www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Anger

Sorry for the long quotes but I think this is worth the read

SUMMA THEOLOGICA

QUESTION 15: OF THE DEFECTS OF THE SOUL
ASSUMED BY CHRIST

ARTICLE 9: Whether there was anger in Christ?


OBJ 1: It would seem that there was no anger in Christ. For it is written (James 1:20): "The anger of man worketh not the justice of God." Now whatever was in Christ pertained to the justice of God, since of Him it is written
(1 Corinthians 1:30): "For He [Vulgate: Who] of God is made unto us . . . justice." Therefore it seems that there was no anger in Christ.
OBJ 2: Further, anger is opposed to meekness, as is plain from Ethica Nicomachea iv,5. But Christ was most meek. Therefore there was no anger in Him.

OBJ 3: Further, Gregory says (Moralium v,45) that "anger that comes of evil blinds the eye of the mind, but anger that comes of zeal disturbs it." Now the mind's eye in Christ was neither blinded nor disturbed. Therefore in Christ there was neither sinful anger nor zealous anger.
On the contrary, It is written (John 2:17) that the words of Psalm 59:10, "the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up," were fulfilled in Him.

I answer that, As was said in the FS,Q46,A3,r 3, and SS, Q158,A2,r 3, anger is an effect of sorrow, or when sorrow is inflicted upon someone, there arises within him a desire of the sensitive appetite to repel this injury brought upon himself or others. Hence anger is a passion composed of sorrow and the desire of revenge. Now it was said (A6) that sorrow could be in Christ. As to the desire of revenge it is sometimes with sin, i.e. when anyone seeks revenge beyond the order of reason: and in this way anger could not be in Christ, for this kind of anger is sinful. Sometimes, however, this desire is without sin - nay, is praiseworthy, e.g. when anyone seeks revenge according to justice, and this is zealous anger. For Augustine says (on John 2:17) that "he is eaten up by zeal for the house of God, who seeks to better whatever He sees to be evil in it, and if he cannot right it, bears with it and sighs." Such was the anger that was in Christ.

Reply OBJ 1: As Gregory says (Moralium v), anger is in man in two ways - sometimes it forestalls reason, and causes it to operate, and in this way it is properly said to work, for operations are attributed to the principal agent. It is in this way that we must understand that "the anger of man worketh not the justice of God." Sometimes anger follows reason, and is, as it were, its instrument, and then the operation, which pertains to justice, is not attributed to anger but to reason.

Reply OBJ 2: It is the anger which outsteps the bounds of reason that is opposed to meekness, and not the anger which is controlled and brought within its proper bounds by reason, for meekness holds the mean in anger.

Reply OBJ 3: In us the natural order is that the soul's powers mutually impede each other, i.e. if the operation of one power is intense, the operation of the other is weakened. This is the reason why any movement whatsoever of anger, even if it be tempered by reason, dims the mind's eye of him who contemplates. But in Christ, by control of the Divine power, "every faculty was allowed to do what was proper to it," and one power was not impeded by another. Hence, as the joy of His mind in contemplation did not impede the sorrow or pain of the inferior part, so, conversely, the passions of the inferior part no-wise impeded the act of reason.

I am not arguing about a particular example of anger. I am only asserting that righteous anger is a reality. If anger is directed towards an evil end or if it is not ordered by reason, I agree it is sinful.

Excellent, IM -- now is there a comparable Eastern spiritual perspective?

Alexandr's use of the word "zeal" is quite accurate!

I really thought St. Thomas was a Universal Doctor of the Church.........that we all may be one.I acknowledge that I don't understand the objection to Thomas as all truth is ONE.


in peace

[b]St Theophan the Recluse: On Anger I[/b] [hagioipateres.wordpress.com]
January 16th, 2007

The flame of anger and the fire of hell

�Let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil� (Eph. iv. 26-27).

The devil has no access to the soul, if the soul itself harbours no passions. In such a state it is transparent and the devil cannot see it. But when it admits the movement of a passion and consents to this movement, it becomes darkened and the devil sees it. He approaches it boldly and assumes control over it. Two evil passions principally trouble the soul�lust and irritability. When the devil means to captivate someone through lust, he leaves him alone in this turmoils: the devil does not bother him any more, except perhaps to disturb him a little with anger. But if a man does not give in to lust, the devil hasten to incite him to anger, and gathers round him a quantity of irritating things. A man who fails to discern the devil�s wiles allows himself to become annoyed at everything, permitting anger to master him, and so he �give place to the devil.� But a man who stilfes every upsurge of anger resists the devil and repels him, and gives no place to him within himself. Anger �gives place to the devil,� as soon as it is regarded as something just and its satisfaction is felt to be lawful. Then the enemy immediately enters the soul and begins to suggest thoughts, each more irritating than the last. The man starts to be aflame with anger as though he were on fire. This is the fire of hell; but the poor man thinks that he is burning with zeal for righteousness, whereas, there is never any righteousness in wrath (James i. 20). This is the form of illusion [prelest] peculiar to wrath, just as there is another form of illusion [prelest] peculiar to lust. A man who speedily overcomes wrath disperses this illusion and thus repels the devil as though by a strong blow in the chest. Is there anyone who, after extinguishing his anger and analysing the whole business in good faith, does not find that there was something wrong at the basis of his irritation? But the enemy changes the wrong into a sense of self-righteousness and builds it up into such a mountain that is seems as though the whole world would go to pieces if our indignation is not satisfied.

You say that you cannot help being resentful and hostile? Very well then, be hostile�but towards the devil, not towards your brother. God gave us wrath as a sword to pierce the devil�not to drive into our own bodies. Stab him with it, then, right up to the hilt; press the hilt in as well if you like, and never pull it out, but drive another sword in as well. This we shall achieve by becoming gentle and kind towards each other. �Le me lose my money, let me destroy honour and glory�my fellow-member is more precious to me than myself.� Let us speak thus to each other, and let us not injure our own nature in order to gain money or fame.

�St. Theophan the Recluse (in Igumen Chariton of Valamo, The Art of Prayer [Faber & Faber, 1966], pp. 211-212)

St.Thomas Aquins was Brilliant, but not Infallable, and the Scriptures themselves say God, in the times before his Incarnation, became Angry with his chosen people, and wiht the world, for heir sins.

I will have to side with the posters hwo say Anger can be riheous, and anger,itsself, is no sin, if the object of anger rightly deserves such a responce.


Besides, Aquinas seems to say that , becaus the Anger of man worketh not the justice of God, no Anger is valid. Yet the Scriptures also tell us Human Wisdom is not true Wisdom.Does htis mean Chrust Jesus contaiend no wisdom?

Aquinas actually differentiates between human anger and Divine anger:

We speak of anger in God, not as of a passion of the soul but as of judgment of justice, inasmuch as He wills to take vengeance on sin. Because the sinner, by sinning, cannot do God any actual harm: but so far as he himself is concerned, he acts against God in two ways. First, in so far as he despises God in His commandments. Secondly, in so far as he harms himself or another; which injury redounds to God, inasmuch as the person injured is an object of Gods providence and protection. (I-II, 47, 1, ad. 1)

You seem to be defining righteous anger as zeal. Fine. From now on when we mean vice we will use anger and when we mean righteous anger we will use zeal. The reality is the same.

in peace,

That is a question which always arises in these discussions when Aquinas is quoted. I don't know the answer but I am always a little wary that Aquinas' views are considered "unEastern." (I realize I am in the minority in my opinion on this issue) But true is true.

Aquinas may have understood these types of things better because he was a philospher (and "disciple" of Aristotle who was pretty wise for a man who did not know Christ) as well as a theologian, and hence had a better grasp of the "natural" order than most. Would one say that the legitimate insights of a modern psychologist were "uneastern". Or that some of the claims of science -- that the earth revolves around the sun are uneastern? Modern Eastern Catholics and Orthodox rely on these folks everyday. Why not on sound insights from whereever they come from--even if it is Aquinas?

But if you've got some quotes from the Fathers regarding this question, PLEASE share them. This is an important discussion!

I think the Fathers would tell us that we don't want to be ruled by our passions, but rather rule them.

When you read an article from Aquinas, the "OBJ." is the position he is arguing against, the objection. The the "I answer..." is his position. And the "Reply" is his answer to the objection which he raised. So I think he holds that Anger of Christ did work the justice of God and without any sin whatsoever which is often different than our anger. I agree, however, that just because we might be angry does not mean that we should not act at all. We might have a moment to pause, let our "emotions" subside and then use our reason to direct whatever righteous zeal was roused by the bodily "movement" of "anger".

Police work often involves a consideration of a level of force to use --the lowest being verbal commands with the potential combatant, the highest deadly force. In between the deadly force and the commands might be the use of a baton or pepper spray. In a real situation, a police officer might have to go to deadly force very quickly. Only a virtuous man will be able to make a "quick" decision in such a circumstance. And in such a situation, you can bet that real "emotions" will be running high no matter how virtuous he is. The Fathers East and West, I think would encourage men in this line of duty. to pray before during and after such a situation. There is no doubt, however, that good training and learning to keep his wits about him will be necessary too. Grace cooperating with nature.

RE: You seem to be defining righteous anger as zeal. Fine. From now on when we mean vice we will use anger and when we mean righteous anger we will use zeal. The reality is the same.

If my unscientific survey of translations is any guide , it seems that in modern English this is a useful distinction.

The quote from St. Theophan was excellent!

I loked the way St Theophan clearly described what he was discussing by calling it irritablity. (Altho I don't like to think that my anger is more irritability than righteous zeal, I have to admit that sometimes it feels surprisingly like irritablity).

When dealing with my children, I can echo your sentiments! " Although I don't like to think that my anger is more irritability than righteous zeal, I have to admit that sometimes it feels suprisingly like irritability."


In peace,