So, who is responsible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vz71 said:
Perhaps I missed it.

Can you please quote the part that places God as an active participant in sin?
Click to expand...
Here it is (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm). “69. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)”. Also “70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)” - which is the same as #69 with a slightly different wording. This means that every action we do is contingent upon God maintaining our body. Whether it is a good deed or a murder, if God would not “keep” our body in existence, the act would not happen. And since “25. God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)” whatever we do is in accordance with God’s will. We cannot “force” God to do anything that God does not will. Simple.
 
Spock said:
Here it is (jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm). “69. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)”. Also “70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)” - which is the same as #69 with a slightly different wording. This means that every action we do is contingent upon God maintaining our body. Whether it is a good deed or a murder, if God would not “keep” our body in existence, the act would not happen. And since “25. God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)” whatever we do is in accordance with God’s will. We cannot “force” God to do anything that God does not will. Simple.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I am still not seeing it.

Where is it stated that God is an active participant in sin?
 
Spock said:
…
It does not really matter. God personally maintained the gas chambers during the Holocaust. That comes from the dogma.

But to answer your question explictly, he must have “approved”. From the other dogma about God’s immutability, it follows that nothing we do can “sway” God’s mind. If we tried to do something that God does not “approve”, he would simply not maintain the pertinent parts of the universe and the act would not happen. Of course we would never “know” that, but that is beside the point.
Click to expand...
Spock, how do you make the leap from “allow” to “approve” .

To illustrate; when I lived in a rougher part of Boston there were some gang wars going on outside the window of my apartment, guys shooting each other and when I looked down the street there were the cops sitting in their cars watching it all unfold. Only when the gangs were finished shooting each other did the cops move in and clean up.
Now the cops allowed that situation but they did not approve it.

Immutability;
Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.
 
Spock said:
God is an active participant in everything.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what I am referring to when I stated that your interpretation of the dogma is flawed.

Nowhere in the document does it state that God actively participates in sin.
That is simply a conclusion that you have drawn.

Given the limited information you have worked with, it does not appear a bad conclusion. But given the whole of the catechism and dogma, it is incorrect.
 
You said:
Spock, how do you make the leap from “allow” to “approve” .

To illustrate; when I lived in a rougher part of Boston there were some gang wars going on outside the window of my apartment, guys shooting each other and when I looked down the street there were the cops sitting in their cars watching it all unfold. Only when the gangs were finished shooting each other did the cops move in and clean up.
Now the cops allowed that situation but they did not approve it.
Click to expand...
I think this is a very good example of how our free will works, not that I necessarily approve of the cops just sitting by letting the bad guys kill each other, just as Spock evidently doesn’t approve of God just sitting by and watching all the evil men do.
 
Spock said:
No, this is not what I said. This cannot be the “best” possible world, because it changes. Something that is “best” (or “worst”) is static. There is no “better” than the “best”, there is no “worse” than the “worst”.
Click to expand...
But it was the best possible world when it was created.
And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. Genesis 1:31
Click to expand...
You said it yourself, death (or change) didn’t exist in the garden. It was man that screwed it up.
 
You said:
Spock, how do you make the leap from “allow” to “approve” .

To illustrate; when I lived in a rougher part of Boston there were some gang wars going on outside the window of my apartment, guys shooting each other and when I looked down the street there were the cops sitting in their cars watching it all unfold. Only when the gangs were finished shooting each other did the cops move in and clean up.
Now the cops allowed that situation but they did not approve it.
Click to expand...
The cops did not have the power to prevent it. The cops did not actively maintain the bullets in their trajectory. This is a very good case when the analogies fail. You cannot equate the unlimited power of God to the limited tools available to the cops.
You said:
Immutability;
Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.
Click to expand...
I am not sure what does this have to do with “immutability”. At best it shows that no one, not even the pope has as much faith as a grain of mustard seed. No one has enough “faith” to move not just a mountain, but even a speck of dust.
 
vz71 said:
And that is exactly what I am referring to when I stated that your interpretation of the dogma is flawed.

Nowhere in the document does it state that God actively participates in sin.
That is simply a conclusion that you have drawn.

Given the limited information you have worked with, it does not appear a bad conclusion. But given the whole of the catechism and dogma, it is incorrect.
Click to expand...
When “everything” is mentioned, there is no need to enumerate the specifics.
 
seagal said:
But it was the best possible world when it was created.
You said it yourself, death (or change) didn’t exist in the garden. It was man that screwed it up.
Click to expand...
With God’s active participation. According to the dogma, nothing can happen without God’s active participation.
 
Spock said:
The cops did not have the power to prevent it. The cops did not actively maintain the bullets in their trajectory. This is a very good case when the analogies fail. You cannot equate the unlimited power of God to the limited tools available to the cops.
Click to expand...
The cops have the power to intervene, that would be their job, they chose however to allow the evil to pass by and do its worst before they acted and brought the evildoers to justice…🙂
Spock said:
I am not sure what does this have to do with “immutability”. At best it shows that no one, not even the pope has as much faith as a grain of mustard seed. No one has enough “faith” to move not just a mountain, but even a speck of dust.
Click to expand...
‘Moving mountains’ was an idiom of its time, it meant to resolve any situation.
So anything can be done by people or it can remain undone by people without affecting Gods immutability.
 
ignatius777 said:
Cite your source for this please.
Click to expand...
This has been asked a few times now…
vz71 said:
Perhaps I missed it.
Can you please quote the part that places God as an active participant in sin?
Click to expand...
vz71 said:
Sorry, but I am still not seeing it.
Where is it stated that God is an active participant in sin?
Click to expand...
Apparently no such documentation exists.
It is simply his own flawed interpretation based upon a select few dogmas while ignoring all other documentation that is there.
 
vz71 said:
This has been asked a few times now…

Apparently no such documentation exists.
It is simply his own flawed interpretation based upon a select few dogmas while ignoring all other documentation that is there.
Click to expand...
Agreed! Spock seems fairly intelligent but most of his/her comments on church teaching seem based more on personal feelings rather then on knowledge of church teachings
 
ignatius777 said:
Cite your source for this please.
Click to expand...
I already did, but here comes again: The URL is: jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

Extracted from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr Ludwig Ott; Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1974.

See the article by EWTN expert, Colin B. Donovan, STL, on Heresy, Schism and Apostacy

Footnote:

[1] The English translation of Dr Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” has:

“The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Consecration when they are received validly but unworthily, revive after the removal of the moral indisposition, that is, the sacramental grace is conferred subsequently. (Sent. communis.)” See A CRITIQUE by Fr. Camillus Hay, O.F.M. OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA

See also “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” [of the Council of Trent], The Devin-Adair Company, 1912, p.61 - Session VII March 3, 1547, Decree on the Sacraments, On the Sacraments in General. Canon IX, AND
in somewhat more modern terms, “The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation”, 1955, by Jesuit Fathers of St Mary’s College, p.264; my copy published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1973:

Canon 9. “If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders, a character is not imprinted on the soul–that is, a kind of indelible spiritual sign whereby these sacraments cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.”
F. John Loughnan
Revised Feb. 16, 2001​

Specifically, the dogmas #69 and #70:
  1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
  2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
If you have problems, please go directly to the author. To conclude: “Which part of every don’t you understand?”.
 
Spock “co-operates” does not mean that God provoked it. It means that God enabled it through His sustenance of the universe. Why does that make Him responsible in the way you are talking?
 
Spock said:
Let’s go on. There is another dogma, number 25, which says: “God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)” So even if the decision is made by the shooter, it is in accordance with God’s will, since God cannot be “changed” - God is immutable. It is impossible that the “maintenance of that bullet” would be contradictory to God’s will, since in this case the shooter would “force” God to change his mind - which is absurd.
Click to expand...
God’s immutability in the case of mans’ freedom means that He consistently wills that man’s will be free from His, regardless of whether or not it’s impossible for man to take any action based on his own will without Gods enabling it. Otherwise we’d saying that it’s a logical contradiction to assert that, simultaneously, 1) a creator-god exists, and 2) man has free will.
 
dskysmine said:
Spock “co-operates” does not mean that God provoked it. It means that God enabled it through His sustenance of the universe. Why does that make Him responsible in the way you are talking?
Click to expand...
It’s a bit like blaming the telephone wire, for the gossip that runs along it.

Free will is a good thing. That people misuse it is not the fault of free will, nor God who gives us free will, but of the people who misuse it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top