Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Vladimir on September 22, 2010, 12:32:57 AM
-
God is the First Cause.
But from whence do we know that God is pure actuality?
-
Here's a passage from Apologetics by Rt. Rev. Msgr. Glenn:
God is necessary being ; He cannot not-be ; He must exist : existence belongs to His very essence. We conclude perforce that God is Self-Existent Being. Obviously, God is not self-caused ; the term is a contradiction : it really means that a thing exists first and then gives itself existence--an obvious absurdity. God is not caused at all. He exists, not from Himself, but of Himself. He is Subsistent Being Itslef. Now, since God is wholly uncaused, and since there is no causality at all which is not rooted in Himself, there is nothing in God that is subject to the action of any cause. There is, in other words, nothing potential in God which the action of due cause could render actual ; nor is there anything in God which can be reduced from actuality to potentiality through the operation of adequate cause. For the "due cause" and "adequate cause" of which we speak do not exist, nor is there anything in God that could be subject to their action if they did. In a word, there is nothing potential about God at all ; He is Pure Actuality; he is the Pure Actuality of Existence.
-
If I may add my own observation, to see if I understand this myself.
God is Infinite Perfection. Imperfection is the only change possible from perfection, but it's impossible that God be imperfect, therefore God cannot change. Therefore there can be no potentiality in God, only actuality.
-
I have difficulty at times referring to God as "Infinite", or, an absence of boundary.
This makes me think of God as an endless blob of...something.
I think it is better to refer to God as Perfection itself, Goodness itself, Knowledge itself, etc. This doesn't put a limit on God, but simply says that if your eye vision is perfect, or you have something that is good and perfect, or you have knowledge about something, it's God's, not yours.
-
Also, it seems apparent that if God could change, then it would also be possible for Him to not-be, but God must necessarily exist. The only reason that it's not possible for us, humans, to not-be is because God preserves us. If He so willed it, He could annihilate us, body and soul, back to non-existence.
-
I believe you're right trad123
-
I suppose I shouldn't say "God is Infinite Perfection", but "God is Infinitely Perfect". I'm not sure if the difference in description is necessary.
I have difficulty at times referring to God as "Infinite", or, an absence of boundary.
This makes me think of God as an endless blob of...something.
I think it's OK to think of God as an endless perfect spirit, at least with the understanding that He exists outside of the bounds of creation, if I recall correctly what St. Augustine said in his Confessions.
From the same book and author (from first post, in thread):
What is God? we say : God is Self-Existent Being ; God is Subsistent Being Itself (the metaphysical essence of God, expressed in metaphysical definitions) ; or God is Infinite Spirit ; God is a Spirit Infinitely Perfect (the physical essence of God, expressed in physical definitions).
I think it is better to refer to God as Perfection itself, Goodness itself, Knowledge itself, etc. This doesn't put a limit on God, but simply says that if your eye vision is perfect, or you have something that is good and perfect, or you have knowledge about something, it's God's, not yours.
I think this next passage might clear things up:
Attributes, then are perfections possessed by a thing precisely because it is the kind of thing that it is. Now, we have seen that God is simple, and so God does not possess or have perfections distinct from Himself. God is one and indivisible, and all His perfections are of His essence : all that God has, God is. Properly speaking, therefore, God has no attributes. Still, it is impossible for the limited human mind to take a direct and all-embracing view of the unlimited God. Our study must follow a plan that seems to sever the divine perfections one from another and from the divine essence. In a somewhat similar manner, we are forced by our human limitations to study any great or majestic object in a fashion that may be called piecemeal. Thus we may look upon the stately Jungfrau ; we may view it from many angles ; each angle will give new impressions, new vistas of background, new shapes and contours : yet the mountain is a single peak. Surely, if we cannot behold even a bodily object on all sides in a single view ; if we cannot have an understanding of any intellectual principle in all its actual and possible applications by one simple unstudied grasp of mind ; then our unstudied view of the infinite God cannot be single all embracing vision or understanding. But let us keep clearly in mind, as we study the various attributes of God, that these are really not distinct from God, but are one with His undivided essence. God, in His very essence, is all that is perfect in limitless degree ; for God is simple and infinite.
-
with the understanding that He exists outside of the bounds of creation, if I recall correctly what St. Augustine said in his Confessions.
I was thinking of this:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110101.htm
Chapter 3. Everywhere God Wholly Fills All Things, But Neither Heaven Nor Earth Contains Him.
3. Since, then, You fill heaven and earth, do they contain You? Or, as they contain You not, do You fill them, and yet there remains something over? And where do You pour forth that which remains of You when the heaven and earth are filled? Or, indeed, is there no need that You who contains all things should be contained of any, since those things which You fill You fill by containing them? For the vessels which You fill do not sustain You, since should they even be broken You will not be poured forth. And when You are poured forth on us, Acts 2:18 You are not cast down, but we are uplifted; nor are You dissipated, but we are drawn together. But, as You fill all things, fill them with Your whole self, or, as even all things cannot altogether contain You, do they contain a part, and do all at once contain the same part? Or has each its own proper part— the greater more, the smaller less? Is, then, one part of You greater, another less? Or is it that You are wholly everywhere while nothing altogether contains You?
-
I agree that God is infinite. I just don't like using what seems to be a negation as a description for God, or an absence (absence of a boundary)
To think of God as perfection itself, or goodness itself, already seems to imply infinity.
For instance, if you take everything that is perfect in this world and lump it together, that doesn't necessarily mean that "perfection" has been used up, or has reached its limit. You could imagine adding another perfect cherry to the lump, and you would call it perfect. And this could go on to infinity, and "Perfect" ness would never be used up.
Likewise, if perfection itself is God, it is already implied that it can never be used up, and is infinite. The distinction I"m trying to make is that saying that God is infinitely perfect seems to be adding attributes to Him, whereas if you say he is Perfection itself, it immediately implies that it is indeed his essence and not just an attribute.
We are agreeing with each other pretty much one hundred percent. I just don't think that referring to God as something without boundary doesn't seem like it's an adequate description of God, that is, to say he is without something (a boundary).
-
How do you explain "not God"?
-
I would say total absence of existence.
-
Lybus,
You exist, yet you are not God.
-
Alright, someone correct me if I am wrong. I've been pondering this actually, for quite a while.
Everything I am comes from God.
What I mean is that I am in some sense an image of God; it is not in my nature to exist since I can't exist on my own.
I commit sins because I lack a few of the perfection of God. Whatever I lack is because I wasn't given it, either through some choice i made or some defect at birth.
I might be saying this loosely or using bad theology, but although I'm distinct from God, I borrow existence from Him. That is why I say that to be not God is to mean not to exist, since he has to be existence itself.
This is all based on St.Thomas's idea that God is perfectly simple. That Existence, happiness, joy, peace, security, truth, justice, all the "attributes" of God, are really the same thing, just seen from a different angle. Somehow God is able to give all this to us in a way that makes them seem different from each other.
Tell me if I am looking at this incorrectly.
-
You are, like all of us, a contingent being. There is only ONE Being who, by His very nature, subsists on His own -- that is why His name is...I AM.
FWIW, this is a rather deep matter, so ask for God's light and enjoy the process of trying to drink it all in as deeply as you can -- always realizing that you cannot exhaust this fountain :)
-
You are, like all of us, a contingent being. There is only ONE Being who, by His very nature, subsists on His own -- that is why His name is...I AM.
FWIW, this is a rather deep matter, so ask for God's light and enjoy the process of trying to drink it all in as deeply as you can -- always realizing that you cannot exhaust this fountain :)
alright, thanks!
-
There is the Creator, then there is the created, and by dint of being created, creation enjoys existence. This is a more fascinating subject than quantum physics. And why all eternity is not enough time to enjoy the Beatific Vision.
But what about the uncreated? Such as evil?
-
if you think about it, things that don't exist, like unicorns, might still exist potentially in God, in that it is possible for their creation.
But evil is different as it cannot be potentially in God. So evil is even less real than a unicorn. I never thought about it this way until I pondered it after seeing your question. =
-
You gave me a thought, Lybus, and I'm going to throw it out here even though I've not thought it through. I believe God made us creators, too----He gave us the world to fiddle with. Is it possible that we created evil?
-
Yes, I think we are creators as well, as we reflect God.
However, I don't think we are smart enough to come up with evil on our own, at least in the original sense that God created us. In the garden, there was a complete and total absence of any danger or any evil of any kind. Peace and security is in some sense the absence of evil and the absence of danger and reasons for anxiety. So if evil, or a corruption of perfection, was never seen before, and Adam and Eve were bathing in pure security and pure peace and pure perfection, what would give themselves to think that it was possible to take away that perfection, or that peace? What would make them even think that it was possible for there to even be anything to take it away?
I think evil actually came from the angels, who are smarter than us by an extraordinary magnitude. Some of the theologians of the church are of the opinion that the reason Lucifer fell was because he wanted to be more like God. Being an extraordinarily intelligent being, he would have known that he couldn't be as strong or stronger than God.
What I think that Lucifer really wanted....was to be independent of God. Everything he had came from him, but Lucifer wanted to have something that God didn't have, so that he too may be like a god.
So the only way he could have at least have been original, or independent of God in some manner, was to "create" something that God never "Created," and that was non-existence, in other words, corruption and sin.
This is speculation on my part by the way. I think the real reason Lucifer fell was because he wanted to do something that God couldn't do, and after some pondering, he introduced something unheard of, which was the opposite of perfection....sin.
And to pass on his said legacy, he went and corrupted Adam and Eve, our first parents. Their problem was probably curiosity, since how could you know that there was an evil? What is this evil? I can distinguish it by eating this fruit? I must check this out. How could God hide this evil from me? I'll show him!
speculation, again.
-
But excellent speculation, I think. I never thought of that. I did think of "Non servium" so we're on the same track.
You speak of "absence" and I have that very much in mind, too. But it keeps bumping into the infinity of God. Absence actually argues against His omni-everything. But, in fact, evil IS the absence of good. Just as dark is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. I think you are very right that it took satan to think this one up.
-
Yes I suppose there is some difficulty in the idea of there being an absence in the face of the almighty.
This is actually a difficult question that I'm not entirely clear myself on. One has to realize, though, that although all of existence is borrowed from God, we do have our own distinct essence that is distinct from God's, and that a corruption of material things isn't necessarily a corruption of God, as God isn't material. Materials may borrow the property of existence from God, but God himself isn't material.
As for sin, the nothingness, or absence, could be our minds geared towards an absense, or a nothingness. But that doesn't mean that God isn't everywhere in your being or outside. It's just that you are choosing to pervert the mind by having it seeking things that don't even exist, like sin. The pleasures of sin may exist, and are of the goodness of God, but the intention and the sin do not exist, so in a sense you are pushing existence away and taking instead...nothing.
Sin is a complete rejection of God...existence, that is. So to sin is simply to put your mind in a state of nothingness, and to not seek the ultimate existence.
Weird analogy. If God is sanctifying grace, and sanctifying grace is ice cream, then you're basically swimming in it. But if you choose not to eat the ice cream, that doesn't mean that it isn't there, it simply means you choose not to eat the ice cream...that you're swimming in. And if you throw up that ice cream (lose sanctifying grace), that doesn't mean that God isn't there anymore. It just means you didn't want to have the ice cream anymore, so you threw it away.
That's probably why God gets so offended when you sin, because he gave you all these gifts, and like a brat, you are arrogant enough to think you don't need any of his gifts and take instead that nothingness that Satan is so proud of.
This is a bit sketchy but that's what I have thought.
-
Must think more about what you said. We're getting into free will now, and the choice of two or more things. Fascinating!
I do want to make a few observations. The really important thing to remember is that we must learn and do what Jesus taught. In the end, I'm sure, we will concede that God is a great mystery. But we are taught that we were created to KNOW, love and serve God. For many years I was content with my juvenile concept of God. These days I have a lot of time to think, and it no longer suffices. Besides, there is nothing to compare to this subject.
-
That does and does not work, Lybus. To give us free will God had to give us things to choose from---witness the tree in Eden.
-
How is it that God became man without causing even a ripple in the fabric of creation? How did Life experience death without taking all of us with Him? How did Light enter into the darkness without changing it? How did Heaven descend to hell and not turn it into heaven at His entrance? How DID the infinite become finite? True God and true man? "With God ALL things are possible." So if we ever get the idea that God can't handle things, or that He needs our help.... :roll-laugh2:
-
Weird analogy. If God is sanctifying grace...
God is not sanctifying grace.
-
Weird analogy. If God is sanctifying grace...
God is not sanctifying grace.
then what is sanctifying grace?
I need to think about what you said trinity.
-
Weird analogy. If God is sanctifying grace...
God is not sanctifying grace.
then what is sanctifying grace?
This is Question 105 of the Baltimore Catechism.
Question: What is sanctifying grace?
Answer: Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God.
For more info see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DQvMXf0aJ9MJ:www.tanbooks.com/doct/divine_grace.htm+what+is+sanctifying+grace&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E7mXLCYGLdEJ:www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc039.htm+what+is+sanctifying+grace&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
-
Weird analogy. If God is sanctifying grace...
God is not sanctifying grace.
then what is sanctifying grace?
This is Question 105 of the Baltimore Catechism.
Question: What is sanctifying grace?
Answer: Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God.
For more info see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DQvMXf0aJ9MJ:www.tanbooks.com/doct/divine_grace.htm+what+is+sanctifying+grace&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E7mXLCYGLdEJ:www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/MyCatholicFaith/mcfc039.htm+what+is+sanctifying+grace&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
But what is grace? You used the word, "grace" in your definition.
The idea is that everything is from God. But God is perfectly simple, in that he is not made up of parts. We've already concluded in this thread that everything that has any existence of any kind must derive said existence from God, since he is existence itself.
So, if we say that Sanctifying Grace exists, then it must be God, in the sense that it comes from Him, a perfectly Simple Being in that He is not composed of parts.
It would also make sense to say that the more that God is present in someone, the more sanctifying grace is in that person.
Take the Mother of God, for instance. Jesus, the source of all grace, was inside her Virginal womb. Is that not why we say that she is the source of all grace?
But Christ Himself lived within her, and in Christ rests the entire Trinity, in the sense that God is perfectly united. Does it not make sense to say then, that God is Grace, and that Christ is Grace?
The more of Christ that the Father sees within us, the more pleasing we are to Him. Is that not a good definition of Grace, in that God is within us?
This is simply speculating on what Grace actually is, not what it does. Anything wrong I've said is open to correction, I am a student after all.
-
That does and does not work, Lybus. To give us free will God had to give us things to choose from---witness the tree in Eden.
Could you please explain further? How has what I said interfere with free will?
How is it that God became man without causing even a ripple in the fabric of creation? How did Life experience death without taking all of us with Him? How did Light enter into the darkness without changing it? How did Heaven descend to hell and not turn it into heaven at His entrance? How DID the infinite become finite? True God and true man? "With God ALL things are possible." So if we ever get the idea that God can't handle things, or that He needs our help....
That has puzzled me to no end. I really don't even know if the angels themselves were able to solve that one.
-
I believe I may have contradicted myself at a certain point. I said that we are distinct from God in that we have an essence that is separate from Him. And later I said that the essence of things is God.
I don't believe I fully understand essence. Accidentals, I know for sure we get from God. However, in order to have any essence at all, we must first exist.
But God is existence itself. Does that mean I must include that I am God, or a part of Him? That cannot be the case, since God is perfectly simple, and I am simply not perfect (no pun intended).
However, there stands no reason why God can't give something away of which he has an infinite quantity of. Nor would this giving away of something seem to interfere in the idea that God is perfectly simple. In other words, if God gave you so much existence, he doesn't subtract from some store of existence that he has. You cannot subtract from infinity, so there is no subtraction, even though he is giving existence to you.
So, in some sense, I really don't exist at all save through a compilation of God's gifts (or existence) that I somehow have control over. However, this sounds dangerously close to pantheism, which is heretical.
The Bible does say that man was created unto the Image of God, so maybe we exist separate from God, even to the extent of our very existence being separate from God. However, this seems to say that there can exist things outside of God, in that something does not necessarily need God's eternal presence to continue existing. This also, is heretical.
Is there anyone on here that can clear this up? I'm pretty stumped. Are we a compilation of God's gifts, or do we have a soul that is entirely distinct from God. Either extreme sounds like bad news.
-
I will have to ponder your questions about grace and essence. In the meantime, I have resolved the other questions to MY satisfaction by looking at His omnipotence. If God couldn't be finite He would not be all powerful. He who has no boundaries, places boundaries on Himself, just as He did with nature (esp. in the book of Job.) When He gave us free will He bound Himself not to violate it; when He hung on the cross He did not come down, even though that was an option for Him and must have been a sore temptation. One could go on.
God is above the law, yet He observes the law. He gave us the ability to ignore it and pretty well do as we please, yet He ASKS us to be like Him and observe it, too. Now that is a case of right order being turned on its head. The Creator honors creation. Again, He is omnipotent---nothing is lacking to Him.
-
Grace AND essence. "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me." St. Paul. The vine and the branches works here.
-
You know Trinity, it's really nice to have someone else to talk to about this kind of stuff. I've tried to start philosophical/theological discussions on this board before, but they never really got going, for some reason. Thanks for talking about this stuff with me.
I'll need to think further about the discussion.
-
Ditto, Lybus. I can't understand why people would rather talk about Michael Jackson than God. The one is toooo sad and the other soooo happy.
-
I was taught in Catholic school that sanctifying grace is a share of God's life.
-
I'm sorry, Lybus. I forgot to explain to you what didn't work with me with your ice cream analogy. I think it's the "ingesting" part. Even though I know we ingest the Host and I equate that with receiving grace, I am more comfortable with "infusion" or even "osmosis". Does that make any sense?
-
What became of you, Lybus? I've been thinking about grace and have concluded that there is nothing I can liken it to. The closest I can get is air and that doesn't do it, either. There is nothing we can do to merit it, or grasp it. It's total gift, and we don't even necessarily know when we have it. Or don't have it.
-
Sorry I've had a lot on my mind regarding school.
However, I came up with this really weird theory that might help resolve what I said about our essence earlier, about how it seems that we must follow a pantheistic argument or believe that we can exist independently of God.
Well, in an earlier essay i wrote for a class, I talked about how God must necessarily exist because of the law of conservation of mass. In other words, matter cannot be created or destroyed. this goes for energy as well. Basically, if one were to have a chemical reaction in an isolated beaker, the amount of mass and the amount of energy would remain the same. The reactant would equal the product, mass-wise
However, the only problem with this law is that according to this law, nothing could exist. How could the "mass" come about if nothing can create it or destroy it?
My solution is an infinite. I show this with a mathematical concept. It is safe to assume that "mass" is finite, correct?
Well, it's actually quite simple. If you multiply four by 1/4, you get one. If you multiply one thousand by 1/1000, you also, get one. However, multiply nothing, which is equivalent to 1/infinity, by infinity, and you get a finite number. Interesting, no?
This basically says that in order to create anything with an infinitely low amount of materials (or nothing), one must be infinite. So only God can break the Law of conservation of mass.
My point in telling you all this? My theory is that God didn't just create all of creation simply once, he is creating creation every single instant. Think about it. God is infinite, so that means he must be everywhere, correct? If God were to create a cube, wouldn't it make sense to believe that the cube would be completely and entirely consumed and destroyed by the infinite presence of God? How could a finite thing have any room to exist inside an infinite presence?
So, because I am still here typing this, and you are still here replying to my messages, I must assume that somehow we aren't entirely consumed by an infinite presence. So, my idea, is that in some weird way, we are being created, and then being created again before we can be destroyed. So, God must be infinitely aware of even the smallest particle at all times in order to do this, otherwise he would at one instant create a chair, and at another instant....a tree or something. So God MUST be omnipotent AND all knowing in order for him to constantly keep creating us at such an infinitely alarming rate.
So how does this help with the pantheistic/independent of God view, both heretical? Well, for one, we really are distinct from God, in that we are a finite thing that was outputted from an infinite source. Two, our existence is so fragile that we are quickly consumed by God's infinite being, that is, we are instantly consumed. However, we are created again before we can be destroyed.
So, our real essence, I think, is not entirely existence, as more that we are dependent. Our essence is our dependence on a being whose existence is so tied with ours as to be impossible to break without us being completely and entirely consumed.
This also helps support the idea that God never changes, that he wasn't a creator just once, but that he is always a creator, always building up and modifying his creation as is fit to his never-changing will.
This is a really cool way to look at God in that you see that he is really an artist, a mathematician, and an engineer. He is infinitely serious about his creation in that he keeps things consistent in a mind-bogging way and never goes against the rules he set up (excluding miracles), and yet he is infinitely playful, in that we are his toys, and he plays with us in a very loving manner. It also shows his deep respect for us, in that he is always taking the time to create us anew, and yet keep us the same (by this I mean over a very short period of time) and that he loves us in the present moment, almost as if he is savoring our existence. Pretty sweet, huh?
-
When I was talking about grace earlier, I sort of jumped to the conclusion that we could see sanctifying grace as God. I didn't think people might have a problem with that. My idea is that while God is everywhere, we can choose to have him inside us, in that we open ourselves to Him. The more of God we allow in, the more grace we will naturally obtain.
Grace is good, so I tried to compare it to something that is easy to conceive of, and is something most people really like, such as ice cream. We can either choose to have the ice cream, or we can choose not to. Likewise, we can choose to open our mouths and let God come in, or we can choose not to.
And ofc that all goes into Mortal sin, by committing the sin, you choose to vomit it all up, etc.
Let me know if this makes any sense, or if I'm incorrect in looking at grace this way.
That also goes with your idea that grace cannot be gained by any merit we have. All we can do is just take it and think about the greatness of God and how undeserving we really are...because we really haven't done anything for Him, and yet he insists on giving such gifts to us.
-
I was taught in Catholic school that sanctifying grace is a share of God's life.
Yea i think that's right, and it goes with the idea that God is simple and that he is sharing himself with us.
-
To say something about your first post here, that sure takes care of the "wound up clock" theory. I very much imagine that God finds us amusing. Must think about this some more.
-
You have given me so much "meat" I can hardly chew it. We do know, of course, that if God ever forgot us, we would cease to exist. So there is merit in your theory that He is constantly creating us. I'm afraid I don't understand your posit that His infinity would destroy us.
-
Well, that idea actually finds its source from the Old Testament. On the mount, Moses had to turn around, lest he was destroyed utterly by the face of God, while receiving the two stone tablets.
So God's Being is powerful enough to destroy us, perhaps even our very souls, as well. So there is some biblical evidence to back up the idea that infinity would destroy the finite utterly. The Beatific vision (when we finally get to bear witness to it) probably requires God's protection somehow, perhaps some shield he creates between himself and us, and likewise, recreates it, or simply recreates our souls at every moment.
Yea sorry, a lot of what I said took me a long time to ponder and I kind of mushed it all together in one short post. I'm probably making too many assumptions about what I said, in that I'm taking ideas that I should explain or prove further before using those ideas to bring about an even more abstract argument.
-
No, I think it is just our bodies that can't handle it. As I understand it, Mary died of love.
-
I think I've thought of a major flaw in my idea that God creates us at every moment infinitely.
If God were to create us infinitely and at every moment, then how could there be any progression of time? In other words, if each interval which God recreates the world is infinitely small, then how could there be any movement on our part? Let's say that one second goes by. God would have recreated the entire world an infinite number of times in this time sequence. Again, in one hour, God would also have created the world an infinite number times. In other words, what's the difference between one hour and one second? Wouldn't we be frozen in time, as it would take an infinite number of intervals for there to be any movement of any kind? Basically it would take an eternity for me to move my hand an inch.
And yes, it HAS to be an infinite number of times, because if God is infinite, then the infinity of God would destroy the world instantaneously. It wouldn't make sense for an infinite to consume a finite in any time that is finite, since an infinite would have to behave as an infinite, so that means its effect would be instantaneous. So God would have to recreate the world instantaneously again in order to avoid its total destruction.
Basically, this is something that needs more clarifying. I think I've thought of a solution, but I want to think about it further.
-
No, I think it is just our bodies that can't handle it. As I understand it, Mary died of love.
Hmm, idk if that can be true if we follow my theory. If God is infinite, then everything outside of God would be destroyed, save those that he recreates, which I assume to be everything that was created since God isn't a destroyer. However, if a soul can stand to be with an infinite source without being recreated, then it seems to lose its dependence on God, which is technically something we don't want, since it's in our nature to be dependent, and in a sense we like to be dependent.
By Dependent, I mean that we could not function entirely by ourselves. This is simply common sense in that we need outside help in order to exist. We can't live without water, and we can't live without food. Babies can't live without love and affection (this has been proven scientifically). We have no problems with being dependent. In fact, we seem to like it, if you look at babies. They crave attention, and they are dependent on it.
However, if my theory is completely and entirely wrong, then I guess that the reason a soul can stand God and a body cannot is because a soul is more like God than a body.
However, then we're stuck at square one at saying that something can exist outside of God, an can be independent in some way.
-
You know in some sense this also connects with your other question: how can God become finite? How could Christ even exist as he is; a finite person?
If the problem stated above is of the same nature as the one you said earlier, then it might be impossible to come up with a good explanation. Saying that one can understand the infinite is arrogant anyway. But maybe there is a way we can understand it a little bit.
-
This stupid thing lost my post. Now what did I say. Go ahead and think about it, Lybus; I confess that you have left me behind. Time is a different matter; it is a "thing" created and having nothing to do with eternity. Is it time and space which bend on entering a black hole or time and light?
Personally and I am happy, happy, happy to be dependent on God and His Church. What a relief that my poor brain doesn't have to do what God does.
-
I'd say we should define time as movement. We see 24 hours as when the ball called Earth turns around a full 360 (or the sun does this, depending on whether heliocentric or geocentric is right). We base time on movement. Likewise, let's define time as movement.
Oh btw I couldn't agree with you more.
-
Might as well. It gets too deep otherwise.
-
"And where sin abounded, grace did more abound." Romans 5:20. What are your thoughts on this? I'm thinking God stacked the deck in our favor. Another thought I had is that God, being all powerful, must be perfectly capable of evil, too. If not, He is not all powerful.
-
Evil is the absence of goodness, and God is all good.
-
Good point. By choice, I think. Can God choose to not be, as He chooses to set up boundaries? I wonder why He used the negative for the commandments rather than the positive.
-
Maybe He wants to test us, human nature we always want to do that which we can not do.
-
Forbidden fruit. Eating of the tree...
-
I think I've thought of something that at least might make sense to help with the problem I said earlier. It has to do with relation. I have homework to do so I don't have time to elaborate :sign-surrender:, but basically, think of a meter stick, and how it has 100 centimeters. We don't use every single point to measure (since there are an infinite number of reference points), we just use those few 100 centimeters, and maybe one tenth of a centimeter if we're feeling like being very accurate. Our minds work the same way. I'll explain further later.
-
Regarding the commandments and the tree of knowledge, I think God had good reason for what He did there, though I have no idea what. It's like our having a stove in the house. We need it to cook our food, but we have to warn the children not to touch it. A child might wonder why we have such a dangerous thing around, esp. after they burnt themselves, as we wonder why God has such a dangerous thing around. But there are good reasons, just hidden from little children with undeveloped understanding.
-
Yesterday I was thinking about St. Paul's statement that we see in a glass darkly. That's us, alright. We are that 100 cm stick. We will never be able to measure God. We are like blind children feeling the Father's face and trying to get an idea of Him. At the end of the day, though, He is still a great mystery.
-
I"ve looked at this at every angle i could think of, and so far, I haven't been able develop a truly satisfying link between the finite and the infinite. I've been thinking about it for the last two hours straight, and I keep running into a lot of errors/impossibilities. However, I do notice that there is one thing I keep coming back to, and that is that our existence is purely relational, even matter itself, as being purely relational. I don't see how this can be possible, but since I don't know the nature of God (in that we don't know what his spirit is "made up of"), and since no one on Earth really knows, I can't really make any calls, so it might be possible.
At this point, I'm going to call for a :sign-surrender:
God truly is a mystery.
I'm burnt out so I'll think about what you guys said about the Tree of knowledge later.
-
That's good, Lybus. God is what He is, and we are what we are. There's a major difference. But there's a lot of similarities, too. I begin to understand more and more what St. Augustine said, "Let me know myself, Lord, that I might know thee."
For instance, I am sure that God can do evil just as we can, or vice versa. If Christ wasn't capable of sinning, there was no merit in His not sinning. Yet we call Him worthy, because He is worthy. That's how we gain merit, too. We really are in His image.
Which brings me to the theory I had which got me into all this. It all started with that stupid phrase "error has no rights". It still doesn't make any sense to me. But I got into my own erroreous idea of magnatism. Which led me to think that we are drawn to something---either the good in God or the evil in satan. So when we die, we will just naturally home in on the one we are most like, and further we will go to that one with a speed according to how much like them we are.
This, however, presented the problem of boundaries. Which is like your problem with dependence/independence. In the final analysis, I have to figure we are separate from God.
-
For instance, I am sure that God can do evil just as we can, or vice versa. If Christ wasn't capable of sinning, there was no merit in His not sinning. Yet we call Him worthy, because He is worthy. That's how we gain merit, too. We really are in His image.
I don't know how you can say that!
We are created in His image, meaning our souls are created in His image, they are immortal and will live forever. God is the Creator and we the creatures.
Evil does not have any rights, I have to disagree with you on this one Trinity. Yes, according to the world, evil has rights because the world today excepts evil as normal. Yet in Gods eyes, evil has no rights. We as Catholics are expected to die before we willing sin against God. I am not speaking about ѕυιcιdє either.
Maybe we should define the word "evil " to myself, it means against God.
When we say, God can do all things, that means He can do anything He Wills, but He does not Will evil.
-
EXACTLY. He does not will evil. I never said He did. This can become a round robin. Think about it, Myrna. The merit and goodness of an act depends on one's choosing that act. If Jesus had been compelled to do good, where was His merit?
Error is an absence, or nonexistence, if you will. To speak of it in terms of rights just doesn't work. Like the nonexistent man has no clothes. Dumb, really dumb.
-
Reading all this is boggling my mind :shocked:
Reminds me of the story how St.Augustine was walking along the shore trying to understand the Trinity, and he sees this little boy filling the ocean into the hole he dug. "What are you doing little one?"
"Putting the entire ocean into this hole" said the child.
"Impossible" said St. Augustine
"Impossible for you to understand the mind of God, and the Trinity" said the Child, before he disappeared.
-
Reading all this is boggling my mind :shocked:
Reminds me of the story how St.Augustine was walking along the shore trying to understand the Trinity, and he sees this little boy filling the ocean into the hole he dug. "What are you doing little one?"
"Putting the entire ocean into this hole" said the child.
"Impossible" said St. Augustine
"Impossible for you to understand the mind of God, and the Trinity" said the Child, before he disappeared.
I think that's what I was trying to do earlier.
-
I don't see how it is possible for God to blatantly do evil. How can perfection itself extend to imperfection, or in other words, how can God simply be and then not be? How can an infinite lose a part of itself? It would seem that God would somehow be able to split himself somehow, though he is perfectly simple. Evil is not a strength, it is a weakness. How can God weaken himself?
You seem to be saying that the only choices we have is between good and evil. However, there are choices that can be one good and a greater good. For instance, God was really under no obligation to come here himself and suffer a bloody crucifixion for our sakes. Even had he chosen not to, and let us wallow in our own misery, he would not be doing an evil, he would simply be permitting us to reap the fruits that we sowed ourselves. We screwed ourselves up, he didn't do that.
So the true merit is God's generosity. He chose instead to come down and fix up our mess. God chose mercy over justice. Either is good and righteous, but God went with mercy.
-
Guys read my posts again. If you're not misreading me, then you are saying that some things are impossible to God. I am saying that God, too, chooses. That He is in no way limited or compelled. Blatantly do evil? I am surprised at you, Lybus. Where did I say He does evil or chooses evil? He has the capacity; or would you believe that He can NOT.
-
The Qualities of God are PERFECTION of ALL Virtues. Christ was INCAPABLE of any sin or evil ever. Period. He was GOD who died for our sins and that was the merit of his passion. He never had original sin, so therefore never had a fallen nature. He could never ever have any part of sin. To even ponder this smacks of blasphemy and that is why I post.
His merit was that he was God made man who took our sins upon Himself.
Why was the tree in the Garden of Eden? Simple, we all have free will and free choice. Choose God or choose Satan. Adam and Eve had a choice and they made the wrong choice. For God to have not placed the tree there would not have allowed them the choice and this is not God for God does not force us to follow Him.
To say that Christ could ever have any part of sin or evil is blasphemy pure and simple.
Want to know the Qualities of God? Study your Cathechism and do not come up with ideas of your own. I only posted here as this board calls itself Traditional Catholic and this kind of personal interpretation of what the Church teaches will lead souls astray.
-
Where did I say He does evil or chooses evil? He has the capacity; or would you believe that He can NOT.
Does He? When you get the chance, please clarify your meaning. Thank you.
-
Where did you two come from? "He has the capacity." Simple, He is omnipotent, all powerful, not limited, not constrained. Look at the book of Job and see the evil satan did to him. He took out his herds and dropped a house on his children. God is incapable of doing these acts?
But I bow to Dawn. He is "incapable". He did not choose good out of His goodness, but is "incapable" of doing otherwise. We're talking blasphemy here?
-
Yes, he is incapable, it is impossible as God for him to choose evil. And, as he is God made man born without sin it was never ever to choose evil, he is more perfect than His Holy Mother. To say that sin could ever have any part in Christ....if not blasphemy, what would you call it? Sounds like this Manichæism.
-
Where did you two come from?
No need to suspect something is afoot that is not.
"He has the capacity." Simple, He is omnipotent, all powerful, not limited, not constrained.
You have failed to clarify your meaning in any substantial way, although some idea of your full meaning is starting to come through. Please continue...
As an aside... Do you think Christ COULD have sinned but did not? If so, you are incorrect.
-
I am sure that God can do evil just as we can, or vice versa. If Christ wasn't capable of sinning, there was no merit in His not sinning.
As this stands, it is highly problematic. Please clarify. Thank you.
-
You two come out of the blue to jump my case about this and I'm not supposed to find it odd? Sorry, I find it odd.
So, I'm incorrect. But tell me what forced Jesus to not sin? What is problematic?
-
You two come out of the blue to jump my case about this and I'm not supposed to find it odd?
How did I "jump your case"? To describe my comments that way is a bit of a stretch...to say the least.
Sorry, I find it odd.
FWIW, I don't care...but it is not germane, anyway. Now, to the point at hand...
But tell me what forced Jesus to not sin?
Nothing, as sin is radically incompatible with God -- He CANNOT sin.
-
I never said God would sin, I do say He has the power. Make up your minds, either God is omnipotent or He's not. But how did He give us free will when He hasn't got it Himself?
-
I never said God would sin, I do say He has the power.
You are incorrect.
Make up your minds, either God is omnipotent or He's not.
No one here is waffling, etc., and inability to sin is NOT equivalent to lack of power. Perhaps your own understanding of omnipotence, etc., is simply defective?
But how did He give us free will when He hasn't got it Himself?
You are equating free will with freedom/ability to sin -- which is going at it the wrong way.
In heaven, the wills of the just will be supremely free -- and they, like God, will be unable to sin.
-
So, explain omnipotence to me, so my understanding will no longer be defective. BTW, God does incompatible with ease.
-
Guys read my posts again. If you're not misreading me, then you are saying that some things are impossible to God. I am saying that God, too, chooses. That He is in no way limited or compelled. Blatantly do evil? I am surprised at you, Lybus. Where did I say He does evil or chooses evil? He has the capacity; or would you believe that He can NOT.
I am not accusing you of saying that God blatantly does evil.
Our real problem here is whether or not God has the capacity to do an evil, not if he actually does. We all agree that he does not commit any evil action.
However, we apparently are at odds as to whether or not he has the ability to commit evil.
I am not quite understanding how you can see God as having the capacity to do evil. Why exactly is it necessary for God to be able to commit evil in order to be all-powerful? It seems contradictory to say this, since in some sense it's like asking God to convert Himself into nothingness, which is the exact opposite of all-powerful. You would think that God, being all powerful, would be incapable of losing his power, which is exactly what he would be doing if he committed an evil. He would be losing himself.
In other words, he is incapable of doing evil BECAUSE he is all-powerful.
Oh and hey everyone. I didn't think anyone else was paying attention to this thread but me, trinity, and MyrnaM. Thanks for making your presence known :smirk:
-
He's also infinite and thus incapable of being finite. Yet, He did it.
-
I had a feeling you'd bring that up.
Becoming finite doesn't defy being all-powerful, though. You'll notice that God did not lose his power by becoming finite, it wasn't a nothingness that he was "doing", it was an action. God may have put on human nature, but he did not lose his infinite nature.
I should say that this is a particularly difficult subject to deal with as the greatest theologians couldn't really figure out how this can be done. However, God participating in Man does not destroy his power. Sin in some sense is the complete and entire absence of power, whereas the finite is endowed with at least some power. So sin is completely and entirely different than becoming finite.
-
Hmmm. Never thought of that angle. So, in other words, God could destroy Himself. But you have to admit that He could destroy entire herds and families. I wonder if the problem here isn't that if God does it, it can't be sin (and conversely, if satan does it, it can't be good.) Just throwing that out there. How about His mercy being incompatible with His justice?
-
ugh, my whole point was that God can't destroy himself, and that's why he cannot sin. If he started doing that, we'd be in a whole lot of trouble.
-
Oh and idk about Satan. Maybe he can only perform actions that are corrupt in some way, i don't know about that. I assume that there is at least some goodness to his makeup, otherwise he would have no intelligence and no power. It's perfectly plausible that he taints everything he comes in contact with/says/does. In fact, that's probably true.
And about mercy and justice, that's a whole new topic I think. In some sense, everything God does is somehow merciful and yet just. The two cannot contradict each other, we simply refer to each as though they were different due to the way we think. I believe St.Thomas talks about this, about giving "attributes" to God so as to better understand him, but in reality he is perfectly simple.
-
Here's how Thomas Aquinas would probably say it if he were posed the question as to why God cannot commit evil.
God is pure actuality, as he is perfectly simple. There is no potentiality in God, because if there were, that would mean that God could be moved, or changed in some way. Now, if God possessed the potentiality to commit evil (if he was capable of it), then this would mean that there was an aspect of God that has not been actualized, and He can be moved. But the Prime Mover cannot be moved by anything outside of Himself. Therefore, the potentiality in God to commit evil does not exist.
It would also be bad to say that there is an actuality in God to commit evil for obvious reasons.
I'm just letting you know that I don't pull this out of a hat. This is Catholic Doctrine.
-
Yea sorry for the fourth post in a row. I'm pretty passionate about this particular subject, but I wanted to say thanks to the other members for reading all this and checking to make sure I don't say anything that is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching.
Please continue to check me, lest I fall into grave error!
-
The problem with taking a microscopic look at things is that you don't see many things outside your current view. Let's try this Lybus. God cannot sin because He is the creator/owner of everything. When we sin we are trespassing on His preserve. What is sin in me is simply God managing His affairs in Him. He can demand a man's life. It's His life to demand. If I did it, it would be the sin of murder.
I wasn't wrong. God has the power. What I overlooked was that He also has the ownership rights. If they do decide to correct you for anything, I hope they do so quietly and calmly and not make a big deal of it.
-
The Qualities of God are PERFECTION of ALL Virtues. Christ was INCAPABLE of any sin or evil ever. Period. He was GOD who died for our sins and that was the merit of his passion. He never had original sin, so therefore never had a fallen nature. He could never ever have any part of sin. To even ponder this smacks of blasphemy and that is why I post.
His merit was that he was God made man who took our sins upon Himself.
Why was the tree in the Garden of Eden? Simple, we all have free will and free choice. Choose God or choose Satan. Adam and Eve had a choice and they made the wrong choice. For God to have not placed the tree there would not have allowed them the choice and this is not God for God does not force us to follow Him.
To say that Christ could ever have any part of sin or evil is blasphemy pure and simple.
Want to know the Qualities of God? Study your Cathechism and do not come up with ideas of your own. I only posted here as this board calls itself Traditional Catholic and this kind of personal interpretation of what the Church teaches will lead souls astray.
Finally, the voice of reason!
-
Cheryl, although Dawns post is quite accurate and I too agree with every word. You have to understand that Trinity and Lybus are digging deeper; not saying they are right or wrong to do so, it is what they want to do, thinking deeper.
Not something I am interested in doing but then throughout the history of the world, God has inspired certain people to think deep.
Just grateful it isn't me! I'll stick to what I know.
-
Cheryl, although Dawns post is quite accurate and I too agree with every word. You have to understand that Trinity and Lybus are digging deeper; not saying they are right or wrong to do so, it is what they want to do, thinking deeper.
Not something I am interested in doing but then throughout the history of the world, God has inspired certain people to think deep.
Just grateful it isn't me! I'll stick to what I know.
Sorry Myrna, you're going to have to show me one Doctor of the Church, one Pope, even one theologian that said God has the capability to do evil before I can see the reason that any layman should dig in a downward direction towards such a conclusion. You know Myrna, just because I spend over thirty years being one of those lost sheep, I do understand more then I think you give me credit for.
-
So, explain omnipotence to me, so my understanding will no longer be defective.
A man with no nose could smell your lack of sincerity from a mile away. Time is precious...ciao for now.
BTW, you were, in fact, wrong, however difficult it may be to admit it. No biggie, as it happens to all of us -- quite often, too.
-
God has inspired certain people to think deep.
And some, pretending to think more deeply than others, just ended up going off the track and getting into deep doo doo.
-
Cheryl, although Dawns post is quite accurate and I too agree with every word. You have to understand that Trinity and Lybus are digging deeper; not saying they are right or wrong to do so, it is what they want to do, thinking deeper.
Not something I am interested in doing but then throughout the history of the world, God has inspired certain people to think deep.
Just grateful it isn't me! I'll stick to what I know.
Sorry Myrna, you're going to have to show me one Doctor of the Church, one Pope, even one theologian that said God has the capability to do evil before I can see the reason that any layman should dig in a downward direction towards such a conclusion. You know Myrna, just because I spend over thirty years being one of those lost sheep, I do understand more then I think you give me credit for.
Come on Cheryl, you didn't read my notes here, and you should have before you post anything like that. I have disagreed with Trinity on that point and I said so. I have agreed with Dawn, but said Trinity and Lybus are tring to figure out what I called impossible to figure out. No one can figure out God. If they want to try, as St. Augustine did, so be it, he still became a Saint just the same.
-
God has inspired certain people to think deep.
And some, pretending to think more deeply than others, just ended up going off the track and getting into deep doo doo.
I get myself in enough doo doo just trying to stay on track. :scared2:
-
This is a tempest in a teapot---created by people who think they have the right or the duty or even the ABILITY to judge others. As if they know all there is to know about others and can read hearts. I had three strokes last spring and spent some time in hell. OF COURSE I want to know God better. It is one thing to parrot the catechism; another thing entirely to KNOW it. Yes, this way can be dangerous; I fully realize that. But dying with incomplete faith and an unprepared soul is even more dangerous. I am grateful that God sent me a helper, Lybus. I don't need the super Catholics, unhelpful in their ignorance and too often fueled by less than altruistic purposes. As one wise man said, the laity should be working on their own holiness. Anyway, the next time I'm on my deathbed I want to be prepared, to have FAITH, not blind faith.
It wasn't my understanding of omnipotence that was at fault, but my understanding of sin. I had all the components, but had failed to connect the dots. So while I was talking about the "laundry list" of actions which comprise sins if I do it, I gather you were thinking of something else, and working from the catechism, I guess. OF COURSE, God can't sin because a sin is only an offense against God, a trespass on His domain. As Fr said, God can't take His own name in vain. Nor can He steal from Himself, etc. Now that I understand sin, I can see WHY God can't sin. He can, however, do all the things I do when I sin and remain sinless because He is God. That's another deep subject and wonderful to behold.
A little credit given for good will would go a long ways here, and there are ways to correct others that don't put them down. On the other side, Paul is in hospital and will have a double by pass today or tomorrow. Could really use some prayers. Thanks all, and thanks Myrna for showing your usual good sense and good will, but most of all thanks Lybus. I've learned a lot.
-
Thanks for the lecture on the usual, despite your having simultaneously violated all of your own pretended hang-ups from the moment I reentered the discussion -- even though I did ZERO to elicit such a reaction and met your comments calmly and kindly. I shall pray for Paul. I will leave you to your sandbox... Ciao...
-
A little credit given for good will would go a long ways here...
Ah, the irony is just a wee bit thick around these parts, Mary...
While one-way streets have their use, they also have their limitations...
-
What, Eamon? You don't think I know when I'm being put down? Or that I shouldn't call anyone on it? Your stance that I should take insult on insult and say nothing is bologna. Had I attacked out of the blue as I was attacked you would have a point. As it is, you're trying to make your case at my expense, which is totally uncalled for. Irony has no place in this.
-
Back to this very interesting topic:
Found this if you would like to know God better:
Translation
Sermon and Collation of St. Thomas Aquinas for the Feast of Pentecost[27]
Sermon for the Day
"Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth." (Ps. 103:30)[28]
We should speak about Him without whom no one can speak rightly, about Him who gives speech and gives the power to speak copiously. And indeed, it is impossible to speak rightly without Him. Nor should one marvel at what is said: "Who can know the sense [sensum]" of the truth of God "unless he shall send His Spirit from the Most High?" (Wis. 9:17).[29] Without a feeling [sensu] for the truth, no one speaks what is true. In like manner, the Holy Spirit makes all the saints speak copiously, and for this reason Gregory says: "Those whom He fills, He makes wise."[30] The same thing is manifest today [on Pentecost], when "the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in various tongues" (Acts 2:4). Therefore, even though we are mute, we shall ask that He who gives abundant speech shall give me words to speak.
"Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created." Today Holy Mother Church solemnly celebrates the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles—a sending which the Prophet besought, when moved by the Spirit of prophecy he said: "Send forth Thy spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth." These words give us four things to consider: (1) what is proper to[31] the Holy Spirit himself, (2) His sending,[32] (3) the power of the one sent, and (4) the matter receptive of this power. The Prophet says, then: "Send forth": behold, the sending; "Thy Spirit": behold, the Person sent; "and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew": behold, the effect of the one sent; "the face of the earth": behold, the matter receptive of this effect.[33]
What is proper to the Holy Spirit
First, I say that what is proper to the Holy Spirit is indicated when the prophet says: "Thy Spirit." Notice that the name "spirit" seems to convey four things: subtleness[34] of substance, perfection of life, impulse of motion, and hidden origin. So, first of all, the name "spirit" seems to convey subtleness of substance. For we are accustomed to call incorporeal substances "spirit." Similarly, we call subtle bodies such as air or fire "spirit." Hence we read in the last chapter of Luke's Gospel: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Lk. 24:39). And this is the way that "spirit" is distinguished from things that have heavy matter, things that are composed out of flesh and body.[35] Secondly, the name "spirit" seems to convey perfection of life.[36] For as long as animals have breath [spiritum] they are alive, and when their breath leaves them, they perish. "Thou takest away their breath, and they die and return to their dust" (Ps. 103:29). And in Genesis, Noah called into his boat "all flesh in which there was the breath of life [spiritus uitae]."[37] Thirdly, the name "spirit" seems to convey impulse of motion, for it is in this way that we give the name "spirit" to winds.[38] And in the Psalms it says about this: "He spoke and there arose a storm of wind [spiritus], the winds of storms shall be the portion of their cup."[39] Men are also said to act "with spirit" when they do something forcefully, as Isaiah has it: "the spirit of the robust, like a whirlwind driving against the wall" (Is. 25:4).[40] Fourthly, the name "spirit" customarily names a hidden origin, as when someone, feeling troubled and not knowing the cause of what is troubling him, attributes it to a "spirit."[41] So we read in John: "The wind [spiritus] blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes" (Jn. 3:8).
In line with these four things, we can seek out what is proper to the Holy Spirit. Proceeding in reverse order, He is called "the Holy Spirit" on account of His being the hidden origin of things,[42] impulse of motion, holiness of life, and subtleness of substance. First, I say that one thing proper to the Holy Spirit is His being the hidden origin of things. Faith teaches us and reason persuades us that all visible and changeable things have a hidden cause. What is that cause? God. Hence the Apostle says: "God is the one who created all things" (Heb. 3:4). It is certain that whatsoever is other than God is created by God. But in what manner did God create all things? It was not by a natural necessity, as fire burns; rather, He produced all things by His own will: "All things whatsoever that He willed, He did" (Ps. 113:ii, 3).[43] A craftsman makes a house by will, but is also urged on by necessity or usefulness—say, that he may earn a profit or dwell in that house. But God did not make the world from a will of needy desire, for He does not need our goods.[44] Why, then, did He make the world? Surely not from a needy desire, but from a loving will.[45] Here's a comparison: an artisan who conceives a beautiful house in his mind, not because he needs to build it, but simply loving the house's beauty—that artisan's love would bring the house into being.[46] But what is the cause and root of the production of hidden things? Surely love. Hence we read in the Book of Wisdom: "Thou lovest all the things which are, and Thou hast hated none of the things which Thou didst make" (Wis. 11:25).[47] And blessed Dionysius says that "divine love does not allow itself to be without seed."[48] This love is the Holy Spirit. For this reason, the account in Genesis of the beginning of creation says that "the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters" (Gen. 1:2), namely, in order to produce matter and bring things into being. Today we celebrate the feast of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit which is the source [principium] of being for all things. The Holy Spirit, whose property is love, therefore has [the note of being creation's] hidden origin.[49]
Secondly, "Holy Spirit" conveys impulse of motion. For we see in the world diverse motions: natural motions and, in men and angels, voluntary motions. Where do these diverse motions come from? They must come from a first mover, namely, from God. "Thou shalt change them and they shall be changed" (Ps. 101:27).[50] And God moves by will. But what is the first motion of the will? Surely love. And what sort of activity belongs to love?[51] I say: he who is moved by love rejoices by love over the thing loved and sorrows over what is contrary to it. Hence in the first chapter of Ezekiel we read: "Where the force of the Spirit was," that is, the inclination of divine love, "there they were carried" (Ezek. 1:12).[52] And in truth, all things that are in the world are moved by the Holy Spirit, as the book of Esther testifies when it says: "There is no one who could resist His will" (Esther 13:9).[53] This Holy Spirit whose feast we celebrate today is the source of all motion. Now, some things in the world are moved from within themselves, while some things are moved by others; the living are moved from within themselves, the lifeless are [only] moved by others. The source of all motion is alive, rather is life. Thus the Holy Spirit, in so far as He is the source of all motion, is life. "With Thee is the fountain of life" (Ps. 35:10).[54] And because He is life, He therefore gives life. Great then is the Holy Spirit in all things that are, and move, and live. "In him, we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). All things therefore have motion and being from the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, if we consider the subtleness of substance in the Holy Spirit, we shall see that He is love. And whose love? That of God, and of those who love God. It is of the very nature of [this] love that the Holy Spirit has subtleness of substance.[55] And on the part of the one loved [amati], He is the love by which God loves God and by which the Father loves the Son. The Book of Wisdom says: "For there is in her," meaning the wisdom of God, "the spirit of understanding," which makes men understand.[56] In Greek, "holy" signifies cleanness.[57] Truly, the love by which a man loves bodily things is not clean, for since the lover is united by love to that which he loves, the lover is made unclean to the extent that he mixes himself up with such a thing. For just as silver is debased when mixed with an impure metal, so your soul is debased if is mixed up with inferior or lower things by love of them.[58] But when your soul is joined to a higher thing, then the love is called holy. Now, there are some who want to be devoted to God and yet who neglect the salvation of their neighbor; such an attitude is not from the Holy Spirit.[59] The Apostle Paul was solicitous over his neighbor's salvation, for which reason he says: "I have become all things to all men, that I might be of profit to all" (1 Cor. 9:22). Again, there are some who are manifold but deceitful.[60] Not thus is the Holy Spirit, for He is manifold in such a way that He, remaining utterly one, bestows Himself upon diverse things. Again, He is subtle because He makes a man withdraw from earthly things and cling to God. "One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life" (Ps. 26:4).[61] "It is good for me to cling to God" (Ps. 72:28).[62]
Fourthly, this Holy Spirit not only gives being, being alive, and being in motion; nay more, He makes men holy.[63] Hence the Apostle says: "He was predestined God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness" (Rom. 1:4). No one is holy unless the Holy Spirit makes him holy. And how does He make someone holy? I say: He brings it about that what I have just been describing appears in all whom He makes holy, for He renders them subtle, and contemptuous of temporal things. As it says in John's Gospel: "Do not love the world nor those things which are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 Jn. 2:15). Again, He bestows spiritual life upon those whom He makes holy, as it says in Ezekiel: "Behold I will place the spirit within you, and you shall live" (Ezek. 37:5). The spiritual life owes its very existence to the Holy Spirit.[64] "If you live by the Spirit, walk also by the Spirit" (Gal. 5:25). Again, the Holy Spirit, who makes people holy, by His own force moves them to work well.[65] "He [the saint] comes as a rushing stream, which the wind [spiritus] of the Lord drives forward" (Is. 59:19). Some men are lazy, and these do not seem to be driven by the Holy Spirit. Hence on that verse of Acts, "Suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting" (Acts 2:2), the Gloss says: "the grace of the Holy Spirit knows nothing of slow efforts."[66] Again, the Holy Spirit leads them back to the hidden origin through which we are united to God; in the words of Isaiah, "the Spirit of the Lord will carry you away to a place you do not know" (1 Kings 18:12[67]), that is, to the heavenly inheritance. "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right land" (Ps. 142:10).[68] What is proper to the Holy Spirit is now clear: He is the origin of living, of being, and of moving.
2. The sending of the Holy Spirit
Let us look into the second [point], namely the sending of the Holy Spirit, which is marvelous and unknown to us, because the Holy Spirit is sent without needing to be sent,[69] without change of Himself, without subjection, and without separation.
I say, first, the Holy Spirit is sent without His needing to be sent. When someone is sent to a place so that an event may happen which could not happen unless he were sent, this would be a sending out of necessity. But this has no place in the sending of the Holy Spirit, whom the Book of Wisdom describes as "having every power, beholding all things" (Wis. 7:23).[70] What, then, is the reason for the sending of the Holy Spirit? Our neediness; and the necessity of this neediness of ours comes partly from human nature's dignity, and partly from its deficiency. For the rational creature excels other creatures because it can actually reach the enjoyment of God, which no other earthly creature can do.[71] "The Lord is my portion, said my soul" (Lam. 3:24). Some seek their portion in this world, such as those who seek worldly honor or dignity. But the Psalmist says: "It is good for me to cling to God" (Ps. 72:28).[72] You should consider that all things that are moved to some end must have something moving them toward that end. Those that are moved to a natural end have a mover in nature; but those that are moved to a supernatural end, namely to the enjoyment of God, must have a supernatural mover. Now, nothing can lead us to our end unless two things are presupposed, for someone is led to an end by two things—knowledge and love. The kind of knowledge in question is supernatural: "No eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it arisen in the heart of man, what God hath prepared for those who love Him" (1 Cor. 2:9). "Never have they heard, nor perceived with ears, nor has eye seen, O God, without Thee, what Thou hast prepared for those who await Thee" (Is. 64:4).[73] Now, whatever a man knows, he knows either by discovering it himself or by learning from another. Vision serves discovery and hearing serves learning, and for this reason it is said that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," showing that it [the final end] altogether transcends human knowledge. It exceeds human desire, too, and that is why Scripture says: "nor hath it arisen in the heart of man." How, then, is man led to know it? It was necessary for heavenly secrets to be made known to men; it was necessary for the Holy Spirit to be invisibly sent, in order to move man's affections so that he may tend toward that end. And thus it says: "Eye hath not seen." How, then, do we know? "God hath revealed it to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit examineth all things, even the deep things of God" (1 Cor. 2:10). "Who would be able to know Thy thought [sensum], unless Thou gavest wisdom and sent the Holy Spirit from the Most High?" (Wis. 9:17).[74] Therefore the Holy Spirit is sent not owing to any need of His, but for the sake of our benefit.
Again, the sending takes place without any change in Himself. There is change when a messenger is sent from place to place, but the Holy Spirit is sent without any change of place because He is the true God, unchangeable. "While remaining in Himself, He renews all things" (Wis. 7:27).[75] How, then, is He sent? He draws us to Himself, and in that way He is said to be sent, as the sun is said to be sent to someone when he comes to share in the sun's brightness.[76] So it is with the Holy Spirit, and for this reason Scripture says about uncreated Wisdom: "Send her from the heavens and from the seat of Thy greatness, that she may be with me" (Wis. 9:10).[77] Again: "He hath sent His own Spirit, crying out Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:5). These sendings are diffused "throughout all the nations" (Wis. 7:27) and are carried into holy souls. When the "fullness of time" had come, the Son of God was sent in the flesh (Gal. 4:4), and thus it was becoming that the Holy Spirit, too, be visibly sent—but not in such a way that He took up a created nature into the unity of His Person, as the Son did with human nature.
Again, the Holy Spirit is sent without subjection.[78] Servants are sent by lords because they are subject to them. It was for this reason that certain heretics falsely believed that the Son and the Holy Spirit were lesser than the Father, namely, because they were sent by Him. But the Holy Spirit makes us free,[79] and therefore He is no servant. He is sent by His own judgment, for "the Spirit blows where He wills" (Jn. 3:8), and He is said to be "sent" only on account of the Father's identity as origin.[80] We sometimes find [Scripture saying] that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father, sometimes by the Son; but the Greeks do violence to this truth [in hoc faciunt uim], for they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, not from the Son, and in saying this they proceed in a simplistic manner [ruditer].[81] Where the Son speaks of the sending of the Holy Spirit, he adjoins the Son to the Father or the Father to the Son, for our Lord speaks in one place of "the Comforter, whom the Father will send in my name" (Jn. 14:26), and in another place He says: "When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father" (Jn. 15:26). "From the Father" indicates, therefore, authority of origin.
Again, the Holy Spirit is sent without separation, because the Spirit of unity excludes separation. Hence the Apostle urges: "Take good care to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). The Holy Spirit gathers together [congregat], as we are taught in John's Gospel [when Jesus prays to the Father]: "That they may be one in us," through the unity of the Holy Spirit, "as we also are one" (Jn. 17:21-22). This union is begun in the present through grace, and will be consummated in the future through glory, to which may He lead us, who together with the Father and the Son lives and reigns, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.[82]
Evening Collation[83]
"Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth." This morning we spoke some words, as well as we were able to do,[84] about what is proper to the Holy Spirit, and about His sending. Now it remains for us to speak about the effects of the Holy Spirit, and to whom it belongs to receive those effects.
3. The effects of the Holy Spirit
Regarding what is set forth in the words of the Psalmist, we are given to understand a twofold effect of the Holy Spirit, namely, creation and renewal: "they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth." If we wish to take these words according as "creation" suggests the production-into-being of the things of nature, the Holy Spirit is in this way the Creator of all things, as Judith says: "Thou didst send forth Thy Spirit, and they were created" (Jud. 16:17).[85] But let us now speak of a different creation. As common usage has it, those who are promoted to a higher state, such as the episcopacy or another dignity, are said to be "created."[86] In this way all those who are promoted to be sons of God are said to be created, as if to say, promoted. Hence blessed James says: "[Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth] that we might be the beginning of His creation" (Jas. 1:18).[87] The Lord wished to establish a new creature, and so in the Book of Wisdom we read: "God created all things that they might exist" (Wis. 1:14)—namely, in their natural existence; and He willed to re-create them, in order that they might exist in the existence of grace. The Apostles were the firstfruits of this re-creation. This re-creation is spoken of in Galatians: "In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision nor uncircuмcision is of any avail, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:15). What does this mean? Before, there were pagans [gentiles], and referring to this Paul says "uncircuмcision"; after, there were circuмcised Jєωs, yet this condition availed nothing unless they were re-created through the grace of Christ.[88] This creation is the effect of the Holy Spirit.
You should know that this re-creation is made up of steps. It can be looked at, first of all, with respect to the grace of charity; secondly, the wisdom of knowledge; thirdly, the harmony of peace; and fourthly, the constancy of firmness.
Just as you see that when men are brought into natural existence the first thing they obtain is life, so it ought to be the same with the existence of grace. But through what does a man live in the existence of grace? Surely through charity. "We know that we have been carried over from death into life because we love the brethren" (1 Jn. 3:14). Whoever does not love his brother, regardless of whatever sort of good work he may do, is dead. Charity is the life of the soul, for just as a body lives through its soul, so the soul lives through God, and God dwells in us through charity. "He who abides in charity abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 Jn. 4:16). In today's Gospel we heard: "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (Jn. 14:23). But the man who does not do the will of God does not perfectly love Him, for "it belongs to friends to will and not will the same thing."[89] In the homily of today's office, Gregory says: "Love's proof is in love's work."[90] But you say: we just aren't able to fulfill the commands of God. I say: you aren't able to fulfill them by your own powers, but through the grace of God you certainly can do so! Hence the Evangelist adds: "My Father will love him"—God shall not fail a man—"and we will come to him," that is, we will be present to him (Jn. 14:23). By that presence [of God in our hearts], we [Christians] will be able to dedicate our powers to fulfilling God's commands. Concerning this charity for fulfilling God's commands, we read in Ephesians: "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works" (Eph. 2:10). Where does this charity in us come from? The Holy Spirit. "The charity of God is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us" (Rom. 5:5). He who has a share of daylight has that light from the sun; in the same way he who has charity has it from the Holy Spirit. Therefore: "Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created"—namely, in the being of the life of grace, through charity.
You see that men, when they become true lovers, make efforts to know the will of God.[91] "It belongs to friends to have one heart," as it says in Proverbs,[92] and God reveals His secrets to His friends.[93] And this is the second step of the creation which is from the Holy Spirit: that they [who are re-created] may know God in wisdom. "But I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" (Jn. 15:15). Hence, recognition of truth is also from the Holy Spirit. In today's Gospel: "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (Jn. 14:26). Now, however much a man may be taught exteriorly, it will profit him nothing unless the grace of the Holy Spirit is interiorly present.[94] As the Gospel says, "The anointing will teach you concerning all things."[95] And He not only teaches the truth, but will even call it back to mind. [It is as if our Lord were saying:] "I myself am able to teach you, but you do not by this fact believe or want to fulfill what I teach. But He who brings it about that you believe and that you fulfill what you hear, He will call things back to mind." The Holy Spirit does this because he inclines the heart to give assent and to carry out what it hears. Hence our Lord says: "Everyone who has heard and learned from my Father comes to me" (Jn. 6:45).[96]
The third step of creation has to do with concord of peace. St. James distinguishes between earthly and heavenly wisdom, and taking up what is proper to heavenly wisdom he says: "The wisdom which is from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation" (Jas. 3:17). But earthly wisdom is unchaste because it causes the affection to be corrupted by the love of earthly things. Hence we read in one of the canonical epistles [in Canonica]: "Whatever they know of these things, by these things they are corrupted" (Jude 10).[97] Again, earthly wisdom makes men peevish and quarrelsome, but the wisdom which is from above draws one to God, for it is "peaceable, modest, persuadable." Quarrels arise from three things. First, when someone is not modest. As it says in Proverbs: "He who thrusts himself forward and makes himself big incites quarrels" (Prov. 28:25).[98] Again, some men are stubborn in their opinion, nor do they allow themselves to be persuaded of anything but what they have in their own head; heavenly wisdom, on the contrary, is "persuadable." Again, worldly wisdom does not allow its wise men to come to an agreement with another, but heavenly wisdom brings about agreement among good men, and is therefore "peaceable." But who is it that makes the peace? The Holy Spirit, for "he is not a God of dissension but of peace" (1 Cor. 14:33). Hence it says in Ephesians: "Take good care to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). The Lord exhorts us to preserve this peace when He says: "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth do I give unto you" (Jn. 14:27). This peace is twofold. One is in the present—the peace in which we now live, yet in such a way that we must still fight off vices; such is the peace the Lord "left with us" right now. The other is the peace that shall be in the future, without fighting; and about this the Lord says: "not as the world giveth do I give unto you."[99] Now, some want peace only to be able to enjoy good things [more easily].[100] The Book of Wisdom says about this: "Living in a great war of ignorance, they judged so many and so great evils to be peace" (Wis. 14:22).[101] But what is true peace? Augustine says that peace is "security of mind, tranquility of soul, simplicity of heart, the bond of love, and the fellowship of charity."[102] Peace has a threefold object: oneself, one's neighbor, and God. Peace is needed with regard to oneself, so that reason may not be infected by errors or darkened by passions, and concerning this, Augustine says that peace is "security of mind." There should also be tranquility in affection, and concerning this he says "tranquility of soul." Again, there should be simplicity in intention, and concerning this he says "simplicity of heart."[103] Peace toward one's neighbor is the "bond of love," and peace with God is the "fellowship of charity." Is not peace then utterly necessary for us? Surely it is. The Lord made His testament for the sake of peace, and those who do not want to keep the testament cannot receive the inheritance; thus those who do not want to keep peace cannot arrive at the heavenly inheritance. But what if someone were to say: "I want to have peace with God, but not with my neighbor"? The answer: such a thing is impossible. Hence a certain saint says: "No one can have peace with Christ who is out of harmony with a Christian."[104] Therefore, the third step of creation is the harmony of peace, and so the prophet Isaiah declares: "I have created the fruit of the lips, peace" (Is. 57:19).[105]
The fourth step is constancy of firmness, and this too is from the Holy Spirit. Hence the Apostle says to the Ephesians: "according to the riches of His glory, may He grant you to be strengthened with inner might through His Spirit in the inner man" (Eph. 3:16). And in Ezekiel: "The Spirit entered into me and I stood upon my feet" (Ezek. 2:2). And in the Gospel: "Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid" (Jn. 14:27). And in the Book of Wisdom: "God created man incorruptible" (Wis. 2:25).[106]
Therefore, the first effect of the Holy Spirit is that He creates.
The second effect is a renewal which consists of four things: grace that cleanses, justice that is ever making progress, wisdom that illuminates, and glory that attains consummation.
I say that the effect of renewal through the Holy Spirit consists, first of all, of the grace that cleanses. Sin is a sort of old age of the soul, and a man is only freed from this old age through justifying grace, by which he is cleansed from sin. Hence the Apostle writes: "As Christ has risen from the dead, so also let us walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).[107] Where does this newness come from? The Holy Spirit. So the same Apostle writes to Titus: "He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the laver of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). All sins are forgiven through that laver, and in this way man is renewed.
Secondly, this renewal consists in the justice that is ever making progress. If one should walk, grow tired, and become weak, and then he rests, his powers seem to him to be renewed; and when a man works diligently,[108] he is renewed when he gains further power for working. About this renewal Job says: "My glory shall be renewed, and the bow in my hand shall be repaired" (Job 29:20). The glory of the saints is the testimony of conscience. A man is renewed when he is quick to fight against vices. Isaiah describes it: "They shall take wings as eagles, they shall fly and not fail" (Is. 40:31),[109] namely, for running in the way of God's commandments (Ps. 118:32).[110] But who causes this running? The Holy Spirit. "He led us out through the deep, as a horse in the wilderness that does not stumble, and the Spirit of the Lord was his leader" (Is. 63:13-14).[111]
Thirdly, renewal comes about through the wisdom that illuminates. When a man comes to new knowledge of more of the good things of God, he is renewed. About this renewal it says in Colossians: "Put on the new man who is created according to God."[112] The "new man" [nouus homo] indicates Christ, because His was a novel [noua] kind of conception,[113] "not from the seed of man, but from the Holy Spirit"[114]; a novel kind of birth, because His mother remained a virgin after birth; a novel kind of suffering [passio], because it was without guilt[115]; a novel kind of rising from the dead [resurrectio], because it was quick and renewing, for He rose quickly and in glory[116]; a novel kind of ascension, because he ascended by His own power, not by that of another, as did Enoch and Elijah.[117] And so it is said in Ecclesiasticus: "Show signs anew and work wonders" (Sir. 36:6). And because all things are renewed through Christ, therefore on solemnities we use new vestments in church, that we may "sing to the Lord a new song"[118]—as though to signify that he who is renewed by the exterior cleanness of his clothing is renewed interiorly in his mind by grace. By "stripping off the old man," i.e., the habit of sins with its deeds, "and putting on" the habit of virtue which is not lacking in [good] deeds, "the new man," i.e., the rational mind, will be renewed "in the knowledge of God" (Col. 3:9-10).[119] As Romans has it, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 13:14). And from whom does that wisdom come? The Holy Spirit, as Job testifies: "As I see, there is a spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Almighty gives understanding. [They that are aged are not the wise men, neither do the ancients understand judgment]" (Job 32:8-9).[120]
Fourthly, renewal comes about through the glory that attains consummation, when the body is renewed, the oldness of punishment and guilt being taken away. We read about this in the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; [and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind]" (Is. 65:17). And where does this renewal come from? The Holy Spirit. He is the pledge of our inheritance, and it is He who leads us into the heavenly inheritance. He who needs to be created and renewed shall obtain this from the Holy Spirit.
4. The recipient of these effects
But who receives that renewal? "The face of the earth": that is, the whole world, which at one time was filled with idolatry. Today, the Lord gave to the Apostles the gifts of the charisms.[121] It was of them that the prophet Isaiah said: "They who enter with force," namely, the force of the Holy Spirit, "from Jacob shall fill the face of the earth with seed" (Is. 27:6).[122] And "face of the earth" refers to the human mind, for just as it is through the face that we see in a bodily manner, so it is through the mind that we see in a spiritual manner, as it says in Genesis: "God created man from the slime of the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7). But in order that the human mind may receive that renewal, it should have four things: it should be clean, uncovered, directed, and stable and firm.
Of the first, we read in Matthew: "But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face" (Mt. 6:17), namely, with tears of compunction, and then you will be able to receive the renewal of the Holy Spirit. "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me" (Ps. 50:12).[123]
Secondly, the face of the mind should be open and uncovered. The prophet says: "His face is covered with fatness" (Job 15:27).[124] Some have the face of their mind covered over with the darkness of ignorance. [Job, on the contrary, asserts:] "Darkness has not covered my face" (Job 23:17).[125] And the Apostle: "But we all beholding the glory of the Lord with open face," namely, a face not covered over by affection for earthly things, "are transformed into the same image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18).
Thirdly, the face of the mind should be directed toward God, as we read in the prayer: "Now I turn my face toward Thee, and direct my eyes toward Thee" (Tob. 3:14).[126] How do we turn our face toward God? By a right intention; it is thus that we obtain the renewal of the Holy Spirit. Hence it says in the Gospel of Luke: "He will give the good Spirit to those who ask him" (Lk. 11:13).[127] Again, if you are turned [to God] through obedience, He will give the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. Likewise, we should also turn our face toward our neighbor, as Tobit says to his son: "Do not turn your face away from any poor man, and the face of God will not be turned away from you" (Tob. 4:7). Hence the Apostles received the Holy Spirit when they were together (Acts 2:1-4).[128]
Fourthly, the face of the mind should be firm. It is written of Anna, mother of Samuel, "her countenance was no more changed in various ways" (1 Sam. 1:18),[129] and for this reason she received the Holy Spirit. And the book of Job says: "Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be secure, and will not fear" (Job 11:15). The Holy Spirit is given to persons like these. That is why it says in the Gospel: "And eating together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, 'you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"[130] But if they had gone away [from Jerusalem], they would not have received the Holy Spirit. "He who perseveres shall be saved" (Mt. 10:22; 24:13). In our prayers today, we shall ask the Lord to grant us this grace of perseverance.[131] Amen.
-
Thanks, Myrna. I will address that very pertinent sermon later. Right now I want to tell Eamon that I missed his first post there and didn't realize he was taking my post personally. It wasn't addressed to you, Eamon. Anyone who reads your posts has to know you only asked questions and disagreed some. So I am only confused that you thought I meant you. I definitely didn't. And you're wrong about my sincerity over wanting to know how I misunderstand omnipotence. I don't think I do, but until you tell me, I can't be sure. So tell me, already.
-
WOW! Great find, Myrna. Especially the last part. Very helpful.
-
Yes, it is a good read, I am now reading it a second time.
-
So where's Lybus? I'm (im)patiently waiting for his take on that sermon.
In the meantime, my daughter was telling me about the law of conservation---I think that's the name of it. It means you can't create energy and you can't destroy it. I wonder---do they have a pile of split atoms somewhere? :laugh2:
-
I've been taking a break. It got really intense so I wanted to cool down.
Is that sermon seriously the words of St.Thomas? There's no way I could pass that up, especially if he is speaking in laymen terms. It takes so much energy to process the philosophical jargon, it would be refreshing to see his thoughts without that.
I'll read that tonight.
-
So where's Lybus? I'm (im)patiently waiting for his take on that sermon.
In the meantime, my daughter was telling me about the law of conservation---I think that's the name of it. It means you can't create energy and you can't destroy it. I wonder---do they have a pile of split atoms somewhere? :laugh2:
split atoms? What are those?
You know how I said that God is able to create matter with an infinitely low amount of materials? I wonder if matter is the compilation of pure existence (God) and non-existence. However, it's kind of silly to look at it this way since "nothingness" isn't really anything, so it's really just pure existence....not pure existence and nothing.
But I thought I'd share that.
-
Notice how he begins and ends the sermon with God's love.
-
Did you know that the electron is both wave AND particle. As a wave it has energy but no position. As a particle it has position but no energy. It is a complete contradiction of itself. It canot be observed in its natural state, nor can it be observed as it moves from one level to the next because it does so too quickly. Nor can it be studied as both wave and particle at the same time.
So how DID the Infinite become Finite?
-
Welcome back, Trinity!
CathInfo has a few new features since the last time you were here. It even has a purple Lenten theme for now.
-
I noticed that Matthew. You've been busy. I got to talking to my daughter about the quantum model of the atom and she gave me her physics book to read. When I read these things about the electron I thought "That is SO God!" He's always blowing our minds. I had to share it with you.
Read another good book this weekend too. I think it was entitled "Progress in Mental Prayer". I kind of "borrowed" it from the pew Sunday. So I sent it back this morning lest someone be deprived of it. Happy Holy Week!
-
Funny you should bring up science and God -- that's been a topic I've been into in the last week or so.
There is a really interesting series of videos by a protestant preacher, but he's made a life work out of proving that evolution is silly, Creationism, is the only logical answer, and that dinosaurs are NOT something Christians need to fear, run away from, or sweep under the carpet.
He maintains (and very convincingly, I might add) that dinosaurs have existed throughout human history up to the present day, and that the Flood is the only explanation for things like frozen mammoths, oil, coal, mountain ranges, the continents, men living to 900 years in the Bible, etc.
A real help to one's Faith! No need to feel sheepish around the athiests any longer. THEY are the ones not in full possession of the facts.
Each one of these seminars (videos) is WELL WORTH your 2 hours, but I would start with Vol. 2 (The garden of Eden) and Vol. 3 (Dinosaurs and the Bible)
http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/
If you don't have as much time, I would recommend this website, which has TONS of fascinating information about ancient man:
http://www.s8int.com/sophis4.html
-
Now that you've brought that up, I have to share this with you, too. Not sure I understood my daughter fully, but I believe she said science has proven you can't make living matter out of non-living, or something to that effect. Where we went to was the petroleum products which once were plants and animals.
Which brought us to the essence of life. I used the word "spirit" and Dominica pointed out that there are any number of spiritually dead people walking around? So how can people still be breathing and yet be dead. Confessedly puzzled as always.
I will watch those as soon as I can. It has been my experience that if one knows the mechanics, one can more clearly see the reason behind the rules. Which really helps when you're in a gray area. I think it's in Romans that St. Paul says nature witnesses to God. Boy, does it!
-
Watched the Garden of Eden. My mind is still reeling. Such a shame though, for such a smart man to have missed the part about Jesus founding the Church on Peter.
Hi, Emerentiana.
-
Giant Human Skeleton Found in Middle East
Netlore Archive: 'Recent gas exploration activity in the southeast region of the Arabian desert uncovered skeletal remains of a human of phenomenal size...'
Description: Email hoax / Photo hoax
Circulating since: March 2004 (this version)
Status: False / Fake
Example:
Email contributed by Liane, April 19, 2004:
Subject: [Fwd: Interesting discovery]
FYI. Just got this Email, only God knows better about this story, but check it out:
Recent gas exploration activity in the south east region of the Arabian desert uncovered a skeletal remains of a human of phenomenal size. This region of the Arabian desert is called the Empty Quarter, or in Arabic, 'Rab-Ul-Khalee'. The discovery was made by the Aramco Exploration team. As God states in the Quran that He had created people of phenomenal size the like of which He has not created since. These were the people of Aad where Prophet Hud was sent. They were very tall, big, and very powerful, such that they could put their arms around a tree trunk and uproot it. Later these people, who were given all the power, turned against God and the Prophet and transgressed beyond all boundaries set by God. As a result they were destroyed.
Ulema's of Saudi Arabia believe these to be the remains of the people of Aad. Saudi Military has secured the whole area and no one is allowed to enter except the ARAMCO personnel. It has been kept in secrecy, but a military helicopter took some pictures from the air and one of the pictures leaked out into the internet in Saudi Arabia. See the attachment and note the size of the two men standing in the picture in comparison to the size of the skeleton !!
Image originated on Worth1000.com
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_giant_skeleton.htm
I tried to put the picture on here, but it didn't come up. Can anyone guess the height of this skeleton?
-
For instance, I am sure that God can do evil just as we can, or vice versa. If Christ wasn't capable of sinning, there was no merit in His not sinning. Yet we call Him worthy, because He is worthy. That's how we gain merit, too. We really are in His image.
I don't know how you can say that!
We are created in His image, meaning our souls are created in His image, they are immortal and will live forever. God is the Creator and we the creatures.
Evil does not have any rights, I have to disagree with you on this one Trinity. Yes, according to the world, evil has rights because the world today excepts evil as normal. Yet in Gods eyes, evil has no rights. We as Catholics are expected to die before we willing sin against God. I am not speaking about ѕυιcιdє either.
Maybe we should define the word "evil " to myself, it means against God.
When we say, God can do all things, that means He can do anything He Wills, but He does not Will evil.
It seems Trinity is back to the same round robin thread without changing any of her ideas that she and Lybus had last summer? early autumn? Can't remember when it was and don't have the time to search for that thread. But if anyone can find it, you'll see that it is pretty much the same as the current discussion. :faint:
-
For instance, I am sure that God can do evil just as we can, or vice versa. If Christ wasn't capable of sinning, there was no merit in His not sinning. Yet we call Him worthy, because He is worthy. That's how we gain merit, too. We really are in His image.
I don't know how you can say that!
We are created in His image, meaning our souls are created in His image, they are immortal and will live forever. God is the Creator and we the creatures.
Evil does not have any rights, I have to disagree with you on this one Trinity. Yes, according to the world, evil has rights because the world today excepts evil as normal. Yet in Gods eyes, evil has no rights. We as Catholics are expected to die before we willing sin against God. I am not speaking about ѕυιcιdє either.
Maybe we should define the word "evil " to myself, it means against God.
When we say, God can do all things, that means He can do anything He Wills, but He does not Will evil.
It seems Trinity is back to the same round robin thread without changing any of her ideas that she and Lybus had last summer? early autumn? Can't remember when it was and don't have the time to search for that thread. But if anyone can find it, you'll see that it is pretty much the same as the current discussion. :faint:
I'll have you know, Cheryl, that I expect to get a B or a B+ in Chemistry this time around! I just hope my Calculus class is doing alright. How's it been by the way? Haven't seen you in a while.
By the way, this summer I am thinking of writing an essay on a theological topic that I have been wondering for a while. I am calling it, "On whether God creates the Universe indefinitely." Basically, I want to explore the idea that God didn't create the universe once, but creates it anew again and again on to infinity. It makes sense from the idea that God does not change; he was not just a creator once, he creates always. I will explain why I am thinking this, but I wanted to know if there is anything heretical about this.
-
I'll have you know, Cheryl, that I expect to get a B or a B+ in Chemistry this time around! I just hope my Calculus class is doing alright. How's it been by the way? Haven't seen you in a while.
By the way, this summer I am thinking of writing an essay on a theological topic that I have been wondering for a while. I am calling it, "On whether God creates the Universe indefinitely." Basically, I want to explore the idea that God didn't create the universe once, but creates it anew again and again on to infinity. It makes sense from the idea that God does not change; he was not just a creator once, he creates always. I will explain why I am thinking this, but I wanted to know if there is anything heretical about this.
I'm still kickin' Lybus. I'm glad to hear about the chemistry grade! You hit the calculus book and I'll hit the floor and get started on praying to St. Joseph of Cupertino for you. This combination is bound to prove a winning combination for your grade in calculus. Would love to read your paper when you're done; if you don't mind sharing. Glad to hear there's other things going on in your life besides gaming. May God bless and keep you Lybus!
-
You know, Cheryl, it is said that if you can't say anything good about a person, you shouldn't say anything at all.
I don't think that is so, Lybus, because God rested on the seventh day. Love to hear your argument, though.
-
what I (the amateur theologian) wish to do in this argument is to solidify St.Thomas's claim that God never changes even in his attributes (which are technically the same as his nature), and that God is perfectly simple and pure actuality.
I just want to do it in a way that I think might be a little novel.
-
Yes, the bible says He doesn't change. Are you thinking He continues to work as in the first six days. I know it is said that if He ever forgot us, we would cease to exist. Interesting.
-
Yes, the bible says He doesn't change. Are you thinking He continues to work as in the first six days. I know it is said that if He ever forgot us, we would cease to exist. Interesting.
Work has many more meanings than what the American culture has to say about it and one cannot simply just say that work is effort or the desire to achieve some end. God's work is the same as his play, in that he has no real purpose or desire for creation other than for its own sake. God is like a Divine Child; he plays with creation and works with it for its own sake and not for any particular goal, save for his desire to share his happiness. There is no real effort involved or need to rest (at least for God). Looking at it from an intuitive standpoint, God is simply creating all of the universe in the first six days and then sitting back and enjoying his creation, much how a child might "work" building a fort and then "play" army men with it later. This is how I think it should be viewed: everything requires work and effort, even enjoyment does (you're expending energy even when you laugh, right?), but God is playing and working (which are the same) as he creates, and then rests (or enjoys) and looks at his creation and maintains its existence.
-
I'm afraid you've lost me, Lybus. Did you watch the videos Matthew posted? Did you know about the electrons?
-
I'm afraid you've lost me, Lybus. Did you watch the videos Matthew posted? Did you know about the electrons?
if it's the one about dinosaurs, I believe I have. I know about the wave and particle thing, though I think it's the photon that moves in a wave and acts as a particle, though I think you might be right that it's also the electron that does this as well. It makes me think of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which says that you can't know the position of a moving object exactly. This even applies to baseballs (the ball can be several nanometers one way or several nanometers another way), not just electrons.
Atoms in general confuse me because I don't understand how they are held together. if the electron is negative and the proton is positive and the neutron is neither, how the heck do they form the structure they do? The protons come together to form a nucleus, even though it would seem that the protons should greatly repel each other, and the electrons whiz around the nucleus even though it would seem that the electrons would eventually stick to the protons like magnets, even if they were moving at high speeds. The neutrons, according to this idea, shouldn't even be in the atom at all (except on accident) because they have no reason to "stick" to the positive electrons, having no attraction for them.
So my question isn't how the infinite became finite, but how the finite became finite, lol.
-
Here's a book that may help clarify questions regarding the attributes of God:
http://www.archive.org/details/godhisknowabilit00pohluoft
-
Man can know God by a study of His creatures---or in the case of physics, creation. That's a paraphrase from the book Hobledehoy posted. The mystery of the atom is part of the mystery of God, I think. If one gets into the nuts and bolts of life and bodies, they are confronted with endless mysteries. Even if we know the mechanics we can't figure out how they work---esp. when they shouldn't.
For me this all adds up to Wow! That God is something, isn't He? And I am confirmed in my belief that God can do anything.
I was awake in the wee hours today and thought more about your thesis, Lybus. There are some who have the theory that God created everything, then left it to go on its own---the wound up clock theory, I think that is. We know that's false. We know that He loves to walk with man; that He remains concerned with us; that He intercedes with us. But does He continue to create or is it a done deal, I just don't know. I will read more of Hobledehoy's book and see if I get anymore bright ideas.
In the meantime, what did you think of Hovid's theory on the dinoaurs?
-
Here's a book that may help clarify questions regarding the attributes of God:
http://www.archive.org/details/godhisknowabilit00pohluoft
That's a long book, so I won't be able to read it for a while (exams for college). Thanks for posting it, I"ll look through it.
I think Hovind's theory makes sense. I think it's also plausible that there are dinosaurs still existing. Apparently the ones that are still alive are extremely ferocious, so I can see why humans would have hunted them down. They went nearly extinct because of how vicious they were, they had to be put down by humans. (also a lot of meat on those critters, lol)
-
This book brings up something I've been thinking about---namely our attraction to good or evil. The author was actually talking about how we know God---is it born in us and if so what about the atheists? I've known people who think evil is good. Or at least I think it's evil. Those people don't understand me nor I them. So how do we acquire a sense of good and evil?
-
Yeah, it made complete sense to me. They are still finding new critters, too. I, for one, never heard of the Chinese Water Deer----a deer with sabor teeth. The Auroch was killed off in the 17th century. Most of my life I hadn't heard of such a thing.
If you watch the Garden of Eden video, Holvind points out that in the beginning all were vegetarians. After the flood God told them to put the fear of themselves in the animals and to eat their meat. It says so in my Douey Rheims----I just never caught that before. Goes the same for animals I suspect.
-
I am taking a seminar class on Socrates and he himself said that all men seek the good, even tyrants or wicked men. So even the pagans were able to get this idea right. All men seek the good, and none seek evil. What makes them pursue evil is their ignorance in believing that it is truly good. Some men believe that power or money is the good, others believe it's sensual love, others, a natural peace on earth. They are all looking for that good which they are too blind to see; the Ultimate Good.
Atheists worship human reason, whatever that may be. I think it goes better to say that they worship themselves, though. I don't know if that's fully the case, but they certainly don't see God as the ultimate good.
-
Yeah, it made complete sense to me. They are still finding new critters, too. I, for one, never heard of the Chinese Water Deer----a deer with sabor teeth. The Auroch was killed off in the 17th century. Most of my life I hadn't heard of such a thing.
If you watch the Garden of Eden video, Holvind points out that in the beginning all were vegetarians. After the flood God told them to put the fear of themselves in the animals and to eat their meat. It says so in my Douey Rheims----I just never caught that before. Goes the same for animals I suspect.
I never knew they were vegetarians. I suppose they would have to be for there to be no death, though.
-
Check out Genesis1:29.
-
You know, Cheryl, it is said that if you can't say anything good about a person, you shouldn't say anything at all.
I didn't realize that pointing out that this thread is a similar one that you and Lybus had last year is saying anything bad about a person, mea culpa!
For Lybus, read some of the old thread I mentioned, you seem to have evolved in some your ideas that you're stating in this new thread.
-
Check out Genesis1:29.
Isn't this one of Roscoe's favorite Bible verses? :smoke-pot:
-
this actually IS the old thread, that Trinity and I were talking about this back and forth, at least from what I remember. It was just found after having been buried for about 4 months.
-
The book is really excellent.
In his book Reality (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1958), Rev. Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, commenting upon the treatise De Deo uno as found in the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:
St. Thomas does not admit that an a priori proof of God's existence can be given [1a, q. 2, a. 1]. He grants indeed that the preposition, God exists, is in itself evident, and would therefore be self-evident to us if we had a priori face-to-face knowledge of God; then we would see that His essence includes existence, not merely as an object of abstract thought, but as a reality objectively present. But in point of fact we have no such a priori knowledge of God. We must begin with a nominal definition of God, conceiving Him only confusedly, as the first source of all that is real and good in the world. From this abstract knowledge, so far removed form direct intuition of God's essence, we cannot deduce a priori His existence as a concrete fact.
It is true we can know a priori the truth of this proposition: If God exists in fact, then He exists of Himself. But in order to know that He exists in fact, we must begin with existences which we know by sense experience, and then proceed to see if these concrete existences necessitate the actual objective existence of a First Cause, corresponding to our abstract concept, our nominal definition of God [1a, q. 2, a. 1, ad 2; a. 2, ad 2].
A little further on, he proceeds to discuss the five classical proofs proposed by St. Thomas regarding the existence of God:
The five classical proofs for God's existence rest, one and all, on the one principle of causality, expressed in ever deepening formulas, as follows. First: whatever begins has a cause. Second: every contingent thing, even if it should be ab aeterno, depends on a cause which exists of itself. Third: that which has a share in existence depends ultimately on a cause which is existence itself, a cause whose very nature is to exist, which alone can say: I am who am [Exod. ch. iii., 14].
[...]
Most simply expressed, causality means: the more does not come from the less, the more perfect cannot be produced from the less perfect. In the world we find things which reach existence and then disappear, things whose life is temporary and perishable, men whose wisdom or goodness or holiness is limited and imperfect; then above all this limited perfection we must find at the summit Him who from all eternity is self-existing perfection, who is life itself, wisdom itself, goodness itself, holiness itself.
He later writes something that fundamentally explains the nature of God:
In God alone are essence and existence identified. In this supreme principle lies the real and essential distinction of God from the world. This distinction reveals God as unchangeable and the world as changeable (the first three proofs for His existence). It becomes more precise when it reveals God as absolutely simple and the world as multifariously composed (the fourth and fifth proofs). It finds its definitive formula when it reveals God as "He who is," whereas all other things are only receivers of existence, hence composed as receiver and received, of essence and existence. The creature is not its own existence, it has existence after receiving it.
He then goes on to clarify the role of reason and common sense in this argument:
This truth is vaguely grasped by the common sense of natural reason, which, by a confused intuition, sees that the principle of identity is the supreme law of reality, and hence the supreme law of thought. As A is identified with A, so is supreme reality identified with absolutely one and immutable Being, transcendentally and objectively distinct from the universe, which is essentially diversified and mutable.
From what I understand, man can arrive at the certitude of God's existence only a posteriori by observing the world around him through his senses and availing himself of his natural reason and common sense. Divine Revelation is the object of theology properly so called, the existence of God as naturally knowable to the human intellect being the object of the branch of philosophy known as Theodicy or Natural Theology.
In our day, we can glory in that the proofs of St. Thomas, far from being "debunked" by materialists and atheists, have been gloriously vindicated and immensely substantiated by the great progress of the empirical sciences. We know of sublime and beautiful things of this planet and of the universe that were unknown to our forefathers, and we are all the more blessed in that we have more whereupon to meditate and thereby adore the great God, saying "O Lord, our Lord, how wondrous is Thy Name in all the earth! For Thy magnificence is exalted above the heavens" (Ps. viii. 2), "For Thou, O Lord, hast gladdened me by Thy doing: and in the works of Thy hands will I exult. How have Thy works been magnified, O Lord! Thy thoughts are exceeding deep!" (Ps. xci. 5-6).
-
From what I've read of Roscoe, it may well be his favorite passage. In context, though, it means we were originally vegetarians. Try Genesis 9:2 & 3. :popcorn: