Very suspicious of all heavenly messages


#1

In the various messages that have been given through the centuries to various seers, saints, and commoners, a recurring theme is that God is sad or angry with the sins of mankind. The givers of these messages, usually a being supposed to be the mother of Jesus, an angel, a saint, or some other holy person no longer alive, seems to be rather naive regarding the Church’s accepted list of attributes of God. For instance:

God’s Aseity seems to mean that He is so independent that He does not need us. This would imply He does not need our actions one way or another to make him a better or more pleased god. Thus how could the sins of mankind effect him in any way?

His Transcendence implies that he is unable to be changed by forces within the universe. That would imply that he couldn’t be pleased or displeased by our actions. Our actions are surely forces within the universe.

His Impassibility, usually defined as the inability for him to suffer would imply that he could not be made angry. Anger is surely a form of mental suffering.

God’s Immutability means he cannot change. Thus he could not change from a happy state to an angry state due to our actions.

These considerations make me very suspicious of all the so called heavenly messages and revelations given by the supposed heavenly visitors to the children of Fatima and to many others. Any thoughts?


#2

Such private revelations are not binding, and can be a distraction from or faith. They are very specific. The problem arrives when they are placed on a level equal to the deposit of faith.

Oftentimes, it is far better to go back to the basics and simply decide to know, to love and to serve God - the very purpose of our existence. That is the cake, the rest, frosting.

We do not live on the frosting, and it can obscure the cake if we allow it to.


#3

If you think that this means that God has emotions – changing emotions, to boot! – then yes, you’ll get the wrong idea of what’s being said here. What you say about God is correct, but you’re missing the fact that, when we speak of God, using terms that we also use about humans, we don’t mean them in the same way.

And so, when we talk about God’s ‘sadness’ due to sin, then we mean something different than what we’d mean if we said “@clarkgamble1 is sad.”

In other words, you don’t have to disregard approved private revelation, just because you think it predicates something of God that does not apply to Him.


#4

So: let them eat cake??? :rofl:


#5

I’d rather read those heavenly messages - than Harry Potter !


#6

Let me point out that Jesus, having a human soul, indeed has emotions
& feelings. Clearly shown in visitations involving His Sacred Heart


#7

A limited case, but yes!


#8

Wrong thread, the I hate Harry Potter is elsewhere.


#9

We are humans. We can only say things as a human would say them. If we don’t mean them as we say them, then most anything we say about God is nonsense. Because everything we say has to be in our terms as a human. Just how do we say “God is angry at our sins” in a manner that makes sense for God?


#10

Straw man alert.


#11

No… not ‘nonsense’, but rather, “said in terms of things we know and understand.”

“God does not desire sin in His creation.” If you find a way to say it without the overt emotion, it is closer to the truth (after all, since God does not change, He doesn’t experience changing emotions).

That doesn’t make it ‘nonsense’ for us to say “God is angry at our sins” – it’s just a more familiar reference point from which to understand that God is not big on sinning. :wink:


#12

you dont have to believe Our Lady appeared at Fatima, but the Church does. So do millions of people.

Those who yave no faith, no explanation is possible, those with faith, no explanation is needed


#13

How have the sins of mankind affected him already? How about the Incarnation and the Redemption? Did he need to? No. But did he do it because of Love? Yes. Could the Incarnation have happened without the Redemption? Of course. If he wanted to redeem us, could he have let himself be killed by Herod, and not wasted 33 years wandering around on earth? Also yes. Why did he choose to do it the way he did? But if you’re going to say “Sin doesn’t affect God”, what is sin? Sin is what separates us from God. If my kids grow up and say, “I hate you, Mom; I never want to see you again,” is that going to affect me? Yes. Is it going to stop me from living my life? No. But it’s not something you just ignore.

I can make my kids laugh, even if they’re determined to be grumpy. But God is greater than the universe, because he created the universe. The universe can’t force a change on God, because it’s subject to God. We can’t force God to be pleased with something unpleasant, or displeased with something good, but he can be pleased or displeased according to his nature. His anger isn’t a rush of emotional feeling, but it’s the correct reaction to evil. Otherwise, you’re forced to ignore the zillion verses in the Bible about the wrath of God— “Sorry, God, you’re not allowed to be angry!” – or the verses where God is well-pleased with something-- “Sorry, God, you’re not allowed to be happy!”

You realize that we have no way of understanding God, right? Because we’re pretty much the equivalents of gnats in comparison. So we anthropomorphize God, because that’s the only way we can begin to talk about him in an effort to understand him. But it’s not to say that it’s just an anthropomorphism-- they’re descriptions that aren’t supposed to be literalistic.

When we’re talking about happiness or anger in terms of God, we’re not talking about “yay, an ice cream cone” or “hey, you ate my ice cream cone” kind of feelings. Those are feelings that sweep over you, and you can’t do anything about them. That kind of stuff is for physical beings, not spiritual beings. God has sovereignty over everything, including control over his own reactions… but that doesn’t mean an inability to react.


#14

"So we anthropomorphize God, because that’s the only way we can begin to talk about him in an effort to understand him."

Thank you for a fine bunch of answers. You have given me a lot of things to consider.


#15

More accurate to say the Church regards Mary’s appearance at Fatima as “believable”. It offers it for individual consideration and devotion. Encouraged.

But the Church itself believes in what is in public revelation.

The difference between approved and unapproved private Revelati
on is helpful. The diff.erence between public and private Revelation is crucial.


#16

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.