, pre-Thomasine and not just a personal opinion) but also stresses that in Jesus God assumed human emotions through the humanity of Christ and that in a relational rather than essential sense we can describe God using emotive language.

However in Himself he is still transcendent and impassible. He also says just before the bit that you quoted:

If the question, are there emotions in God, means: Do our concepts of various emotions present to our minds aspects of what God is? then (according to the second view) the answer is, No.

BTW Just out of curioisity, why does the traditional doctrinal understanding of divine impassibility seem to bother so many people? I’ve noticed it before. No one is suggesting God is cold or indifferent, he is Love Itself and became man to redeem us for crying out loud

 

[BroomWagon]

I think that the theologian above is simply trying to broaden theology in this respect. He puts forth two divergent views from my brief scan of the article. He admits that God is Impassible (its doctrinal, pre-Thomasine and not just a personal opinion) but also stresses that in Jesus God assumed human emotions through the humanity of Christ and that in a relational rather than essential sense we can describe God using emotive language.

However in Himself he is still transcendent and impassible. He also says just before the bit that you quoted:

BTW WJust out of curioisity, why does the traditional doctrinal understanding of divine impassibility seem to bother so many people? I’ve noticed it before. No one is suggesting God is cold or indifferent, he is Love Itself and became man to redeem us.

The proceeding part does not change the whole of the essay.

Dr. Lee also wrote this:

" However, the second view seems to me more probably correct."

Your latter point is indeed a projection.

 

[Vouthon]

The proceeding part does not change the whole of the essay.

Your latter point is indeed a projection.

You are of course entitled to your opinion BroomWagon. On a personal level, I think that the theologian above is somewhat troubled by implications of the traditional understanding that “God is impassible, but not incompassionable” (Origen). IMHO I think its good as it stands but that’s just me. I’m no theologian.

 

[Joe_5859]

Those are your projections, this is Rocco Palmo’s opinion:

Okay, he sees this as an exercise in comedy, likewise, it should be fair to comment on his remark. This remark seems derisive and insulting to just place on a comments board because it insinuates the mere discussion of whom the next Pope will be is an “exercise in comedy” and your remarks “an exercise in futility” by anyone who does it.

So you can say “I’m here discussing this too but it won’t effect the outcome”. Alright, we get that and that is obvious. You can say that about comments on sports teams, politics or whatever. So, to me, that sounds kind of belittling to point that out to people. I don’t think anyone is being forced to be here.

I think you are taking my post far more seriously than it was ever intended. Calling it “comedy” is not an insult. I like comedy. I’m laughing at my own predictions as much as anyone else’s.

 

[vames]

BTW Just out of curioisity, why does the traditional doctrinal understanding of divine impassibility seem to bother so many people? I’ve noticed it before. No one is suggesting God is cold or indifferent, he is Love Itself and became man to redeem us for crying out loud

Because it’s way easier for the human mind to reduce God to a limited, changeable being, similar to the mythological gods of the Greeks, one who can experience consternation, surprise, offense, sudden anger, hurt, joy, consolation, sadness, frustration and who can be deceived by men. And it’s easy to fail to notice the consequences of such a concept about God - that it leads us to imagine Him as evolving along with us, stuck in the moment and dependent on what we do and say. Of course, this is incompatible with being transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

 

[_Abyssinia]

An African pope would make the jaded western world sit up and take notice

 

[BroomWagon]

Because it’s way easier for the human mind to reduce God to a limited, changeable being, similar to the mythological gods of the Greeks, one who can experience consternation, surprise, offense, sudden anger, hurt, joy, consolation, sadness, frustration and who can be deceived by men. And it’s easy to fail to notice the consequences of such a concept about God - that it leads us to imagine Him as evolving along with us, stuck in the moment and dependent on what we do and say. Of course, this is incompatible with being transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Genesis 6:6, NJB
“Yahweh regretted having made human beings on earth and was grieved at heart.”

?

---

Aside from the conversation, God can do everything, he could have emotions or he could not.

 

[_Abyssinia]

An African pope would make the jaded western world sit up and take notice

 

[BroomWagon]

You are of course entitled to your opinion BroomWagon. On a personal level, I think that the theologian above is somewhat troubled by implications of the traditional understanding that “God is impassible, but not incompassionable” (Origen). IMHO I think its good as it stands but that’s just me. I’m no theologian.

Show me where Immutable means not able to have emotions? That is the jump in logic apparently Mr. Salza makes. Mr. Salza defines God’s Nature being Unchangeable to mean not able to have emotions.

And again,

Genesis 6:6, NJB
“Yahweh regretted having made human beings on earth and was grieved at heart.”

How is this one explained away?

immutable
Definition
im·mu·ta·ble
i mytəb’l ]
To hear the pronunciation, install Silverlight
ADJECTIVE
1.
unchanging or unchangeable: not changing or not able to be changed
im·mu·ta·bil·i·ty NOUN
im·mu·ta·ble·ness NOUN
im·mu·ta·bly ADVERB

I’m not sure if you can find a Catholic Dogma that would support immutability meaning the absence of emotions.

Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?

Objection 1. It seems that God is not altogether immutable. For whatever moves itself is in some way mutable. But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit viii, 20), “The Creator Spirit moves Himself neither by time, nor by place.” Therefore God is in some way mutable.

Objection 2. Further, it is said of Wisdom, that “it is more mobile than all things active [Vulgate ‘mobilior’]” (Wisdom 7:24). But God is wisdom itself; therefore God is movable.

Objection 3. Further, to approach and to recede signify movement. But these are said of God in Scripture, “Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). Therefore God is mutable.

On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

 

[Vouthon]

Show me where Immutable means not able to have emotions? That is the jump in logic apparently Mr. Salza makes. Mr. Salza defines God’s Nature being Unchangeable to mean not able to have emotions.

And again,

How is this one explained away?

I knew this passage would be used

I doubt that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas made “jumps in logic” by believing in divine impassibility, although I will accept any criticism directed towards myself and Salza as valid, not them however.

Immutability means that God is unchanging in His nature, knowledge, and existence. Emotions are mutable, changeable states. Ergo, its logically implausible.

That passage is clearly to be understood metaphorically, that is how the Fathers and the scholastics understood passages denoting mood or change in God. They are for our benefit because God is infinite and incomprehensible, whereas we are finite. Genesis 6:6 shares much linguistic similarity to similar creation myth genres of the era in which a divine being creates human beings and then regrets that decision. Consider even the Greek myth of Pandora’s box, and various Near East parrallels such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Genre is very important to take into consideration when interpreting scripture. Divine truth has been expressed in this example through a common, stock, frame narrative often used in that locality and time period by contemporary authors.

The bible itself tells us that God does not change his mind like that Genesis passage relates:

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” (Num. 23:19)

“And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” (1 Sam. 15:29)

The very fact that you have taken such a passage that lends emotion to God and which if interpreted literally would conflict with other clear passages of the Bible such as the above which deny that God can experience regret or have a change in mood, is significant IMHO.