Question about benefit of God

[Lucius_Marius]

Salve!

I was reading “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” by Abbot Vonier and came upon the following passage in the first chapter:

Before it is possible to think of man’s enrichment through the grace of Christ’s redemption, we have to assume that much greater result of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, which is aptly expressed in the term “Atonement”, by which is meant, not directly the benefit fo man, but benefit of God: that full restoration of what had been taken from God through man’s sin, His honor and glory. Christ’s act on the cross has given back to the Father all that was ever taken from Him by man, and the divine rights have been fully restored.

Now, I cannot in any way understand how God could lose anything on our account, how His honor and glory could be affected by our tansgression. And how could God benefit if He lacks nothing in His perfection? This is not the first time I came across this idea in a book of theology, and it baffles me.

Hopefully someone can explain this to me!

gratias maximas vobis ago.

 

[bzkoss236]

Salve!

I was reading “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” by Abbot Vonier and came upon the following passage in the first chapter:

Now, I cannot in any way understand how God could lose anything on our account, how His honor and glory could be affected by our tansgression. And how could God benefit if He lacks nothing in His perfection? This is not the first time I came across this idea in a book of theology, and it baffles me.

Hopefully someone can explain this to me!

gratias maximas vobis ago.

Doesn’t make sense to me either, as I’ve always understood sin to not take away from God, but to take away from us and our relationship with God.

 

[Lucius_Marius]

Hmm… I thought you wise folks here would be able to answer me this quicker! Anyone else can help? Truly, for me it’s not just a casual question, for I ‘live’ through theology, not just learn.

 

[Birdmanman]

Hmm… I thought you wise folks here would be able to answer me this quicker! Anyone else can help? Truly, for me it’s not just a casual question, for I ‘live’ through theology, not just learn.

Perhaps the distinction is between the intrinsic good properties of God (which are perfect and one in Him) and ‘Cambridge properties’ of God’s relationship with us (His honor and glory being a relationship between us and Him whereby He is honored and glorified by us). If John is 5’, and Tim is at first 4’ and then becomes 6’; a change occured in Tim’s height, and a change occured between the relation between Tim’s height and John’s height, but a change did not occur in John’s height.

In my understand of “benefit”, I interpret it to mean “to do good for the other”; simply because God’s perfection and goodness is not increased or affected by someone failing to do good for Him, does not mean that someone cannot actually do good for Him. It would be like if I were loving God, and then stopped loving God; God lost my love, which should rightly be His, but He is perfect love in Itself, so He suffered no real loss in the ‘amount’ or quality or perfection of love He Himself has for Himself.

I could be entirely wrong, but this is my attempt to interpret what you have read. Also, what you read could simply have been wrong (no disrespect to the author), especially if you notice anywhere where this might contradict the Catechism.

 

[bcuster]

Perhaps the distinction is between the intrinsic good properties of God (which are perfect and one in Him) and ‘Cambridge properties’ of God’s relationship with us (His honor and glory being a relationship between us and Him whereby He is honored and glorified by us). If John is 5’, and Tim is at first 4’ and then becomes 6’; a change occured in Tim’s height, and a change occured between the relation between Tim’s height and John’s height, but a change did not occur in John’s height.

In my understand of “benefit”, I interpret it to mean “to do good for the other”; simply because God’s perfection and goodness is not increased or affected by someone failing to do good for Him, does not mean that someone cannot actually do good for Him. It would be like if I were loving God, and then stopped loving God; God lost my love, which should rightly be His, but He is perfect love in Itself, so He suffered no real loss in the ‘amount’ or quality or perfection of love He Himself has for Himself.

I could be entirely wrong, but this is my attempt to interpret what you have read. Also, what you read could simply have been wrong (no disrespect to the author), especially if you notice anywhere where this might contradict the Catechism.

I think Birdman has a point here. God is totally perfect in himself. If God is not perfect in himself, he is not God. If God can lose something he once had, he is not God. Therefore Salvation is solely for the benefit of man not God. (This is a paraphrase of FJ Sheed, Theology for Beginners).

Note: I use gender pronouns fully aware that God is not male or female; however since Jesus in male it is easier to assume the male pronoun).

 

[Birdmanman]

Perhaps the distinction is between the intrinsic good properties of God (which are perfect and one in Him) and ‘Cambridge properties’ of God’s relationship with us (His honor and glory being a relationship between us and Him whereby He is honored and glorified by us). If John is 5’, and Tim is at first 4’ and then becomes 6’; a change occured in Tim’s height, and a change occured between the relation between Tim’s height and John’s height, but a change did not occur in John’s height.

In my understand of “benefit”, I interpret it to mean “to do good for the other”; simply because God’s perfection and goodness is not increased or affected by someone failing to do good for Him, does not mean that someone cannot actually do good for Him. It would be like if I were loving God, and then stopped loving God; God lost my love, which should rightly be His, but He is perfect love in Itself, so He suffered no real loss in the ‘amount’ or quality or perfection of love He Himself has for Himself.

I could be entirely wrong, but this is my attempt to interpret what you have read. Also, what you read could simply have been wrong (no disrespect to the author), especially if you notice anywhere where this might contradict the Catechism.

The definition of glory (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary):
a : praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent : renown
b : worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

The definition of honor (ibid.):
a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition

It seems both of these definitions imply that glory and honor are relational, “Cambridge properties” of God. By analogy, we can talk about God’s “popularity”; surely whether or not God is more or less popular on earth does not affect the intrinsic perfection of God, but God losing popularity does detract from “God’s popularity”. Likewise, if glory is understood as distinction extended by common consent, or praise, then our praise of Him here on earth may dwindle, and so His glory, strictly in the relational sense, might dwindle (although He will still remain perfectly Glorious in Himself). And so with honor; God is perfectly honorable, but the actual amount of public esteem, relational honor, given to God might vary depending on what the public does.

Above I am speaking purely relationally, and not about a property of God in and of Himself. If the words “glory” and “honor” mean something intrinsic to God, some property of God in and of Himself, then they would necessarily be perfect (and also one with all the ‘other’ properties, and also each property would be a mere analogy we humans make to the true perfection of God which we attempt to explain by these properties of analogy).

Nevertheless, a relational fact about God (“God is getting more popular these days”, “God is getting more publicly esteemed in the U.S.”, “I am working for the greater glory of God”) can still be properly called “God’s”, as in, it is owned by God or it is of or about God. Examples of this: “God’s worship is increasing on earth”, “God’s reputation has fallen flat among satanists”.

 

[inocente]

Hopefully someone can explain this to me!

If the page cited below is accurate, the paragraph quoted in the OP is setting itself up to be knocked down. Vonier’s point is that it isn’t the main aspect of Catholic doctrine, as immediately after he says:

*It is not an absurd hypothesis to think of Christ’s great act of atonement as having an exclusively divine side — that is to say, Christ could have died on the Cross with the exclusive purpose of giving back to the Father all the glory which He had lost through man’s transgression, without the human race being in any way the better for it. But this is merely an hypothesis, though a perfectly rational one.

Actually Catholic doctrine says that Christ’s sacrifice, besides being an atonement, was also a redemption — in other words, a buying back into spiritual liberty of the human race which had become the slave of evil.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2012/01/12/faith-and-the-sacraments-abbot-vonier/*

 

[Lucius_Marius]

Thank you birdman, I think it’s making more sense now.

So what you mean, is that honor and glory are ment in the ‘relational’ sense, i.e. the human relationship between God and us, and not in the absolute sense of honor and glory that is in Him.

Christ’s death made it possible for us to reach a higher level of:

a : praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent : renown
b : worshipful praise, honor, and thanksgiving

The definition of honor (ibid.):
a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition

So it was the change in relationship, whilst nothing changed in God Himself (as is obvious!)

If the page cited below is accurate, the paragraph quoted in the OP is setting itself up to be knocked down. Vonier’s point is that it isn’t the main aspect of Catholic doctrine, as immediately after he says:

I think that’s not quite true, for Vonier said that both the attonement and the redemption are true, although in theory God could have only have instituted attonement, whilst leaving out redemption. But anyway, that’s not important, friend thanks for trying to help.

 

[empther]

Let’s take a look at the stupid remarks of the quote given in post 1

full restoration of what had been taken from God through man’s sin, His honor and glory. Christ’s act on the cross has given back to the Father all that was ever taken from Him by man, and the divine rights have been fully restored.

God cannot in anyway lose anything, or get anything back. His honor and glory are in no way affected whether or not he creates the universe.
I don’t know how to express it more clearly than that.

People say stupid things. Even people who should know better like this Abbot say stupid things. Don’t lose any sleep over it.

People get confused because they’re emotionally attached to something. It’s like Theresa said:…

… That’s not what I said. HAL didn’t “want” anything. He didn’t “choose“. I shook my head.
… “It’s their fault if they don’t get it” I said to Nancy. “Everything has been explained. Nothing is understood.”
… People didn’t understand because they didn’t get what they wanted, an intelligent alien that could communicate and negotiate with them. They got me after I survived an assassination attempt by my own President. No wonder they didn’t get it! They were afraid.

 

[Birdmanman]

Let’s take a look at the stupid remarks of the quote given in post 1

God cannot in anyway lose anything, or get anything back. His honor and glory are in no way affected whether or not he creates the universe.
I don’t know how to express it more clearly than that.

People say stupid things. Even people who should know better like this Abbot say stupid things. Don’t lose any sleep over it.

People get confused because they’re emotionally attached to something. It’s like Theresa said:…

Hey empther,
You’re definitely right that the words of this abbot are not anything to lose sleep over, he may have been mistaken, and I think he put what he said confusingly, but I still think things related to God may be lost, as I said in my post, that God may “lose” popular acclaim on earth, God may “lose” my devotion; the Israelites may ‘lose’ His Ark of the Covenant or His temple, God may have the praise He should have been given by us returned to Him. These are not changes in God, and these are not lackings in God, these are changes in ourselves, and in our relationship with God (the change in relationship is purely on our part, God remains eternally loving despite whatever we do to reject or exclude ourselves from receiving that love).

If, however, the abbot meant God’s honor and God’s glory as something in God (facets of God, one in God), like how we say “God’s Omniscience” or “God’s
Power” or “God’s Holiness” and not something that is merely a relationship between us and God or is in us, then the abbot is wrong, as you say.