Perfect Happiness

[davidv]

No…?

I don’t understand the question.

However, the instructions for naming a pope is not Dogma.

True, but I don’t understand its relevance.

When you say, “person of Jesus” (the second person of the Holy Trinity),
Are you involving the Body of Christ (through the hypostatic union)?

No. Why did you think so?

If the Church is literally the Body of Christ, then
It would change the meaning of the word, “people”
(The Holy Trinity is three persons, one God),
Which replaced the word, “men”
In many religious texts.

Then what’s left?

Something that isnt’ a false dicotomy.

Are you saying that,
The Church is symbolically
And literally the Body of Christ?

Among others as where revealed in the selection from the Catechism quoted earlier.

The Catechism’s primary objective was not to condemn errors…

I would argue that this is a secondary objective. The primary one, also found in the introduction.

CCC:

With today’s promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a “valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion” and as a “sure norm for teaching the faith,” as well as a “sure and authentic reference text” for preparing local catechisms

So, as I said before…
I don’t think you answered my question.

I’m no longer clear what your question is.

My apologies if I offended you,

No offense taken

Conscientious objection to instructions (but not Dogma),
Is permissible within the Catholic Church,

True, but obedience is still required.

In what way do you agree?

In the way that one hopes to regain what one has lost.

Here’s my take…

Happiness = Goodness = Existence
​

I don’t see these a equal. Can you explain how this is so?

All “men” are happier,

If they remember being healed,

And do not remember being sick.
​

Since all “men” naturally desire Happiness,
Then all “men” naturally desire to know Happiness and not know unhappiness.
If Happiness were a lack of unhappiness,

Then Happiness is not a something,
​

But is a lack of a something,
​

And it would be hopeless,
​

To have happiness,
​

But instead,
​

nothing.
​

I don’t agree that happiness is a lack. Happiness is a positive atribute, not a lack. The very words testify to this. unhappy = not happy.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I sounds like your understanding is that,

Yes or no,
Good or evil,
Truth or error (like Pilate, Jn 18:37-38),
Are (and are not),
False dichotomies.

Do you believe that you are like Pilate?

I don’t see these a equal.

So,
You understand them as equal?

Can you explain how this is so?

Yes.

In the way that one hopes to regain what one has lost.

In what way would one want to ever regain illness after being healed?

“Evil exists where good is lacking; so God in knowing every good thing, must also know evil, just as in seeing light we also see darkness. To know a thing by way of something else is an imperfect way of knowing it if the thing can be known in itself. But evil cannot be known in itself, since it is nothing but a lack of good; it can only be defined or known by way of good.”

Summa Theologica: A Concise Translation

You didn’t respond to this,
Maybe I can explain it better,

Being healed is a happy thought,
(Even though it assumes we were ill)
Being ill is an unhappy thought.
(Even though it may assume we were healthy)

Or maybe “The Ascent of Mount Carmel” is more helpful…

“A man would never lose this tranquility (of soul and peace in all things, in adversity as well as prosperity) if he were to forget ideas and lay aside his thoughts, and also, insofar as possible, withdraw from dealing with others and from hearing and seeing. Our nature is so unstable and fragile that even when well disciplined it will hardly fail to stumble upon thoughts with the memory; and these thoughts become a disturbance to a soul that was residing in peace and tranquility through the forgetfulness of all. As a result Jeremias proclaimed: ‘With the memory I shall remember, and my soul will faint in me with sorrow (Lam 3:20.)’”

The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book III, Chapter 7
St John of the Cross

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Yes. Hopefully in a way that in not disrespectful and is constructive.

The question is rhetorical for your own benefit.
Let me know if you have any questions for me.

In what way would one want to ever regain illness after being healed?

We hope to be healed and never return to illness.
Hoping to see and hear only Happiness.

“The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.”

True, but necessary obedience to the instruction of God is required,
Who speaks to our conscience,
And not necessarily to the instructions (except dogma) of the Church.
There is a hierarchy in jurisdiction.

“A man would never lose this tranquility (of soul and peace in all things, in adversity as well as prosperity) if he were to forget ideas and lay aside his thoughts, and also, insofar as possible, withdraw from dealing with others and from hearing and seeing. Our nature is so unstable and fragile that even when well disciplined it will hardly fail to stumble upon thoughts with the memory; and these thoughts become a disturbance to a soul that was residing in peace and tranquility through the forgetfulness of all. As a result Jeremias proclaimed: ‘With the memory I shall remember, and my soul will faint in me with sorrow (Lam 3:20.)’”

The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book III, Chapter 7
St John of the Cross

I should add,
There can be further purification (purgation) after death…

“Each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only through fire.”

1 Corinthians 3:13-15

(Evidence of Purgatory is also found at Matthew 12:32, 1 Peter 3:18-20, 1 Peter 4:6, 2 Timothy 1:16-18, 1 Corinthians 15:29-30)

 

[davidv]

I sounds like your understanding is that,

Yes or no,
Good or evil,
Truth or error (like Pilate, Jn 18:37-38),
Are (and are not),
False dichotomies.

Would you please explain why you think this?

Do you believe that you are like Pilate?

No. I recognize that Jesus is Truth. I don’t need to ask as Pilate did.

So,
You understand them as equal?

No. In fact I said the opposite.

Yes.

Then please explain.

In what way would one want to ever regain illness after being healed?

Please explain the question. Why would I hope for illness?

You didn’t respond to this,
Maybe I can explain it better,

Being healed is a happy thought,
(Even though it assumes we were ill)
Being ill is an unhappy thought.
(Even though it may assume we were healthy)

Or maybe “The Ascent of Mount Carmel” is more helpful…

I don’t find this any more helpful in explaining your point.

 

[davidv]

The question is rhetorical for your own benefit.
Let me know if you have any questions for me.

See post #44.

{snip}

 

[Psychotheosophy]

The question is rhetorical for your own benefit.
Let me know if you have any questions for me.

I should apologize,
I initially hoped that you would answer,
But then I realized you probably weren’t.

The Church teaches that it doesn’t know,
If Pilate (or even Judas) have,
Entered eternal life,
So I hope that you,
Aren’t offended.

Would you please explain why you think this?

Then please explain.

Please explain the question. Why would I hope for illness?

Why should I explain these things if you already agree with them?

No. I recognize that Jesus is Truth. I don’t need to ask as Pilate did.
No. In fact I said the opposite.

So,
“No” is (and isn’t) “Yes”?

I don’t find this any more helpful in explaining your point.

What would be helpful?

 

[davidv]

{snip}
What would be helpful?

Responses that don’t twist what I wrote into something I didn’t write.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Responses that don’t twist what I wrote into something I didn’t write.

So,
Twisting and not twisting what you wrote,
Is an obstacle to your understanding?

 

[davidv]

So,
Twisting and not twisting what you wrote,
Is an obstacle to your understanding?

How is this related to the OP?

 

[Psychotheosophy]

How is this related to the OP?
Psychotheosophy;6535256:

Do you believe in Perfect Happiness?

I sounds like,
Something twisted (something which is true and not true)
Is an obstacle to understanding.

Perfect Happiness,
(Defined as Perfect Happiness and not Perfect Happiness)
Is an obstacle to understanding Perfect Happiness.

And so,

If we dialogue about Perfect Happiness,
It is unhelpful to define Perfect Happiness,
As Perfect Happiness and not Perfect Happiness.

 

[davidv]

I sounds like,
Something twisted (something which is true and not true)
Is an obstacle to understanding.

Perfect Happiness,
(Defined as Perfect Happiness and not Perfect Happiness)
Is an obstacle to understanding Perfect Happiness.

And so,

If we dialogue about Perfect Happiness,
It is unhelpful to define Perfect Happiness,
As Perfect Happiness and not Perfect Happiness.

Terms undefined result in monologue, not dialogue.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Terms undefined result in monologue, not dialogue.

Which is why that in dialogue,
Questions need to be answered,
Especially questions regarding premises.

Responses that don’t twist what I wrote into something I didn’t write.

Given all you wrote,
I didn’t twist anything you wrote.
I sought to clarify what you wrote.

However,

Following the Principle of Existence,
(In which something can’t be and not be at the same time),
A premise which is self-contradicting,
Is self-annihilating.

Therefore,

In the end,
One contrary must be removed to have the other,
(Though this can be an unhappy task when redefining Happiness.)

 

[davidv]

Which is why that in dialogue,
Questions need to be answered,
Especially questions regarding premises.

Given all you wrote,
I didn’t twist anything you wrote.
I sought to clarify what you wrote.

However,

Following the Principle of Existence,
(In which something can’t be and not be at the same time),
A premise which is self-contradicting,
Is self-annihilating.

Therefore,

In the end,
One contrary must be removed to have the other,
(Though this can be an unhappy task when redefining Happiness.)

And?

One of the Church’s happiness related teachings is:

CCC:

1718 The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:
We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated.13
How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you.14
God alone satisfies.15

Based on this, perfect happiness is the perfect satisfaction of our deepest natural desire. This satisfaction is only available to those who meet God face-to-face.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

And?

It depends…

Originally Posted by CCC

The Catechism can be misleading if not explained properly.

When you say “natural desire,”
Are you including
Lusting?
If so,
I would say,
No (alone and not yes).

Is it your understanding that,
No means no (alone and not yes)?

Considering those in the Church,
Who scandalized the Church,
By sexually abusing,
Are you saying that
The Church is the “One”
Who alone can fulfill
Perfect Happiness?

I would again say,
No (alone and not yes).

 

[prodigal-sun]

So,
Given all things said,
How does the Catholic Church
Officially define Perfect Happiness?

I don’t know if it even has “OFFICIALLY” defined what perfect happiness is. I would say look in the dictionary if you want the offical definition!

Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

I understand that the canonization of a saint
Requires associated miracles and,
The Summa was one of those miracles so,
We accept it as Catholic dogma.
So, how do we distinguish between,
Belief and false accusation?

The Summa was not one of those miracles… either you are lying, or you are ignorant of facts! Which is it?

Peace?

 

[prodigal-sun]

perfect happiness (god).

So,
if a man suffers physically,
and hopes to be healed,
then would he be,
perfectly happy?

maybe, maybe not!

 

[prodigal-sun]

You found the word “happiness” quite often,
But how does the Catechism distinguish,
Between Perfect Happiness,
And imperfect happiness,
Because that is the issue.

This might be an issue for you but my quess is that it is not for anyone else. I mean really, perfect happiness? ie. after a hard days work I’m perfectly happy when I get to sit and have a nice cool beer while enjoying my time with my family. But life tends to be something we live so I know as a resonable person that I will not be perfectly happy at all times in my life. The example above states this quite obviously. Peace!

 

[prodigal-sun]

After reading this whole thread this whole thread, You should probably rename yourself to pshycoBABBLE. Please go back and read this thread, you seem to have lost your way. If you were trying to actually make a point, I’m afraid you failed miserably. I can pretty much follow David through the dialouge you became more and more erratic in your thoughts and theory.

Peace!

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Peace?

Peace of Christ.

The Summa was not one of those miracles… either you are lying, or you are ignorant of facts! Which is it?

My understanding may be in error.
Could you please reference the miracles,
Associated with St. Thomas’ canonization?

After reading this whole thread this whole thread, You should probably rename yourself to pshycoBABBLE. Please go back and read this thread, you seem to have lost your way. If you were trying to actually make a point, I’m afraid you failed miserably. I can pretty much follow David through the dialouge you became more and more erratic in your thoughts and theory.

I believe that davidv can speak for himself.