Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Heretics - Dialectic Reasoning

[lax16]

Lax16,

I absolutely mean that God is “unchanging and that this is His coventantal faithfulnless.”
Your opinion (where it to be correct and I strongly disagree) that the LDS God is conceived of in different ways that the God of the Jews (presumably you do not mean modern Jews, but if you do then I would agree) is a tangential issue.

To be “unchanging in His coventantal faithfulnless” is to not back down from the promises God makes to His people (indeed to all of us). God promises that He can bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. He promises to love us. He promises to always be with us. As His covenant people we can have absolute faith that He will not just decide that perhaps he doesn’t want to follow through with the whole immortality thing. That is never going to happen.

If God’s body is a big issue for you, then send me a PM. I will send you some links and you can decide if it is the modern Jews or the modern LDS who most align with early Christians and Jews.
Charity, TOm

ToM- I am not interested in modern ideas of religion. I am very familiar with Judaic differences when it comes to Orthodoxy, Conservatism and Reformed.

The Thirteen Principles of Faith constitutes the most well know Jewish Creed and it was formulated by the great Jewish medievalist Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides (1135-1204CE). It states, among other things, that God is Incorporeal and Incomparable.

I have been to enough family dinners with “cultural Jews” to know that, at this point, almost anything goes in Judaism. However, I am old enough to know Jews, who may have not been religious, but did not change Jewish teachings as they wished. I try very hard to always look to ancient teachings when forming my opinions about the nature of God, etc.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I don’t think Tom is saying that the Councils contradict themselves. He is saying that it is difficult to perceive how an unchangeable God can love us. No, he is going further with what is apparently “dialectical reasoning”. He is saying that immutability is incompatible with a loving Being. Because we believe that God is love, our teaching on God’s unchangeability is the contradiction he is speaking of. I do not have much confidence in my own ability to unravel these things philosophically, but I think Tom has too much confidence in his own ability to perceive all the possible answers to the problem. Nevertheless, I decided to grant his point to show that the Church remains anyway.

For the record, I consider Tom my friend. He has been to my house, and he is welcome again. I think he is a man of integrity and very good will. I admire his zealous willingness to try to look at things from the other guy’s perspective. This process is what has led to his present conclusions. If you listen closely, he understands and acknowledges strengths in Catholic claims that most Catholics don’t even get!

Thanks…

Rory

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t think Tom is saying that the Councils contradict themselves. He is saying that it is difficult to perceive how an unchangeable God can love us.

If that is true, I could not get that from the OP. The OP seemed too vague to have a conversation about and he was unwilling to help clarify.

If you listen closely, he understands and acknowledges strengths in Catholic claims that most Catholics don’t even get!

Thanks…

Rory

I think you might be right.

 

[TOmNossor]

1. …God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father,

Hello Rory.
Thank you for finding those. I am much less concerned about the term “unchangeable” because it clearly has been used regularly within Jewish and Christian (including LDS Christian) history/scripture in a way that acknowledges that it does not refer to a philosophic absolute unchangeableness. I think “Immutable” is less rescue-able. It is a pretty specific philosophic word.

As you know, before you became a little too Traditional for me I would say I would be a Rory Catholic. It is quite clear to me that many Catholic thinkers have abandoned God’s impassibility, but it seems such abandonment is often with the same spirit that leads to, “the Eucharist is not really, well not literally, the body and blood of Christ.”

I am not sure you will enjoy Kreeft’s lecture as much as I did, but I did.
Peter Kreeft’s “Fated and Free”

I think Kreeft has a more profitable strategy for dealing with this than did Weinandy and Gavrilyuk.
Both of them to my recollection argued that the love of the impassible God was superior to the love of the passible God. I disagreed, but I generally felt they made a powerful case concerning the extent to which historic Christianity is married to the idea of an impassible God.

I think Kreeft would make this argument:

Peter Kreeft said something I will attempt to channel when he was talking about freedom and foreknowledge.

If we think of God’s impassibility when we seek Him in prayer, when we attempt to commune with Him in mutual love; we will be stymied by His cold distance and total apathy toward us. We simply must think of God as loving and caring and individually concerned about us.
Now, if we think of God’s passability when we wonder how He through His power will overcome the horrors of a school shooting or a Thailand tsunami we might fear His pain could incapacitate Him. And if we think of God as changeable so that He could experience such pain, then how do we trust that he will be steadfast in his purposes. We need to know that God is one we can have absolute faith in and He will not let us down.

Surely Kreeft would advocate that we must worship and love with the passible God and ground our faith in the unchanging, impassible God WHO paradoxically are both the same God.

I am not necessarily thrilled with the above, but I think I would lean towards this before I would try to be

a Jamesian “modified immutability”.

RoryMcKenzie56:
Catholic.
I read James and a few other scriptures as Pelikan invited me to:
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) pp. 22:

In Judaism it was possible simultaneously to ascribe change of purpose to God and to declare that God did not change, without resolving the paradox; for the immutability of God was seen as the trustworthiness of his covenanted relation to his people in the concrete history of his judgment and mercy, rather than as a primarily ontological category. But in the development of the Christian doctrine of God, immutability assumed the status of an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.

Have you read either Weinandy or Gavrilyuk? I would be shocked if David didn’t have Weinandy, but Gavrilyuk I think was one of those self-important >$100 books (and I only got it through the library).

Concerning that apologetic strength of this:
I would suggest that if someone claims to be a Jamesian modified unchangeablity (or even immutability) Catholic, they can defeat the argument that God’s asiety, my freedom, and God’s knowledge of my free actions are not possible. God ceases to be unchangeable and is affected by my free choices.
I think it is also true that a Jamesian Catholic would have less problem seeing the love of God either without the above paradox OR without the apathy that I think is so problematic.
At this point I would lean away from being offended by the idea that someone is a Jamesian Catholic.

So, if someone who I am accusing of being illogical in their theology while simultaneously condemning others who they claim are illogical in their theology wants to embrace Jamesian Catholicism, I will be ok with that.

But, I think the price of making hay concerning the illogicalness of others theology is that you should have your house in order. Would you disagree with that?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The OP’s failure to answer this question is why this thread suffered a quick death two years ago. All that would be required is to quote a few canons of the first seven councils which seem to contradict each other. At this point, we have an accusation with no support.

Actually, the OP was unresponded to for over 2 months. The response you keep quoting occured >2 months later.
I was away from Catholic Answers from 13, '08, 5:40 pm to Oct 23, '08, 6:31 pm.
This thread I started 2 days later and it included dialogue with an EO fellow for some time.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
The impetus for both threads was that I had noticed a couple of very intelligent EOs at Energetic Processions who despite being well versed in philosophy seemed to both condemn Catholicism for dialectic reasoning AND to respond to what I perceived as contradictions by denying the importance of dialectic reasoning (rather than denying that contradictions existed).
As a heretic, I am outnumbered here. I had hoped that I could find an EO that would suggest that dialectic reasoning presented a problem for Catholics. And a Catholic who would point to the use of dialectic reasoning in the first councils and suggest that it is essential to the first 7 councils that are accepted by EOs. Then the three of us would each be able to explore this issue with one person who agreed with us on the disputed points.
I would agree with the EO that it presents problems and with the Catholic that it is essential for the council decisions.

Anyway, I was away from this site from Mar 13, '08, 5:40 pm to Oct 23, '08, 6:31 pm. So I never saw the >two month delayed reply of which you are so fond. I resurrected this post because it was LOOSELY related to some of the discussions on the other (now closed) thread.

Anyway, I have presented what I think is a clear contradiction in Catholic thought. You have asked me to back it up from councils. I told you that I am more than willing to listen to you if you suggest that the contradiction is a product of my not knowing what Catholics believe. Gavrilyuk and Weinandy argued IMO persuasively as to why the impassibility of God MUST be accepted as “axiomatic” (to use Pelikan’s word). I am still hoping that you can either explain what I do not get concerning Catholicism or deal with the contradiction.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I don’t think Tom is saying that the Councils contradict themselves. He is saying that it is difficult to perceive how an unchangeable God can love us. No, he is going further with what is apparently “dialectical reasoning”. He is saying that immutability is incompatible with a loving Being. Because we believe that God is love, our teaching on God’s unchangeability is the contradiction he is speaking of. I do not have much confidence in my own ability to unravel these things philosophically, but I think Tom has too much confidence in his own ability to perceive all the possible answers to the problem. Nevertheless, I decided to grant his point to show that the Church remains anyway.

For the record, I consider Tom my friend. He has been to my house, and he is welcome again. I think he is a man of integrity and very good will. I admire his zealous willingness to try to look at things from the other guy’s perspective. This process is what has led to his present conclusions. If you listen closely, he understands and acknowledges strengths in Catholic claims that most Catholics don’t even get!

Thanks…

Rory
Thank you for the kind words.
This thread is somewhat confusing because it has three purposes.
I started it 2 years ago as I told Stephen in the last post because:
As a heretic, I am outnumbered here. I had hoped that I could find an EO [like the ones I had read 2.5 years ago at Energetic Processions] that would suggest that dialectic reasoning presented a problem for Catholics. And a Catholic who would point to the use of dialectic reasoning in the first councils and suggest that it is essential to the first 7 councils that are accepted by EOs. Then the three of us would each be able to explore this issue with one person who agreed with us on the disputed points.
I would agree with the EO that it presents problems and with the Catholic that it is essential for the council decisions. The Catholic would say it was essential like me, but not problematic. The EO would say it was problematic but not essential.

Then…
I resurrected it partially because I am/was trying to show Stephen that I think the charge of “illogical” against Mormonism is not quite fair. I am actually not arguing that my own personal illogical positions are OK. Rather I am arguing that this bat is pretty damaging to most religionists. Rather like you have turned the “weird” argument in the past.

In this resurrection, I used the simple “Aseity” vs. “Freedom,” but as I am prone to do things that are important to me creep in easily. The love of God verses Aseity or Immutability or Impassibility or absolute unchangingness became a discussion mostly between me and Rebecca.

So, I think there were three distinct purposes for this thread. Never a good idea! I don’t claim to be smart just in the right church!
Charity, TOm

 

[mfbukowski]

Rory-
This is the way I see the scripture from James; in the KJV and others the operative word is “unvariable” not “unchanging”.

I think we get confused by these words

One’s character can be unchangeable or “invariable” while having dynamic relationships and growing in an organic way, interacting with others etc. One’s love for others for example can be a constant, while interacting in that love inevitably brings change to the individuals. I see that for example in the way I love my wife. I literally loved her from the day I met her over 30 years ago, so that has been “immutable” but yet of course that love grows and changes daily.

One can imagine a hypothetical judge who’s justice was unchanging but who’s understanding of humanity grew with each interaction he had with those whom he judged.

I have always preferred Heraclitus to Plato; Heraclitus compared reality to a river which was constant primarily in its change- imagine the mighty Mississippi flowing implacably onward with an “eternal” constancy, and yet each ripple, each leaf washed downstream, changes its flow in microscopic ways.

It is constant and immutable in its very changeability

So I really have no problem with the James scripture you quoted from an LDS pov, yet I am not sure this view works at all for Catholics.

If it does, then we are very close on this.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Says Tom:
Hello Rory.
Thank you for finding those. I am much less concerned about the term “unchangeable” because it clearly has been used regularly within Jewish and Christian (including LDS Christian) history/scripture in a way that acknowledges that it does not refer to a philosophic absolute unchangeableness. I think “Immutable” is less rescue-able. It is a pretty specific philosophic word.

Says Rory:

I think these terms have been used interchangeably even if immutable seems to have more philosophic baggage. I found the quotes by using Denzinger’s entry under “immutable”. Under that category he provided translations of eight documents of which two used the word “immutable” or one of its forms. In all four of the conciliar documents, the word “unchangeable” is used including for the Council of Florence, which was translated “immutable” by the source I used from the internet.

I guess I could ask you if your hanging your hat upon a translation of the 1442 Council of Florence that I discovered on the interent as being a Latin word that is “less rescue-able” than the words used in the other three conciliar documents and in James? These documents, whether translated by EWTN, Fordham University, or Denzinger’s source, are not concerned to utilize expressions that would seem for our discussion, rescueable. That is why I tend to think these are synonyms, fully compatible with, and indeed springing from, the revelation of St. James.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Tom says
As you know, before you became a little too Traditional for me I would say I would be a Rory Catholic. It is quite clear to me that many Catholic thinkers have abandoned God’s impassibility, but it seems such abandonment is often with the same spirit that leads to, “the Eucharist is not really, well not literally, the body and blood of Christ.”

Rory says
I am beyond my ken. I don’t have the knowledge if I had the ability to refute your reasoning. Your argument makes sense to me; Does that mean I trust it to be correct? No! But supposing I did have to abandon God’s love or God’s impassibility, I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that if needs be, I may occupy a school of thought within the Church that permits a modification upon the speculations of certain theologians in regard to His impassibility. In a spirit of submission to the defined teachings of the Holy Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years, I believe whatever St. James taught about God’s unchangeability, and I believe what St. John taught about the love of God, in particular when he said, “God is love”.

I would be less optimistic about finding a similarly submissive way to understand that there could be a legitimate school of thought within the Church which denies the literal presence of Christ’s Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Rory-
This is the way I see the scripture from James; in the KJV and others the operative word is “unvariable” not “unchanging”.

I think we get confused by these words

One’s character can be unchangeable or “invariable” while having dynamic relationships and growing in an organic way, interacting with others etc. One’s love for others for example can be a constant, while interacting in that love inevitably brings change to the individuals. I see that for example in the way I love my wife. I literally loved her from the day I met her over 30 years ago, so that has been “immutable” but yet of course that love grows and changes daily.

One can imagine a hypothetical judge who’s justice was unchanging but who’s understanding of humanity grew with each interaction he had with those whom he judged.

I have always preferred Heraclitus to Plato; Heraclitus compared reality to a river which was constant primarily in its change- imagine the mighty Mississippi flowing implacably onward with an “eternal” constancy, and yet each ripple, each leaf washed downstream, changes its flow in microscopic ways.

It is constant and immutable in its very changeability

So I really have no problem with the James scripture you quoted from an LDS pov, yet I am not sure this view works at all for Catholics.

If it does, then we are very close on this.

Hey bukowski…

You might have gotten the wrong impression. I am only defending my own faith, and for the record, am ordinarily quite willing to concede logical coherency for LDS positions that most Catholics and Protestants who have opinions deny.

I don’t see any problem here for Mormons at all. It is Tom who is suggesting a contradiction for Catholics who also want to maintain that God loves us. I believe he has been overly influenced by fallible philosophers and theologians who do not necessarily represent what the Councils have said about the matter. The Church has been relatively quiet about it. Approximately once every five hundred years the Church says that God is unchangeable. With virtually no explanation of what this means, it appears to me that the default position would be to fall back upon not what fallible philosophers and theologians have said, but what our own canon of Scripture says.

This is what I meant when I suggested that if Catholics have a problem, so do Mormons, because ultimately the only “unchangeableness” with which we are entirely committed to be reconciled, is the same “unchangeableness” to which Mormons are committed. Not the Summa of St. Thomas, not St. Augustine, nor any of the other doctors of the Church, but rather the same Scripture that we share in common with Mormons.

I hope that clarifies. Good seeing you over here.

Rory, aka 3DOP

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Tom says:
Have you read either Weinandy or Gavrilyuk? I would be shocked if David didn’t have Weinandy, but Gavrilyuk I think was one of those self-important >$100 books (and I only got it through the library).

Concerning that apologetic strength of this:
I would suggest that if someone claims to be a Jamesian modified unchangeablity (or even immutability) Catholic, they can defeat the argument that God’s asiety, my freedom, and God’s knowledge of my free actions are not possible. God ceases to be unchangeable and is affected by my free choices.
I think it is also true that a Jamesian Catholic would have less problem seeing the love of God either without the above paradox OR without the apathy that I think is so problematic.
At this point I would lean away from being offended by the idea that someone is a Jamesian Catholic.

So, if someone who I am accusing of being illogical in their theology while simultaneously condemning others who they claim are illogical in their theology wants to embrace Jamesian Catholicism, I will be ok with that.

But, I think the price of making hay concerning the illogicalness of others theology is that you should have your house in order. Would you disagree with that?
Charity, TOm

**Rory says: **
I don’t disbelieve in your church or any others because they are illogical. It was the very coherence and cogency of so many other faith claims that drove me to Rome. I won’t be the one to cry, “Illogical!”

I haven’t read those guys you mention. I don’t read much kind of that kind stuff anymore. I’m not against it but honestly, I don’t care except for these kinds of conversation. I am getting older and I am still a baby when it comes to prayer and perseverance and virtue. When I am at my best, I want to make God pleased with me and show Him I love Him. So, besides my history and literature, I read about devotion, prayer, and the lives of the saints. It would be like eating unsweetend oatmeal instead of a medium rare filet mignon if I chose the dry analytical stuff that our mutual friend likes, instead of the mystics and lovers. A never ending diet of porridge doesn’t energize the body and I think the same could be said for that kind of reading as it relates to the soul. We need fibre but we need some protein too, and its okay if it tastes good!

Rory

 

[KathleenGee]

About God being changeable or unchangeable…reflecting on the comments here, I recalled my initial understanding of God…“I am Who Am”…my roommate and I discussed it…God is being, He is Life, Jesus is the carnate of Life, the Spirit is the connector…

I think the basic essence of God is being…Boethius in his work, ‘De Trinitate, ’ The Divine substance is being itself, and from it comes being’.

So God Himself has already told us Who he is through Moses and being is his nature. And we are essences of his being, particularly when we are nourished and formed sacramentally by His carnate Son, and we in turn empty ourselves for new life in Him. We do become a part of the Divine through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I like St. Thomas comparing the human intellect with the eye of an owl…it always comes back to me…our understanding of God can be compared to the eye of an owl compared to the sun, noting its eye only works in darkness.

 

[mfbukowski]

This is what I meant when I suggested that if Catholics have a problem, so do Mormons, because ultimately the only “unchangeableness” with which we are entirely committed to be reconciled, is the same “unchangeableness” to which Mormons are committed. Not the Summa of St. Thomas, not St. Augustine, nor any of the other doctors of the Church, but rather the same Scripture that we share in common with Mormons.

Rory, aka 3DOP

Good to see you here too!

But for us I think the problem is a little different, because we have to reconcile the James scripture and others with the notion of “eternal progression”, where we I think, affirm that God does in fact change.

That is why I was making the point that his character and attributes stay the same while he progresses. He can both be described as “unchanging” from one point of view, and yet progresses in another point of view.

 

[mfbukowski]

About God being changeable or unchangeable…reflecting on the comments here, I recalled my initial understanding of God…“I am Who Am”…my roommate and I discussed it…God is being, He is Life, Jesus is the carnate of Life, the Spirit is the connector…

I think the basic essence of God is being…Boethius in his work, ‘De Trinitate, ’ The Divine substance is being itself, and from it comes being’.

So God Himself has already told us Who he is through Moses and being is his nature. And we are essences of his being, particularly when we are nourished and formed sacramentally by His carnate Son, and we in turn empty ourselves for new life in Him. We do become a part of the Divine through Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I like St. Thomas comparing the human intellect with the eye of an owl…it always comes back to me…our understanding of God can be compared to the eye of an owl compared to the sun, noting its eye only works in darkness.

Life is the essence of growth, change and development, isn’t it? All living things grow and change.

 

[KathleenGee]

But does change lead us from the unmoved God to a fracture where then we have new theologies and new histories, that result in the fracture of charity as well…I don’t mean to go any farther in this, but we who have progressed 2,000 years as Christians are not recognized as Christian by other recent denominations…and that is my essential dispute with Mormonism is the apparent fracture and lack of charity by invalidating the peoples of faith.

Am Who Am has its own progression of consistency, but maintains unity as well as unity in the understanding of Who God is, and I see this adherence to unity as a character of love. And it is through the Second Person of One God that Christ reconciles, forgives, and reconnects us to the Father.

I understand Mormonism believes in 3 separate Gods, or is it Jesus and Lucifer and Adam are one or brothers…that concept is not the understanding of faith in the 5,000 year old history of both Jews and Christians. So to reach different ideas, then God would be changeable…and then I would ask…

Who is manipulating Who?? I see the changeable God allowing theologies or doctrines that contradict this history, and just looking at the evidence of salvation history, not looking at God Himself, would indeed create a different form of a new religion using terms and personages from our Judeo-Christian foundation…using the same people but with different works.

So a changeable God would allow new theologies, new stories of origin, that would also severe the unity of faith and love, which is a contradiction to the sacred unity that the Three Persons in One God provide. Consider the types of redefinitions of ‘others’ by new denominations started in America in the 1800’s and the language used to describe us to validate their severing…it is not charitable.

And you can’t draw on one theologian or two to make a doctrine…it is the work of the Holy Father (I don’t like to use the English word, ‘pope’ here as it has a negative flavor to it) in union with the bishops. Non-Catholics who draw on this theologian or that one using a compromised statement means nothing on its own. Is it approved by the Church, in the spirit of the Church?..that can only come about by the Holy Father and the bishops of the world who represent the regions of their believers…the doctrine must resonate with the faith of all believers. St. Augustine and St. Thomas both had their own missives, St. Thomas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception and thought women had defective genes. St. Augustine, in considering the cults he had been part of for many years, had some pretty strange ideas on how to tell if a woman was pregnant or not and determine the gender of the unborn.

So the Church also grows through its members but in the spirit of the Church vs. other religions or denominations started by one person. And that for me is walking on shaky ground. I mean that with no intent to hurt, but sharing my own means of discerning the Holy Spirit and His works.

Finally, there are applications in studying theology. I like my deacon’s interpretation. We study theology in degrees. The first degree in studying theology is to prayerfully study it, and the second degree of study is to do it intellectually. So I believe with the spirit of prayer, God answers our prayers to be in good and do good, and when one is maintaining charity, one is in the right spirit…as I witness in posts here.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I believe that God is three persons. That God the Trinity (I am a Social Trinitarian) is one and the penultimate unifying principle is that God is love. It is the indwelling union of love that makes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit one God.

Yes. As I said before, God is infinite and none of his qualities are separate from Him. He doesn’t have to learn love. If His qualities were separate from Him, then that would be a limitation since God would be lacking and be finite.

Since God is infinite, His self-knowledge must be perfect and infinite as well; this is God the Son. The love between God the Son and God the Father is perfect and infinite; this is God the Holy Spirit. There are three Persons but one nature. This nature isn’t shared but each Person possesses divinity equally and fully.

Is God infinite? What does that mean? I can say yes as easily as others can, but what does it mean? There exists that which is not God, but God sustains via “concurring energy” that which exists. God the Father is not God the Son, there is some distinction, and yet they are one God.

God is infinite, which means He has no limits. If He has limits, then He is finite and cannot be God. Knowing that God is infinite, it follows that He is immutable and perfect. I agree that there’s a distinction between each Persons since Catholics aren’t Monists. This distinction doesn’t equate to separation. In spiritual matters, we cannot rely on our imagination to explain things. Imagination is a faculty that uses visible material things but the spiritual things, such as God, whom is invisible, space less and timeless cannot be seen by the imagination, only by faith.

I have saved Sheed’s book. I am sure I have encountered it before, but I have yet to read it. Thanks.

Charity, TOm
I encourage you to read it! One of the best books on the Trinity I’ve read!

 

[mfbukowski]

TOm

This came up on another thread, regarding Catholicism and the Social Trinity and I was wondering if you had seen it-

calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

 

[Dancelittleewok]

TOm

This came up on another thread, regarding Catholicism and the Social Trinity and I was wondering if you had seen it-

calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/social-trinitarianism-and-the-catholic-faith/

Thanks for the article. I found it very informative.

 

[TOmNossor]

Rory,
I was wrong to suggest there was any difference in the words unchangeable and immutable. I should have thought that Latin is of course the source of all those translations. I do not know Latin, but here is the word I think is at the root of both words in your list “incommutabilis.” The Vulgate for James uses “transmutation.” I have no idea if this has any significance.

I also found this which slightly precedes the 6th EC of the church:

If anyone does not confess properly and truly in accord with the holy Fathers that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are a Trinity in unity, and a unity in Trinity, that is, one God in three subsistences, consubstantial and of equal glory, one and the same Godhead, nature, substance, virtue, power, kingdom, authority, will, operation of the three, uncreated, without beginning, incomprehensible, immutable

, creator and protector of all things, let him be condemned. (Lateran Council of 649, canon 1)

Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma titles a subsection “God is absolutely immutable.” (pg 35). He then goes on to quote James 1:17 and Psalms 101:27.

I lean towards believing that as a Catholic I could (and should actually) believe that since Christ became what we are so that we might become what He is, that this means that we are to become dual natured like Christ. Homoousian with God in our deified divinity AND homoousian with men in our manhood. Christ is both these and yet there is still One God and Christ is still one persons. Why could we not be both these and still be one person and still there be one God. I have yet to find a published Catholic scholar that will support me in such insanity, but IMO it makes the most sense of the Bible and the pre-Nicene ECF married to the post Nicene fathers. I also know of no where that this contradicts a council or the CCC.

It is true that I have not sampled Catholic thought concerning immutability to the extent I have concerning deification and the Trinity. In looking around in response to you I also re-read some of Weinandy’s article “Does God Suffer.” On that article he decries the “new orthodoxy” that has swept through Protestantism and much of Catholicism. In his list of Catholic passibilists he lists, Balthasar and Küng. I have been taught (somewhere) to be leery of Küng, but I remember trying to explore Balthasar some concerning this issue.
I hope to re-read this essay “Does the Father Suffer” by Batut. I also can tell you I had an interesting conversation about this subject here:
http://scottdodge.blogspot.com/2008/10/st-thrse-of-lisieux.html
I think Weinandy and Gavrilyuk have quite overwhelmed voices of moderation within my ears, but I think it was unfair of me to suggest that Catholic passiblists are likely to deny the real presence.
I will look at this some more and put down part of the stick I hold.

I still think that Kreeft boldly asks Catholics to embrace paradox. So, when it comes to logic or illogic, I will assume most folks embrace Thomistic thought and its unsolvable IMO paradoxes. I still hope to point this out when folks suggest it is my theology that is illogical. And it is very possible that I will return to my hard headed position that Weinandy and Gavrilyuk really have it quite figured out. It will be tough to believe that the universal (“axiomatic” in Pelikan) assumption that led to numerous debates in the early church and rather directly demanded the dual-nature of Christ, is something that as a Catholic I could say, “well there is no formal statement within the councils that demand this so it is negotiable.”

Thank you for putting up with me and continuing to try to reform me.
Charity, TOm

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hey Tom,

#1) Denzinger lists “the Lateran Council”. He is extraordinarily thorough. Since it is his first chronologically, I doubt that you will find anything earlier. I did not include the quote because this council was not ecumenical.

#2) I do not mean to say that I am at odds with anyone from Aquinas to Ott. I am just conceding that if you are correct and the conflict is irresolvable, than Aquinas and Ott went too far. The Church has definitively said very little about the unchangeableness which is asserted in the Scripture and the creeds and canons of four ecumenical councils.

#3) You know I am okay with you pointing out that we have philosophical difficulties to those who say you do. I don’t know of any LDS philosophical problems. My whole apologetic as a Catholic dealing with the LDS would never get so far as to even consider any of the positive claims of Mormonism, excepting the claim it makes regarding the loss of apostolic authority in the Catholic Church. I pretty much deplore seeing my fellow Catholics fall in line with Protestant arguments against your faith. The best Catholic argument against Mormonism acknowledges the LDS as the most consistent and logical “Protestants” and sweeps away the Reformation and Restoration at the same time. (Two Birds, One Stone. Heh.)

#4) Your co-worker, “K.B.” ( He might spell his first name with a “C”) has left us and is coming back your way again. I think they’ll be having a baby almost as soon as they arrive. I told him to greet you for me. I’ll miss him and his family. Maybe one day Lisa and I can get out that way. Lis loves the southwest and the Indian lore and the Spanish Catholic history of the area. Not this year though. We have a boy getting married in May in California, and another one apparently headed for the seminary in Minnesota in the Fall. But K.B. insisted that we look in on them if we are ever around, and I’m sure you and us would try to get together too. Maybe next year?

I always enjoy our discussions, Tom. If I see your name on a post, I’m zeroing in! I consider you to be the best “non-Catholic Catholic” I know.

Praying we go to church together some day (as co-religionists, not just being ecumenical)…your friend,

Rory