Posted on 04/30/2009 9:56:15 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
The firm and sincere decision that a penitent makes to avoid the sins that person is confessing in the sacrament of penance. A true purpose of amendment includes the determination to avoid at least all grievous sins, the near occasions of them, to use the necessary means to amendment, to make due satisfaction for the sins committed, and be ready to make restitution or repair whatever injury may have been done to others.
How does one avoid doing something, that God knows one will do?
That’s what this is all about. Amending one’s life and avoiding that sin.
An example would be the use of pornography. Amendment would include
Turning the computer around so that the entire family can see what you are perusing. Setting time limits on yourself on the use of the computer — in other words, not using it in the middle of the night. Canceling the channels that have pornography on them.
I think you get the idea. It takes action and a firm resolution of amendment for the sinner to avoid sins.
If one sins again, that is what is so wonderful about the Sacrament of Penance. He/She can avail themselves of the sacrament again and again.
Another thing, once the sin is confessed and forgiven by God through the words of absolution that the priest uses, God FORGETS the sin.
Catholic Word of the Day – not linked – but you can do a search to find them.
|
La Salette |
Liturgy |
Andacollo |
|
Kings, Book of |
Physiologus |
Old Catholics |
|
Baltimore Catechism |
Armagh, Book of |
Nature |
|
Eulogia |
Orders, Sacrament of |
Missionary |
|
Dominus Vocbiscum |
Ichthus-Fish |
Abbacy of St.Jerome |
|
Invalid |
Doctrinal Demythology |
Metaphysics |
|
Ecclesia Docens |
Apostolic Signatura |
Octaves |
|
Religion as feeling |
Temperament |
Gifts of the Holy Spirit |
|
Congregation for Catholic Education |
Sponsor |
Mystery Play |
|
Paschal Candle |
Imitation of Christ |
Voluntarism |
|
Matter, Sacramental |
Notion |
Chancel |
|
Gabbatha |
Gregorian Masses |
Ordo |
|
Resolution of Amendment |
|
|
Catholic Word of the Day Ping!
Please send me a FReepmail if you would like to be on this Ping List.
 |
1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:
|
We are not predestined to do anything.
God knows our end, but we have free will at every moment.
But if God knows you are going o sin 3 weeks from now, how do you avoid it?
God knows the future, but forgets the past?
Does God know what we will do before our end?
I’m not God, I don’t create people knowing what they will do and what will happen to them. If God knows there will be an accident 3 weeks from now, how could there not be the accident?
I’m a firm believer in God, just not they way you are, obviously.
It would appear that your notion of God is a puppetmaster whom you can blame for every failing you have or will have. You equate foreknowledge with causing. You refuse to believe God has given humankind free will. Yes, I’d say we are worlds apart in our concept of God and Mankind.
You are confusing blame for responsibility, and assigning human traits to God. I don’t blame God for anything. He does what He does for reasons I do not need to know.
I equate foreknowledge with cause only with God, as He is the creator of everything, knows all, and is all powerful.
You just posed that whatever you do, good or bad, is God’s fault because He does not stop you from doing bad though He may reward you for doing good. Argue if you wish, Yes, that is precisely the position you’ve taken whether you will admit it or not. I suspect you are unable to admit it because you are so dependent upon the definition you’ve fabricated of God responsible for everything and nothing laid at your feet.
Do you believe that God knows what you will do 3 weeks from now?
Whether I am responsible for what I do or not, I still suffer the consequences, don’t I?
Grace!
A Sacrament is an Outward Sign instituted by Christ to give Grace.
So in confessing our sins, we receive more grace to resist those temptations.
Here are a couple of links, one on the Sacraments in general, and one on the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation for more detail for you.
Beginning Catholic: Catholic Sacraments: Vehicles of Grace [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The Sacrament of Reconciliation: Rising Again to New Life [Ecumenical]
BTW, these are excellent questions, ones that many have.
**but forgets the past?**
Only if you confess those sins, amend your ways, are truly sorry, and do the Penance prescribed by the priest.
Reading Scripture, saying a prayer for someone, or the old and usual three Hail Marys, etc.
**God has given humankind free will.**
And God is always waiting for us to come to him to ask forgiveness for our sins.
But you shouldn't.
God lets you genuinely decide your actions upon your own will, including choices for good or bad, repentance, etc. Not because he lacks the power to override your will, but because he loves you as you are with the will you have.
OK, thanks
Doesn’t God know what is really in your heart even before you sin?
Why shouldn’t I?
Doesn’t God already know how you are going to be, even before He creates you?
If God knows something is going to happen, doesn’t it have to happen? Otherwise, God would be mistaken, wouldn’t He?
Of course He does. But He waits, waits for us to ask forgiveness.
Think of Christ with the Pharisees, Saduccees and scribes. He didn’t condemn them all to hell. He waited.
And then Nicodemus showed up during the night.
And another one, Zachaeus, I believe, because he was so short climbed a sycamore tree so that he could see and hear Jesus.
Other followed Jesus, seeing the signs he worked. Some left when he talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
Many are called, but few are chosen.
Doesn’t He know if we are going to ask for forgiveness, even before we are born?
God knows what choices I will make and allows the consequences of these choices.
I’m starting to get confused here.
Do you understand what free will is?
Isn’t that the same as creating you, knowing what you will do in your life?
Did God create Hitler knowing what choices he would make, then allowing those consequences?
Yes, but I don’t believe we really have it. I believe we were designed to believe we have it, in order to bring about societies and laws, but ultimately everything that happens in the universe, is planned and made to happen by God.
Yes, of course.
OK, thanks
Things would be incomprehensible unless we remember two facts:
- God is simple: all he does is love. He loves Hitler infinitely and he loves Mother Teresa infinitely.
- Man possesses eternal life. Death of the body is one step in its endless course.
And that He is ultimately responsible for creating everything that is...good and bad.
Bad cannot be created, surely not by God. Bad is absence of good. God created Hitler as good as Mother Teresa.
God created Hitler as good as Mother Theresa. Perhaps true, but they also both did what God knew they would do and made the decisions that He knew they would make...and God allowed the consequences of those decisions to happen to both deserving and innocent people. I can understand God creating Mother Theresa, knowing she would do so much good.
Why would He create Hitler and allow those consequences to happen, knowing what he was going to do?
I think what we see as bad or good, is all part of His plan, and maybe He doesn’t see things the way we assume He does?
You are correct that there is a limit in our understanding of the divine purpose in creating the world. Foremostly, that limit is in attaching human psychology to God. We tend to not create something we know for sure would turn bad. But God, unlike us, is simpler: all he does is create and love.
The second limitation is that what is good and bad to us is limited to the existence prior to death and not beyond it. We are not incorrect in thinking that; we rightly abhor death of an innocent person, either in a gas chamber or in an abortuary. God, however, embraces the innocent sufferer who then experiences supernatural happines of Divine presence in Heaven. What is horror to us is triumph from the eternal perspective.
I agree, God should not have human qualities attached to him. That is why it seems unlikely that He could not be responsible for everything.
Dark is not an opposite to light. Dark is absence of light. If you see a shadow, in a certain sense you CAN say: the light is "responsible" for that shadow, because, of course, had there been no light, the shadow would be inifnitely larger. however, the accurate description of cause and effect is that light is responsible for the fact that some areas are is lit, and the obstacle in the way of light is responsible for the ssadow.
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1)
I was reminded today on an FR thread of this C.S. Lewis's comment, that Satan is not the opposite of God, he is the opposite of St. Michael.
You’ll have to figure out if there is any manichean dualism in my statements, as I have no idea what that is.
Again, you seem bent on assigning our human observations and theories to this. I thought we’d agreed that God and this subject, is beyond our comprehension.
Regarding Manicheism:
Manichaean theology was dualistic in regards to good and evil. A key belief in Manichaeism is that there is no omnipotent good power[citation needed]. This addresses a theoretical part of the problem of evil by denying the infinite perfection of God and postulating two equal and opposite powers. The human person is seen as a battleground for these powers: the good part is the soul, which is composed of light, and the bad part is the body, composed of dark earth. The soul defines the person and is incorruptible, but it is under the domination of a foreign power, which addressed the practical part of the problem of evil. Humans are said to be able to be saved from this power (matter) if they come to know who they are and identify themselves with their soul.
You say there are aspects that are difficult or even impossible to comprehend. Since people are different, how does one use human reason to define these aspects of God with precision? Wouldn’t there be different definitions, based on the individual’s reasoning? How would one know their reasoning was correct and another’s was incorrect?
This might be of interest in this regard: Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine. In particular:
Objection 1. It seems that God is not the object of this science. For in every science, the nature of its object is presupposed. But this science cannot presuppose the essence of God, for Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, iv): "It is impossible to define the essence of God." Therefore God is not the object of this science.[...]
Reply to Objection 1. Although we cannot know in what consists the essence of God, nevertheless in this science we make use of His effects, either of nature or of grace, in place of a definition, in regard to whatever is treated of in this science concerning God; even as in some philosophical sciences we demonstrate something about a cause from its effect, by taking the effect in place of a definition of the cause.
When dealing with what many refer to as the unknown, how do you distinguish or separate incomprehension from subjectivism, or even what one would believe is objectivism? How do you determine which is correct, by the ones that agree with you or share your beliefs?
Once we agree that God in His essence is unknown, we can rationally discuss His known aspects. The method is to prove what God is not: which theory of God would not be correct because it would contradict the known aspects. For example, we would note that God is incapable of hate, does not have multiple essences, etc. This is called the apophatic method.
Science and math also employ something similar when we use proofs from the contrary.
What if people do not agree on His known aspects?
Why would we agree that God is incapable of hate, for example?
Because that would mean that God makes something or somebody, then hates it. Illogical.
Why should God be logical? After all, He is the creator. I don’t think we should confine Him to what we believe is logical, should we? He knowingly makes people that will commit murder, or suffer horrible diseases or catastrophes, or fall victim to terrible fates, doesn’t He? How is that logical? How is it logical that He would create someone that He knows will go to hell?
Gog is God; logic is one way among many that he manifests himself. As all the other ways: nature, scripture, revelations and miracles, logic is an expression of his love for us.
You are correct that God cannot be confined to what we think logical, otherwise miracles would not be there. But it is different from saying that God is fundamentally illogical. When we examine, for example, the logic of science according to which there should be no miracles at all, we note that science denies miracles by definition of science. So if a scientist said: surely the observed miracles are illusions or coincidences, — he would be guilty of confining God to a logic of human making. Once we step outside of the confined area, we see a superior logic: God’s love is manifest in giving us a predictable world in which we can exercise prudence, — hence the laws of nature, — and God’s love is manifest in assuring us of our supernatural end, — hence the miracles.
So, while we see God upsetting the confines of human logic, with consistency we see God acting true to some superior logic, which with the greater effort we can grasp also. Such is the consistency of God’s love: while for a while we wonder how is it possible for God to love the hell-bound sinner, upon further reflection we realize that he could not love him in any other way. Inferior logic gives way to superior logic, but not to illogicality.
How do you know logic is God’s expression of His love?
How do you know something actually is a miracle? Are all illogical events miracles?
How is it logical or loving, when God creates someone, knowing they will go to hell because of their decisions?
Logic is a gift from God; thanks to it, we, too can enjoy sovereignty and participate in the creation. Laws of logic and nature make for a livable universe, where we can experience safety, know consequences of our actions, and can create all these tecnhological marvels around us.
A miracle is something that is outside of the natural law, has a salutary to man aspect, and answers a prayer. Coincidences, improbabilities, or falsifications of an erroneous theory are not miracles.
The act of love is to make a creature capable of free will — a man. To then deprive man of his signature property, free will, would be an act of cruelty and a contradiction of divine intent. Yet, short of turning man into a robot, God does guard us against sin. Yes, we are loved by God at all times, even when we fall to sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.