The Role of Suffering

[Fish and Bread]

Christians of almost all stripes recognize that suffering can have a redemptive value. I think most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox folks would tell you that suffering is generally bad, but if it happens to befall you, can be used by God for good, even though it's less than ideal, and that one should be willing to suffer for one's beliefs (i.e. taking up the cross).

It seems as though around the time of the Great Schism (Or perhaps further back) there was a specific emphasis in either what was or what would become (Depending on the exact timing and how one feels about terminology) the Roman Catholic Church on the goodness of suffering that was more and more emphasised through the years. Almost by implication, and perhaps even in specifics, the teaching seems to be that suffering is *inherently* good, which is different from what many other Christians teach, which is that it is a bad thing that can used for good. We've even seen some famous Saints in that tradition pray to suffer as Jesus did on the cross and develop wounds in the areas where the nails were driven through his hands and feet.

So, it may seem like kind of a fine point of theology, but I'm curious as to what the Church Fathers and parasitics of the earliest church, let's say 400AD and prior, thought of this concept. Was suffering thought to be *inherently* good or just sometimes good? Quotations which just say suffering if you happen to be persecuted or to help people is good will be returned to sender. :) I'm looking for comments, pro or con, from the early church fathers on the *inherent* value or lack thereof of suffering. Did any of them think we should, say, hit ourselves with chains to emulate the Romans striking Jesus (To use a really extreme example)? Or did they just think we should endure what suffering happened to come upon us?

John

[gitlance]

John 13:15-17:

"For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them."

If our Lord suffered so horribly, we can expect no less.

[Fish and Bread]

John 13:15-17:

"For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16Very truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor are messengers greater than the one who sent them."

If our Lord suffered so horribly, we can expect no less.

That doesn't answer the question. :) Besides, it sounds like Jesus is talking about loving on another there. He's not telling us all to go out and find someone to torture us and nail us to a cross.

John

[gitlance]

LOL. I wasn't avoiding the question. I was just saying that if Christ suffered and lived a life of emptiness, why should we expect any less for ourselves?

[Naomi4Christ]

LOL. I wasn't avoiding the question. I was just saying that if Christ suffered and lived a life of emptiness, why should we expect any less for ourselves?

So you believe in voluntary suffering - self-flagellation and all that? :confused:

[DarthDigger]

fish + bread - what do you mean exactly by "the role of suffering" and in what context?

DD

[Naomi4Christ]

fish + bread - what do you mean exactly by "the role of suffering" and in what context?

DD

I'm sure John will answer, but here's what I interpreted from his questions:

Suffering is part of life - we live in a fallen world and there are consequences for sin, etc. There is also active judgement from God. These things all bring suffering to us. Our immediate reaction is to say that suffering is a bad thing - but we know that God uses suffering. Suffering can bring us closer to God and can bring about good relationships with people on earth.

So, given the spiritual beneficial consequences of suffering, should we actively pursue suffering by literally depriving ourselves or hurting ourselves?

Personally, I think no we should not. This would make a mockery of Jesus' self-substitution. What we should do is recognise when we sin, the consequences of sin and the possibility of making some good out of a sinful situation.

[Fish and Bread]

fish + bread - what do you mean exactly by "the role of suffering" and in what context?

DD

It's kind of a technical theological topic and might be a bit hard to understand. I even confuse myself with this stuff sometimes! :)

We know all Christians think that sometimes God can do good things through suffering. For example, if we screw up and accidently fall and scrape our knee, we're in pain, but that pain might lead us to pray or to feel sympathy for other people who are hurt and pray for them. So, God did something good with something bad. Some churches even think that we should look for bad things to happen so we can grow closer to God, though, even though most disagree with that. I am trying to figure out who is right, basically, by seeing what Christians from a long time ago who knew Jesus or his Apostles personally (Back when they were walking the earth) or who knew the people who knew them thought. :) Does that make a little more sense?

John

[Fish and Bread]

I'm sure John will answer, but here's what I interpreted from his questions:

Suffering is part of life - we live in a fallen world and there are consequences for sin, etc. There is also active judgement from God. These things all bring suffering to us. Our immediate reaction is to say that suffering is a bad thing - but we know that God uses suffering. Suffering can bring us closer to God and can bring about good relationships with people on earth.

So, given the spiritual beneficial consequences of suffering, should we actively pursue suffering by literally depriving ourselves or hurting ourselves?

Naomi restated my question very well. :) Thank you. :) The only additional element was curiosity about what the early Christians thought. I've seen all the arguments pro and con in the past and I've seen most of the scripture. Basically what I'm looking for now is -- What did the church fathers think? I don't know if their comments would persuade me or not, but I'd be very interested in reading their arguments and considering them. :)

John

[Naomi4Christ]

So, God did something good with something bad. Some churches even think that we should look for bad things to happen so we can grow closer to God, though, even though most disagree with that. I am trying to figure out who is right, basically, by seeing what Christians from a long time ago who knew Jesus or his Apostles personally (Back when they were walking the earth) or who knew the people who knew them thought. :) Does that make a little more sense?

John

Are you saying that you are not sure whether suffering can result good? That all suffering is bad, all the way through?

[Fish and Bread]

Are you saying that you are not sure whether suffering can result good? That all suffering is bad, all the way through?

I am saying that suffering can result in good, because God is good. I know that much. :) My question is whether God wants us to seek it out or not -- i.e. is it good in and of itself.

John

[Naomi4Christ]

Basically what I'm looking for now is -- What did the church fathers think? I don't know if their comments would persuade me or not, but I'd be very interested in reading their arguments and considering them. :)

John

I don't know what the church fathers thought, but I would be surprised if they all thought the same thing. I can't imagine that there would have been any possibility of developing a doctrine from this. I think we have to stay mindful of our loving, merciful and compassionate God - does he really want us to hurt?

[Naomi4Christ]

I am saying that suffering can result in good, because God is good. I know that much. :) My question is whether God wants us to seek it out or not -- i.e. is it good in and of itself.

John

:) Crossed posts!

My instinct would be that God does not want us to suffer. He is a loving, merciful and compassionate God. He sent Jesus to take on the penalites for our sin. If we still have to suffer beyond the normal consequences, then you have to wonder why he had to die a horrible death.

Whenever we do voluntary penance, we are doing it for ourselves - not for God.

[gitlance]

So you believe in voluntary suffering - self-flagellation and all that? :confused:

Not self-flagellation. I mean, I don't think I would practice it, and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to.

Don't misread what I am saying. Jesus did not induce his own suffering, and I am by no means saying we should either. I am just saying that we should be ready for it and accept it when it comes.

[CSMR]

a specific emphasis in... the Roman Catholic Church on the goodness of suffering that was more and more emphasised through the years. Almost by implication, and perhaps even in specifics, the teaching seems to be that suffering is *inherently* good
Catholics believe rather misguidedly that many things are inherently good (i.e. by works, not faith ;) ).
which is different from what many other Christians teach, which is that it is a bad thing that can used for good.
Yes; to understand this well bad must be taken to mean actually bad, a sin, a feeling on our part which does not correctly understand the judgement against us. Yet it can be a sign of this judgement and used to bring us to faith.
One should be careful in taking suffereing to be worse in any way than pleasure or any other state of mind without an understanding of how it is less revelatory.
And especially with the opposite conclusion of considering suffering good in itself, because it is a "higher" understanding and in a sense nearer both truth and blasphemy.

Ecclesiastes can be so direct because no-one will suspect the book to be optimistic about the nobleness of our suffering:
It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
Ecc 7:3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
Did any of them think we should, say, hit ourselves with chains to emulate the Romans striking Jesus (To use a really extreme example)? Or did they just think we should endure what suffering happened to come upon us?
I have in mind a great painting of a saint or prophet beating himself with a stone; I thought it was a Rembrandt but can't find it now. I found it a captivating image of - I suppose repentance.

[DarthDigger]

It's kind of a technical theological topic and might be a bit hard to understand. I even confuse myself with this stuff sometimes! :)

We know all Christians think that sometimes God can do good things through suffering. For example, if we screw up and accidently fall and scrape our knee, we're in pain, but that pain might lead us to pray or to feel sympathy for other people who are hurt and pray for them. So, God did something good with something bad. Some churches even think that we should look for bad things to happen so we can grow closer to God, though, even though most disagree with that. I am trying to figure out who is right, basically, by seeing what Christians from a long time ago who knew Jesus or his Apostles personally (Back when they were walking the earth) or who knew the people who knew them thought. :) Does that make a little more sense?

John

thanks....

[AngCath]

Although God does not enjoy our suffering we are told repeatedly to endure and to be steadfast and faithful because it is a reality of this world, infected with sin, that there is suffering and will be until the end when all things are restored.

[Filia Mariae]

I am saying that suffering can result in good, because God is good. I know that much. :) My question is whether God wants us to seek it out or not -- i.e. is it good in and of itself.

John

In my opinion, (which is just opinion and nothing more), some individuals have a vocation to suffer in a way others do not and a few may be called to "seek it out" as you say. But most people aren't called to look for serious suffering (IMO). But, some amount of sacrifice we are all called to as Christians, such as fasting etc.

[Fish and Bread]

In my opinion, (which is just opinion and nothing more), some individuals have a vocation to suffer in a way others do not and a few may be called to "seek it out" as you say. But most people aren't called to look for serious suffering (IMO). But, some amount of sacrifice we are all called to as Christians, such as fasting etc.

Thanks! Do you know of any early Church Fathers (Prior to maybe 300 or 400AD) who endorsed that view? That's primarily what I'm looking for, because it seems as though some folks claim this goes all the way back to Jesus himself as a practice of the Church and others feel it started in the western church much better, around the time of the Great Schism. I think knowing what the earliest Christians thought would go a long way towards settling the issue in my head a bit. :)

John

[Filia Mariae]

Thanks! Do you know of any early Church Fathers (Prior to maybe 300 or 400AD) who endorsed that view? That's primarily what I'm looking for, because it seems as though some folks claim this goes all the way back to Jesus himself as a practice of the Church and others feel it started in the western church much better, around the time of the Great Schism. I think knowing what the earliest Christians thought would go a long way towards settling the issue in my head a bit. :)

John

I'm not sure honestly, I doubt early Fathers would have addressed it because the early Christians suffered whether they liked it or not. When you were getting thrown to the lions, you didn't really need to go looking for it, you know?:)

To say that the Catholic Church teaches that suffering is inherently good is not correct I don't think. Since suffering is a result of the Fall, it couldn't be inherently good. But is an opportunity for grace and much good can come out of it.

[karen freeinchristman]

I doubt early Fathers would have addressed it because the early Christians suffered whether they liked it or not. When you were getting thrown to the lions, you didn't really need to go looking for it, you know?:)


good point! :thumbsup:

[Fish and Bread]

I'm not sure honestly, I doubt early Fathers would have addressed it because the early Christians suffered whether they liked it or not. When you were getting thrown to the lions, you didn't really need to go looking for it, you know?:)

That makes sense. I suppose this may be one of those issues that is hard to discern solely with references to scripture or to early Church history. This is one of my growing issues or questions about the Anglo-Catholic movement. There are these kind of nebulous references to "the authority of the Church", but their Church doesn't actually seem to exercise any authority on important questions that face us today. :) The only time I've heard of an Anglican bishop cracking down on anything was when some priests tried to run off with their parishes' property and join a different church. :) And obviously there are no Anglican-endorsed ecumenical councils today to point to as sources of authority.

I wonder if some are trying to straddle a fence that doesn't exist. Either the Church is visible and has clear authority and views on major moral questions (i.e. Through the western perspective of a Papacy or the eastern perspective of bishops/councils) or it is invisible and the we derive God's will from the interpretation of scripture, reason, tradition, experience, science, etc. as best we can. I don't think there's really a viable via media there that makes sense in context of Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.

To say that the Catholic Church teaches that suffering is inherently good is not correct I don't think. Since suffering is a result of the Fall, it couldn't be inherently good. But is an opportunity for grace and much good can come out of it.

Thanks for clearing that up! I'm glad that you're directly addressing the issue. I was worried that the thread was going to get sidetracked. Of course, my paragraph on authority probably won't help keep it on track... :blush:

John

[Filia Mariae]

Thanks for clearing that up! I'm glad that you're directly addressing the issue. I was worried that the thread was going to get sidetracked.

I found this article, by a Dominican priest, that nicely explains the position of the Catholic Church on human suffering and its redemptive value.

http://www.rosary-center.org/ll49n2.htm

In terms of early Fathers, this website has tons and tons of stuff, but if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, it can be hard to find. But- its a good resource to have in general.

www.earlychristianwritings.com (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com)

Of course, my paragraph on authority probably won't help keep it on track... :blush:

John

Probably not, brace yourself for the onslaught.:cool:

[Fish and Bread]

I found this article, by a Dominican priest, that nicely explains the position of the Catholic Church on human suffering and its redemptive value.

http://www.rosary-center.org/ll49n2.htm

In terms of early Fathers, this website has tons and tons of stuff, but if you don't know exactly what you're looking for, it can be hard to find. But- its a good resource to have in general.

www.earlychristianwritings.com (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com)



Thanks! :)

John