Thoughts On Suffering

[Seven77]

 

6 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Exactly.   Why not have granted free will and freedom from sin to A and E like was given to Mary...

Huh? God DID "[grant] free will and freedom from sin to A and E [as he did] to Mary."

[Seven77]

7 hours ago, Maggyie said:

That's a great point. If God wills everything, did God will the Fall?

^will=ordain

Clearly he did not--but he did PERMIT the Fall (as the author says). Ergo, he PERMITTED death+suffering...but according to the sp. author and Credo, he ORDAINED death+suffering, which doesn't make sense.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Seven77

[Guest]

Evil Moral and Physical

Vatican - Catholic Catechsm quoted in previous post or posts: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM

Quote

 

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.¹⁷⁴ But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.¹⁷⁵

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.¹⁷⁶ He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.¹⁷⁷

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."¹⁷⁸

From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more",¹⁷⁹ brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

 

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Permissive Will of God

Vatican - Catholic Catechism   Quote:......311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.¹⁷⁶ He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it: For almighty God because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.^{177 (St Augustine) ...........}End Quote

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 

Huh? God DID "[grant] free will and freedom from sin to A and E [as he did] to Mary."

I don't type as thoroughly as I think. 

Was referring to the debate thread weeks ago, discussing Mary.  It was repeatedly stated that Mary had free will and was graced to be incapable of sin.  She did not sin, as she simply could not, as part of her inherent nature.   

If that was true, then why not have created all humanity with the same nature?  Would that have not prevented much future suffering?

[Guest]

Would a person have free will if it is impossible to sin?

[Anomaly]

21 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Would a person have free will if it is impossible to sin?

The answer was yes, but sinning wasn't possible as not her nature.  For example, a snake can't clap as a function of it's nature, but it can still move and do other things as it may want.  The ability to sin is not a requirement of free will.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Anomaly

[Nihil Obstat]

The ability to sin is a defect of free will, rather than a necessary feature. God cannot sin, and is free in a perfect manner.

[Guest]

Free will implies the ability to choose.  Adam and Eve were initially in a state of Sanctifying Grace and without an inclination towards, or even knowledge of. what is "not God" i.e. evil. They still had free will however.  They are tempted to defy God and they do because they indeed have free will. After the Fall, original sin comes into the picture and mankind is not born into a state of Sanctifying Grace and has an inclination to evil and ability to identify between good and evil - and of course they have free will to choose between the two.

Mary is born free from original sin or (I presume) in the state of Adam and Eve before the Fall. She also has free will. In being preserved from original sin, wouldn't Mary still be subject possibly to temptation from Satan - as Jesus indeed was also?

 Mary, like her Son, was probably tempted but chose (free will) to never sin.

1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

The answer was yes, but sinning wasn't possible as not her nature.  For example, a snake can't clap as a function of it's nature, but it can still move and do other things as it may want.  The ability to sin is not a requirement of free will.

But wouldn't the above make Mary to not possess a fully human nature?  Isn't free will intrinsic to human nature? Jesus was tempted but did not sin.  But (I presume) because He had free will, He had the ability to choose sin.  What I am saying is that Mary was conceived and born free from original sin by a special act of God.  However, her sinless state for her entire life came about through her free will and co-operation (choice of free will) with the exceptional Grace she is given -  and Mary is Graced with Supernatural Grace from conception and maintains and grows in Grace all her life through her free will and her personal choices. She is orientated from conception to God and to the good and continually chooses (free will) them.  Just as Adam and Eve had no inclination to evil prior to the Fall and yet, because they have free will, they chose to defy God - hence sin enters creation.  Mary, like A and E prior Fall, has no inclination to evil and chooses (free will) all through her life to remain free of sin (evil).

If it is impossible to sin (i.e. choice is thus denied) - is one fully human with a totally free will?

Quote

The ability to sin is not a requirement of free will.

Ability to sin seems to me to come about through knowing what is good and evil and with that comes an inclination to evil  ( result of the Fall and consequent original sin).  Free will is having the ability to choose between the two.

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Nihil Obstat]

From Libertas:

5. Liberty, then, as We have said, belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many. Now, since everything chosen as a means is viewed as good or useful, and since good, as such, is the proper object of our desire, it follows that freedom of choice is a property of the will, or, rather, is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect. In other words, the good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more, because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given. No sensible man can doubt that judgment is an act of reason, not of the will. The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.

 

6. Since, however, both these faculties are imperfect, it is possible, as is often seen, that the reason should propose something which is not really good, but which has the appearance of good, and that the will should choose accordingly. For, as the possibility of error, and actual error, are defects of the mind and attest its imperfection, so the pursuit of what has a false appearance of good, though a proof of our freedom, just as a disease is a proof of our vitality, implies defect in human liberty. The will also, simply because of its dependence on the reason, no sooner desires anything contrary thereto than it abuses its freedom of choice and corrupts its very essence. Thus it is that the infinitely perfect God, although supremely free, because of the supremacy of His intellect and of His essential goodness, nevertheless cannot choose evil; neither can the angels and saints, who enjoy the beatific vision. St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery. It will suffice to quote his subtle commentary on the words of our Lord: "Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin."(3) "Everything," he says, "is that which belongs to it a naturally. When, therefore, it acts through a power outside itself, it does not act of itself, but through another, that is, as a slave. But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, `Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin.' "(4) Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term "wise man" was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

The ability to sin is not a requirement of free will.

 I think that actual "ability to sin" comes from our fallen nature - but it takes an act of free will to activate that ability and to actually sin.  Just as free will (in Grace) can suppress that ability - hold it in check.  This is why free will on some level(i.e. consent) is necessary for sin per se.  If my will is not free to choose, it is impossible to sin.

Edited July 1, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Credo in Deum]

On June 30, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Seven77 said:

The author of the book is a Jesuit… it would be good to ask a good, solid Jesuit about this quote.

Something about it bothers me… all evils except sin are from God? All evils are consequences of sin! This seems like something self refuting! its absolutely maddening....

 What do I mean that all evils are consequences of sin? According to the church fathers, sin and death are practically synonymous. Neither is ordained by God--- this follows from their writings. Both are permitted.

 Did God ordain the sin of our 1st parents? No-- we establish this from the author. Now having answered that in the negative... did God ordain the introduction of the corruption of death? if you say yes to that then how can you say no to the 1st question?

In all sin there are two things to be considered: guilt and punishment. Now God is the Author of the punishment which attaches to sin, but in no way of the guilt. So that, if we take away the guilt, there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. The evils then of punishment, like the evils of nature, originate in the Divine Will. 

Sin is comprised of two things.  The intention and the consequence. The intention holds the guilt (the moral evil): Adam and Eve intended to disobey God. The Punishment/Consequence: Death is not evil. God willed that Adam and Eve would suffer death as a consequence of sin. The death they experience is therefore not an evil thing and God is not evil for willing it.   

[Seven77]

17 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

In all sin there are two things to be considered: guilt and punishment. Now God is the Author of the punishment which attaches to sin, but in no way of the guilt. So that, if we take away the guilt, there is no evil belonging to the punishment which is not caused by God, or is not pleasing to Him. The evils then of punishment, like the evils of nature, originate in the Divine Will. 

Sin is comprised of two things.  The intention and the consequence. The intention holds the guilt (the moral evil): Adam and Eve intended to disobey God. The Punishment/Consequence: Death is not evil. God willed that Adam and Eve would suffer death as a consequence of sin. The death they experience is therefore not an evil thing and God is not evil for willing it.   

God wills (permits) death + suffering as a means of expiation. It thus becomes a means for good and therefore not an evil. By nature its evil, by grace its good. The entrance of death + suffering in the first place was NOT ordained. However, here's what I think that Jesuit priest is REALLY saying: [objectively speaking, death + suffering is not ordained (but it is permitted), however, subjectively speaking]  it is ordained AND permitted. For example, God did/does NOT ordain muscular dystrophy, BUT he ordained (in a mysterious way) for me to be born with muscular dystrophy. 

Edited July 2, 2016 by Seven77

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

also i now believe that the less we gather in Jesus name the Heavier the cross becomes. As when we gather in Jesus name we are inviting him into the mess of our own lives and the worlds to help us carry our cross. Jesus says " My yoke is easy and my burden light." When we are not inviting Jesus to carry our crosses than who is doing the work? The self.

"It is not by power or might but by the Spirit of God."

[WhiteLily]

The easiest, surest way to get to Heaven is to do the will of God in the present moment. The saints talk/stress about this. 

Though it can be difficult to do, but if we continue to ask for the grace to His will in the present moment and follow Him, He will be pleased. 

It may mean He may permit illness in your life, or other hardships. However, these are all meant to be for our good if we accept the will of God, whether ordained or permissive, in the present moment. If we accept the will of God here and now and offer all we have to Him, especially our misery, think of how many souls will be saved. 

If suffering does come your way, recieve it with joy. If you desire suffering, that's a special grace from God. Offer your sufferings to help save souls!

St. Teresa of Avila once saw the hand of God. She said she will want to suffer and offer pain for souls until the end of time to see His hand once more. 

Many other saints talk about offering their sufferings for poor souls. Our Lord also desires that we meditate on his Passion. If we unite our suffering to our Lord's suffering, many, many souls can/will be saved.

God bless you!