Papal candidates - Short List?

[mburn16]

I’m really starting to favor Cardinal Ouellet (spl?). Seems to check all the right boxes:

• Well known Conservative, particularly on social matters
• A Competent administrator, which will help with the problems inside the Vatican
• From Canada, so more familiar with the media and Western communication than others
• Multiple languages
• Experience with the Church in the developing world.

Of course he doesn’t exactly seem to want the job, and I don’t know if he would be as likely as some to restore some of the Papal ceremony…but I do think there is a strong case for him.

:twocents:

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m really starting to favor Cardinal Ouellet (spl?). Seems to check all the right boxes:

• Well known Conservative, particularly on social matters
• A Competent administrator, which will help with the problems inside the Vatican
• From Canada, so more familiar with the media and Western communication than others
• Multiple languages
• Experience with the Church in the developing world.

Of course he doesn’t exactly seem to want the job, and I don’t know if he would be as likely as some to restore some of the Papal ceremony…but I do think there is a strong case for him.

:twocents:

I think not wanting the job is a plus. It shows an understanding of the gravity of the office.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Surfing YouTube for Papal Candidates

 

[Exordium1003]

I’m really starting to favor Cardinal Ouellet (spl?). Seems to check all the right boxes:

• Well known Conservative, particularly on social matters
• A Competent administrator, which will help with the problems inside the Vatican
• From Canada, so more familiar with the media and Western communication than others
• Multiple languages
• Experience with the Church in the developing world.

Of course he doesn’t exactly seem to want the job, and I don’t know if he would be as likely as some to restore some of the Papal ceremony…but I do think there is a strong case for him.

:twocents:

My hope is that they pick someone who has no association with any scandal of any sort. I know that they pick from their own ranks, but how about Robert Kurtz, the bishop of Bermuda who is a scholar who speaks 11-12 languages? He is the most humble and holy person my parish has ever witnessed. wouldn’t it be nice if the Vatican didn’t have to go through the political machinations that the rest of the world has to endure?

 

[mburn16]

well, Kurtz is only a Bishop…which makes things exceedingly unlikely. But on top of that, its worth pointing out that he is already 73.

 

[smaneck]

And if I remember correctly, Ratzinger wasn’t even being discussed when he got elected as B16. He was not on anyone’s “short list” or even in the ballpark as far as discussions were going.

I heard he was being discussed. In fact, it seemed only a question of whether his age would preclude his being elected. Twenty years ago I had a Catholic graduate student who was so conservative I jokingly referred to him as “Cardinal Ratzinger.” He asked me who Cardinal Ratzinger was. I said he held the successor office to the Grand Inquisitor, that he was the brains behind John Paul and “he is your next Pope”. Fifteen years later this graduate student chased me down on the internet and asked “How did you know?”

 

[smaneck]

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

The Bible is not so clear cut on that point, Vouthon.

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
1 Samuel 15:11, 35
It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king. (v.11)
The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (v.35)

2 Samuel 24:16
The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.
1 Chronicles 21:15
The Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand.
1 Samuel 15:11, 35
It repenteth me [God] that I have set up Saul to be king. (v.11)
The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. (v.35)

2 Samuel 24:16
The Lord repented of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, it is enough: stay now thine hand.
1 Chronicles 21:15
The Lord beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand.

etc.

 

[Vouthon]

The Bible is not so clear cut on that point, Vouthon…

I agree As we both know, nonetheless, the bible has many internal contradictions between its books, not just on this issue. This does not undermine, from my perspective, its inspiration from God - however it does demonstrate the importance of the influence of the context, background, style and genre of the individual sacred author and in this case the limitations of human understanding in relation to God. Myself and others are convinced that such passages are for human benefit to help us relate with the ultimately unknowable God, known through the prophets and incarnation of Christ (as well as his general presence in the things he has created). I am concerned with how the church interprets these passages rather than the obvious, from a scholarly way of thinking, internal contradictions themselves.

I would say that BroomWagon has already made a good point of touching upon a passage which clearly shows change in God and emotion if interpreted literally. My contention however is that many of the Fathers and the scholastics interpreted these passages in a metaphorical light. They do share common motifs with other stories from the Near East that depict a divine being creating humanity and then regretting it.

I still hold that such biblical passages are if interpreted literally logically impossible. Not only do they suggest emotions but change. They conflict with other parts of the same Old Testament which say the direct opposite. One must reconcile this and I doubt that the answer would be to accept passages such as the ones you refer too, which all happen to be narratives, at face value to suggest that the timeless, eternal Supreme Being who is beyond all comprehension or knowledge can exhibit human-like emotions such as “regret”, which would suggest that he is somehow subject to change into his infinitely simple, unchanging nature. However I would be willing to debate this further on a thread devoted solely to this topic, so I still encourage Broom to create a thread and I will happily participate.

This thread is about *papabili. *

 

[Vouthon]

To add one more tidbit:

God is one unchangeable, eternal act. He has no emotions if one accepts this. As a matter of fact, pure spirits cannot have emotions, since emotions are a physical reaction. Scientifically we can prove that emotions have a seat in the mind, in the physical, tangible world. God the Father has no physical body so He does not have emotions. It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the Divine Nature of the Trinity is unchanging. Emotion signifies change; a person cannot have emotions and never change from one state of mind to another.

"…I. Passions

1763 The term “passions” belongs to the Christian patrimony. Feelings or passions are emotions or movements of the sensitive appetite that incline us to act or not to act in regard to something felt or imagined to be good or evil.

1764 The passions are natural components of the human psyche; they form the passageway and ensure the connection between the life of the senses and the life of the mind. Our Lord called man’s heart the source from which the passions spring…"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church

God does not have a ‘sensitive appetite’ (as St. Thomas puts it), and so He does not have emotions in His Divine Nature. God is not inclined to act or to not act. He is all actuality, and no potentiality. To my mind we are dealing with analogous language. Emotions are a human comprehension to describe human feelings. Language attributing human characteristics to God - such as “anger”, “happiness”, “joy”, “sadness” etc. - is all analogies for our benefit IMHO. In fact they are projections (if I may steal that word from Broom ) - illusions - that we foist upon God so as to try and bring him down to the human level. This is natural however it can lead to extreme error because in a sense it can be a subtle and well-meaning form of idolatry, since we make up in our own minds a God we can imagine and thereby lose the reality of God, which is far above and beyond all thought, forms and is ineffable, inexpressible and infinite.

However this is off-topic so I won’t say much more

 

[BroomWagon]

To add one more tidbit:

God is one unchangeable, eternal act. He has no emotions if one accepts this.

Unchangeable means no emotions?? Got it. Have a definition that reads that?

Can you quote Saint Thomas Aquinas’ work as saying that?? A quote.

As a matter of fact, pure spirits cannot have emotions, since emotions are a physical reaction.

If this is so, there should not be a problem of finding an authoritative source saying this.

Scientifically we can prove that emotions have a seat in the mind, in the physical, tangible world. God the Father has no physical body so He does not have emotions. It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the Divine Nature of the Trinity is unchanging. Emotion signifies change; a person cannot have emotions and never change from one state of mind to another.

God does not have a ‘sensitive appetite’ (as St. Thomas puts it), and so He does not have emotions in His Divine Nature. God is not inclined to act or to not act. He is all actuality, and no potentiality. To my mind we are dealing with analogous language. Emotions are a human comprehension to describe human feelings. Language attributing human characteristics to God - such as “anger”, “happiness”, “joy”, “sadness” etc. - is all analogies for our benefit IMHO. In fact they are projections (if I may steal that word from Broom - illusions - that we foist upon God so as to try and bring him down to the human level. This is natural however it can lead to extreme error because in a sense it can be a subtle and well-meaning form of idolatry, since we make up in our own minds a God we can imagine and thereby lose the reality of God, which is far above and beyond all thought, forms and is ineffable, inexpressible and infinite.

However this is off-topic so I won’t say much more

.

God made the physical too, I don’t deny he could. It seems some thought saying God can’t do this or that would deny him this ability.

The above is a lot of supposition. Also, God can do anything. You are saying there are some things God can not do. So you put limits on him.

You also are putting up definitions of your own making. Defining it on your own.

un·change·able
: not able to change or be changed

Where does it say unchangeable means lack of emotions?

 

[Lucky7]

Obviously this is in God’s hands, so my opinion means squat, but I would like to see a Pope that is even more conservative …both in word and in action…that trickles down to the Bishops and then some.

Of course, I see more of what is going on in the American Church but I think tough action is needed. Too many homilies are watered down at best; some questionably Catholic at worst (don’t even ask me about the Ash Wednesday homily I just heard about how we evolved from the ashes of the stars…um, whut??). I am so sick of certain Catholcis talking about how our Church needs to change church doctrine…about how it is valid (and our duty) to dissent.

I think with an even more conservative Pope in both word and action, these Catholics may finally decide to give up and move on (possibly to another denomination). I know we should want them to stay in the true Church, but not if they are there to make trouble. For the most part they will not change, so enough already.

I am also starting to lean more towards the traditional mass, so I would like to see a Pope start to return to tradition more. I think the current did make some moves towards that way, but I’d like to see more.

So, which candidate fits my bill?

 

[LisaA]

I heard he was being discussed. In fact, it seemed only a question of whether his age would preclude his being elected. Twenty years ago I had a Catholic graduate student who was so conservative I jokingly referred to him as “Cardinal Ratzinger.” He asked me who Cardinal Ratzinger was. I said he held the successor office to the Grand Inquisitor, that he was the brains behind John Paul and “he is your next Pope”. Fifteen years later this graduate student chased me down on the internet and asked “How did you know?”

Fascinating story. I would rather call your student orthodox than “conservative” since then Cardinal Ratzinger was protector of the faith aka “God’s Rottweiler” I recall the 2005 Conclave well and Cardinal Ratzinger was my hope for Pope! I just loved him, his brilliant mind, his obvious humility although clearly blessed with so many gifts yet having to live through the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Did you really think he would succeed Blessed John Paul II or was that more of a glib response?

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Obviously this is in God’s hands, so my opinion means squat, but I would like to see a Pope that is even more conservative …both in word and in action…that trickles down to the Bishops and then some.

Of course, I see more of what is going on in the American Church but I think tough action is needed. Too many homilies are watered down at best; some questionably Catholic at worst (don’t even ask me about the Ash Wednesday homily I just heard about how we evolved from the ashes of the stars…um, whut??). I am so sick of certain Catholcis talking about how our Church needs to change church doctrine…about how it is valid (and our duty) to dissent.

I think with an even more conservative Pope in both word and action, these Catholics may finally decide to give up and move on (possibly to another denomination). I know we should want them to stay in the true Church, but not if they are there to make trouble. For the most part they will not change, so enough already.

I am also starting to lean more towards the traditional mass, so I would like to see a Pope start to return to tradition more. I think the current did make some moves towards that way, but I’d like to see more.

So, which candidate fits my bill?

I can’t answer your question although it sounds like there are a number of worthy candidates. I watched some of the interviews on YouTube Abyssinia linked and recall before then Cardinal Ratzinger was named Pope that he was extensively interviewed and I learned a lot about him.

Sorry to hear about your “woo woo” homily on Ash Wednesday. Ours was more a call to action…IOW don’t just give up chocolate or Starbucks for Lent but do something positive with the time and money saved. I do agree that a) some priests seem timid about speaking of the grave issues of our time and what the Church teaches…can’t say I have ever heard an explanation of why abortion or contraception are wrong and b) sadly some in the pews WANT the homilies watered down so they don’t have to squirm in the pew and think about going to reconciliation (although they probably wont).

Take a look at those interviews and you might get a better understanding about some of the candidates. The one with Cardinal Scola is VERY long so will have to set aside time for that one but many are a few minutes and quite enlightening.

Lisa

 

[smaneck]

papabili.

Yes, I won’t try and derail this, but it is a topic that deserves further discussion. IMO the answer may lie in the distinction between the Deus Absconditus vs. the Deus Revelatus. That’s a topic important to Luther, but it has it roots back in medieval theology.

 

[smaneck]

Fascinating story. I would rather call your student orthodox than “conservative” since then Cardinal Ratzinger was protector of the faith aka “God’s Rottweiler” I recall the 2005 Conclave well and Cardinal Ratzinger was my hope for Pope! I just loved him, his brilliant mind, his obvious humility although clearly blessed with so many gifts yet having to live through the horrors of Nazi Germany.

Did you really think he would succeed Blessed John Paul II or was that more of a glib response?

Lisa

I really did think he would be the next Pope at the time I said that, but when the actual Conclave came up I wasn’t so sure, because of his age.
I didn’t have such a high opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger because everything I knew about him (and Vatican politics) I had learned from his former colleague Hans Kung.

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, I won’t try and derail this, but it is a topic that deserves further discussion. IMO the answer may lie in the distinction between the Deus Absconditus vs. the Deus Revelatus. That’s a topic important to Luther, but it has it roots back in medieval theology.

I’ve decided that I will, when I get the chance, create a thread relating to this. I might pop it in Non-Catholic religions so you can bring in Protestant, Baha’i and/or other religious perspectives on this rather than a uniquely Catholic one.

What you say above interests me. I think that Catholics would probably use different Latin terminology from Luther but the idea is very much akin.

We would probably say Deus a se or “God in God’s self”, meaning God as He is in Himself, in that inner, mysterious essence that is beyond all human reason and which is inaccessible to man and oppositely Deus pro nobis or “God for us” that is God’s relation with his human creatures through the twin lights of revelation and reason. The Eastern Orthodox came up with the very original terminology of “energy” as distinct from “essence” (ie Palamas).

In the article which BroomWagon referred too he states:

“…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. 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…”

In other words he is employing something close to his own version of the Deus a se/*Deus Absconditus *vs Deus pro nobis/Deus Revelatus distinction that you refer too above, although with modifications of his own.

 

[Vouthon]

If this is so, there should not be a problem of finding an authoritative source saying this.

I would rather not have done it in this thread, however if needs must…

socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/church-fathers-on-immutability.html

A few excerpts from the Fathers:

God the Father is Impassible (Absence of Human Emotions) / Anthropopathism (Metaphorical Attribution to God of Same) and Anthropomorphism

St. Ignatius of Antioch (50 - c. 110)

Look for Him who is . . . impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes . . .

(Epistle to Polycarp, 3, 2; ANF, vol. 1; cf. Epistle to the Ephesians, 7, 2)

Aristides of Athens (fl. c. 140)

. . . God . . is without beginning and eternal, immortal and lacking nothing, and who is above all passions and failings such as anger and forgetfulness and ignorance and the rest.

(Apology, 1; in JUR-1, 48)

St. Irenaeus (130-202)

By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power to Him; while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men.

(Against Heresies, 2, 13, 3; in ANF, vol. 1)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - c. 215)

But God is impassible, free of anger, destitute of desire.

(Miscellanies [Stromateis], 4, 23; ANF, Vol. 2)

On this account did Moses also say, “Show yourself to me,”** indicating most clearly that God cannot be taught to men nor expressed in words, but can be known only by an ability which He Himself gives**.

(Miscellanies [Stromateis], 5, 11, 71, 3; in JUR-1, 183)

continued…

 

[Vouthon]

Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)

And now, if, on account of those expressions which occur in the Old Testament, as when God is said to be angry or to repent, or when any other human affection or passion is described, (our opponents) think that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us, who maintain that God is altogether impassible, and is to be regarded as wholly free from all affections of that kind, we have to show them that similar statements are found even in the parables of the Gospel; as when it is said, that he who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, who slew the servants that were sent to them, and at last put to death even the son, is said in anger to have taken away the vineyard from them, and to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen to destruction, and to have handed over the vineyard to others, who would yield him the fruit in its season. And so also with regard to those citizens who, when the head of the household had set out to receive for himself a kingdom, sent messengers after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us;’ for the head of the household having obtained the kingdom, returned, and in anger commanded them to be put to death before him, and burned their city with fire. But when we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood.

(De Principiis, 2, 4, 4; ANF, vol. 4)

He charges us, moreover, with introducing ‘a man formed by the hands of God,’ although the book of Genesis has made no mention of the ‘hands’ of God, either when relating the creation or the ‘fashioning’ of the man; while it is Job and David who have used the expression, ‘Your hands have made me and fashioned me;’ with reference to which it would need a lengthened discourse to point out the sense in which these words were understood by those who used them, both as regards the difference between ‘making’ and ‘fashioning,’ and also the ‘hands’ of God. For those who do not understand these and similar expressions in the sacred Scriptures, imagine that we attribute to the God who is over all things a form such as that of man; and according to their conceptions, it follows that we consider the body of God to be furnished with wings, since the Scriptures, literally understood, attribute such appendages to God…

We speak, indeed, of the ‘wrath’ of God. We do not, however, assert that it indicates any ‘passion’ on His part, but that it is something which is assumed in order to discipline by stern means those sinners who have committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called God’s ‘wrath,’ and ‘anger,’ is a means of discipline; and that such a view is agreeable to Scripture, is evident from what is said in the sixth Psalm, ‘O Lord, rebuke me not in Your anger, neither chasten me in Your hot displeasure;’ and also in Jeremiah. ‘O Lord, correct me, but with judgment: not in Your anger, lest You bring me to nothing.’ Any one, moreover, who reads in the second book of Kings of the ‘wrath’ of God, inducing David to number the people, and finds from the first book of Chronicles that it was the devil who suggested this measure, will, on comparing together the two statements, easily see for what purpose the ‘wrath’ is mentioned, of which ‘wrath,’ as the Apostle Paul declares, all men are children: ‘We were by nature children of wrath, even as others.’ Moreover, that ‘wrath’ is no passion on the part of God, but that each one brings it upon himself by his sins, will be clear from the further statement of Paul: ‘Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But after your hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto yourself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.’ How, then, can any one treasure up for himself ‘wrath’ against a ‘day of wrath,’ if ‘wrath’ be understood in the sense of ‘passion?’ or how can the ‘passion of wrath’ be a help to discipline? Besides, the Scripture, which tells us not to be angry at all, and which says in the thirty-seventh Psalm, ‘Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,’ and which commands us by the mouth of Paul to ‘put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication,’ would not involve God in the same passion from which it would have us to be altogether free. It is manifest, further, that the language used regarding the wrath of God is to be understood figuratively from what is related of His ‘sleep,’ from which, as if awaking Him, the prophet says: ‘Awake, why do You sleep, Lord?’ and again: ‘Then the Lord awoke as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouts by reason of wine.’ If, then, ‘sleep’ must mean something else, and not what the first acceptation of the word conveys, why should not ‘wrath’ also be understood in a similar way?..

(Contra Celsus, 4, 37 and 4, 72; in ANF, vol. 4)

 

[Vouthon]

Arnobius (d. c. 327)

Whatever you would say of God, whatever thought you might conceive about Him in the silence of your mind, it misses the mark and is corrupted in expression; nor can it have the note of proper signification, since it is expressed in our terms, which are adapted to human transactions.

(Against the Pagans, 3, 19; in JUR-1, 263)

Marius Victorinus (fl. 355)

. . . from our own actions, we give a name to the actions of God, considering them as being His in a supereminent way; not such as He really is, but as an approach to what He really is.

(The Generation of the Divine Word, 28; in JUR-1, 396)

St. John Chrysostom (c. 345 - 407)

Why does John say, “No one has ever seen God?” So that you might learn that He is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of Him. For that all those incidents were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see . . . they all saw different shapes . . . no one can know God in an utterly perfect manner, as to His essence . . . they were not able to have a clear knowledge and an accurate comprehension of Him, nor did they dare to gaze intently upon His pure and perfect essence, nor even upon this condescension. For to gaze intently is to know.

(Against the Anomoians, 4, 3; in JUR-2, 92)

St. Augustine (354-430)

It is true that wicked men do many things contrary to God’s will; but so great is His wisdom and power, that all things which seem adverse to His purpose do still tend towards those just and good ends and issues which He Himself has foreknown. And consequently, when God is said to change His will, as when, e.g., He becomes angry with those to whom He was gentle, it is rather they than He who are changed, and they find Him changed in so far as their experience of suffering at His hand is new, as the sun is changed to injured eyes, and becomes as it were fierce from being mild, and hurtful from being delightful, though in itself it remains the same as it was.

(City of God, 22, 2; in NPNF 1, Vol. 2)

Whatever God begins to be called temporally, and which He was not previously called, is manifestly said of Him in a relative way; such things, however, are not said of God according to accident, as if something new had acceded to Him, but plainly according to an accident of the creature with whom, in a manner of speaking, God has entered into a relationship. And when a righteous man begins to be a friend of God, it is the man himself who is changed . . .

(On the Trinity, 5, 16, 17; in JUR-3, 76)

Therefore He loved all His saints before the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; but when they are converted and find them; then they are said to begin to be loved by Him, that what is said may be said in that way in which it can be comprehended by human affections. So also, when He is said to be angry with the unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they are changed, not He: just as the light is troublesome to weak eyes, pleasant to those that are strong; namely, by their change, not its own.

(On the Trinity, 5, 16, 17; in NPNF 1, Vol. 3)

‘The Lord has made a faithful oath unto David, and He shall not repent’ Psalm 131:11. What means, ‘has made an oath’? Hath confirmed a promise through Himself. What means, ‘He shall not repent’? He will not change.** For God suffers not the pain of repentance**, nor is He deceived in any matter, so that He would wish to correct that wherein He has erred. But as when a man repents of anything, he wishes to change what he has done; thus where you hear that God repents, look for an actual change. God does it differently from you, although He calls it by the name of repentance; for thou dost it, because you had erred; while He does it, because He avenges, or frees. He changed Saul’s kingdom, when He repented, as it is said: and in the very passage where the Scripture says, ‘It repented Him;’ it is said a little after, ‘for He is not a man that He should repent.’ When therefore He changes His works through His immutable counsel, He is said to repent on account of this very change, not of His counsel, but of His work. But He promised this so as not to change it. Just as this passage also says: ‘The Lord sware, and will not repent, You are a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec;’ so also since this was promised so that it should not be changed, because it must needs happen and be permanent; he says, ‘The Lord has made a faithful oath unto David, and He shall not repent; Of the fruit of your body shall I set upon your seat.’ He might have said, ‘of the fruit of your loins,’ wherefore did He choose to say, ‘Of the fruit of your body’? Had He said that also, it would have been true; but He chose to say with a further meaning, Ex fructu ventris, because Christ was born of a woman without the man.

(Commentary on the Psalms, 132, 11; in NPNF 1, Vol. 8)

 

[Vouthon]

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376 - 444)

When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscription and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although He is above all understanding. We were speaking of Him in a human way; for there was no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us.

(Commentary on the Psalms, On Ps. 11[12]:3; in JUR-3, 217-218)

Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540 - 604)

God is called jealous, angered, repentant, merciful, and foreknowing. These simply mean that, because He guards the chastity of every soul, He can, in human fashion, be called jealous, although He is not subject to any mental torment. Because He moves against faults, He is said to be angered, although He is moved by no disturbance of equanimity. And because He that is immutable changes what He willed, He is said to repent, although what changes is a thing and not His counsel.

(Moral Teachings From Job, 20, 32, 63; in JUR-3, 317)

St. Anselm (c. 1033-1109)

How he is compassionate and passionless. God is compassionate, in terms of our experience, because we experience the effect of compassion. God is not compassionate, in terms of his own being, because he does not experience the feeling (affectus) of compassion.

But how are you compassionate, and, at the same time, passionless? For, if you are passionless, you do not feel sympathy; and if you do not feel sympathy, your heart is not wretched from sympathy for the wretched ; but this it is to be compassionate. But if you are not compassionate, whence comes so great consolation to the wretched? How, then, are you compassionate and not compassionate, O Lord, unless because you are compassionate in terms of our experience, and not compassionate in terms of your being.

Truly, you are so in terms of our experience, but you are not so in terms of your own. For, when you behold us in our wretchedness, we experience the effect of compassion, but you do not experience the feeling. Therefore, you are both compassionate, because you do save the wretched, and spare those who sin against you; and not compassionate because you are affected by no sympathy for wretchedness