Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Heretics - Dialectic Reasoning

[TOmNossor]

TOm - perhaps Peter Kreeft’s "Fated and Free

" will be of use for you.
Thank you! I was blessed to have been able to listen to Kreeft’s lecture. My mind still picked at places where I felt contradictions/paradox were not resolved, but I really enjoyed his thoughts. I will need to read/listen to more Kreeft!

You are still turned upside down! Or as a friend of mine said to me, “You’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope!”

I have multiple strong thoughts about this.
Surely there is an intellectual sterile component in my reasoning about God. To the atheist I say, first you must experience God. For me this is most important too AND it is my starting point when I try to figure out where to worship. I have experienced God. While my 5 senses allow me to interact with the world, something greater but substantially the same has allowed me to interact with God. In many ways, God is more real than this computer in front of me. Reason directs me to God because I have experienced Him and no other explanation for this is near as reasoned. But, when I attempt to decide were to worship God, reason seems like an important tool. As a LDS I also believe in personal testimony, but I believe such is not easily shared with others (since I know the church is true, you should become a LDS IMO is not often a strong argument). I am thankful (as was Cardinal Newman) that reason and spiritual testimony independently point in the same direction for me.

When I attend the LDS Temple and I sit quietly in the celestial room and I seek God (it has been too long, note to self, “Go to the Temple!”), I can feel Him lift me up and call me to Him. What do you make of this experience? Did I look through the telescope the right way? Would it surprise you if my paradigm had room for what I hope you experience in the Eucharist? Does your paradigm have room for what I experience in the Temple? Will you sterilize my temple experience with your reason or …?

What about the Catholics who prompted my comments on the other thread? Do they look through the telescope the wrong way? Is it appropriate to say that the religion I do not embrace is illogical, but my religion is spiritual, wonderful, …?

I hope my comments here and there have generally evidenced that I do not demand rigorous logic from my LDS brothers and sisters or from my Catholic brothers and sisters. Instead, I think those who appear to demand rigorous logic of my faith should die by the sword if they cannot engage their faith with such thinking.

Finally, the God who loves IMO is far more beautiful than the God who loves comingled paradoxically with His impassibleness. When I apply reason to the God taught in LDS thought, I find a reasonable and absolutely worship worthy and wonderful God. I feel no impetus to exchange such beauty for the potential beauty of a paradoxical God. I see little about creation ex nihilo to recommend the God who created ex nihilo over the God who created out of love for already existing eternal intelligences.
God truly is love. We truly are to love Him and others as He loves us. Philosophical absolutes are no reason to love, but God the person is infinitely lovable.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Augustine tells of a vision of seeing a little boy at a beach scooping up the ocean thimbleful by thimbleful and emptying it out on the sand. Then he sees an angel who tells him that this boy will have emptied out the entire ocean long before Augustine has exhausted what can be said about God.

 

[TOmNossor]

Augustine tells of a vision of seeing a little boy at a beach scooping up the ocean thimbleful by thimbleful and emptying it out on the sand. Then he sees an angel who tells him that this boy will have emptied out the entire ocean long before Augustine has exhausted what can be said about God.

Joseph Smith said:
“Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject”

I couldn’t resist.
Charity, TOm

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi tOm.

I hate to admit this, but I have never read the first seven ecumenical councils in their entirety. Shocking isn’t it? heh. I wonder if it might not be helpful in this discussion to examine the words that have been used when the Church has certainly and definitively taught truths that allegedly contradict the love of God. I will look about myself too. And I have been thinking about this problem for some time and have to admit the difficulty you present. But I have done so within the context of the Summa and other reliable, but not infallible writings. At this point we are not committed to the Summa, the writings of St. Augustine, or any of the doctors of the Church, but rather to the ecumenical councils.

If you have any particular portions of councils in mind, I would be obliged to your saving me some time searching.

Thanks,

R orY

 

[mfbukowski]

The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

Hi TOm
Totally agree on this one especially.

An unchanging God cannot hear and answer prayers- he cannot interact with us, to do so would be to “change”.

 

[mfbukowski]

If God were to call me to be a Catholic, I would obey and embrace “mystery” and “paradox.” The God I loved would not be sterile and unloving, but I would not try to say that there is a rational way of reconciling God’s impassibility and His love; because I know of none.

I understand what you mean here. It can be a difficult balance. I look at it as “rendering to reason the things that are reason’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Reason is important, but ultimately faith is more important.

But that does not mean that direct contradiction is acceptable in the name of “mystery”

 

[TOmNossor]

Do you consider your personal experience as evidence?

I consider it evidence for me. I also consider it to be evidence that those who doubt the existence of God have a lot they cannot adequately explain. Another thing of note, most of my spiritual contacts with God have communicated little more than His love for me.

The less plentiful experiences that have communicated truths that we might debate on this board are personal evidence that I do not believe is well shared. So, I tend to lean towards dialoguing about evidence that is readily sharable.

What do you mean?
I think this is about it:

TOmNossor:
The reason I link it with #3 is that this is a big deal for me. If God is unchanged, immutable, and impassible; I cannot believe He loves me. Believing God loves me is IMO necessary for having a proper relationship with God. Therefore I reject the idea that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely unchanging, and exists a se. The God I know loves me as an individual and is affected by me. He hears my prayers because I choose to offer them. He feels my love because I express it to Him. He has an I-Thou relationship with me, not an I-It relationship with me.

Dancelittleewok:
Do you believe that God is a person? God is infinite, meaning there are no limits. Since He is infinite, He cannot be changed. Yet He is a Person. (Well, three actually, but let’s keep it simple) His qualities cannot be separated since that would impose a limitation. Since God has no limitation, His love are wholly in His possession: He loves us infinitely. His love isn’t distinct from Himself (because that would impose another limitation if His love is distinct from Himself, then it is something He lacks and again, God wouldn’t be God.) It is Who He is: “God is love.”
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.
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.

I am quite comfortable with not knowing perfectly the dimensions of God. That does not mean that I will say, “God is all things. God is the Pope (or TOm). The Pope (or TOm) is not God.” and mean all those things in the most basic and nonqualified sense. To so would be to assert “A” and “not A.”

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

 

[lax16]

Thank you! I was blessed to have been able to listen to Kreeft’s lecture. My mind still picked at places where I felt contradictions/paradox were not resolved, but I really enjoyed his thoughts. I will need to read/listen to more Kreeft!

I have multiple strong thoughts about this.
Surely there is an intellectual sterile component in my reasoning about God. To the atheist I say, first you must experience God. For me this is most important too AND it is my starting point when I try to figure out where to worship. I have experienced God. While my 5 senses allow me to interact with the world, something greater but substantially the same has allowed me to interact with God. In many ways, God is more real than this computer in front of me. Reason directs me to God because I have experienced Him and no other explanation for this is near as reasoned. But, when I attempt to decide were to worship God, reason seems like an important tool. As a LDS I also believe in personal testimony, but I believe such is not easily shared with others (since I know the church is true, you should become a LDS IMO is not often a strong argument). I am thankful (as was Cardinal Newman) that reason and spiritual testimony independently point in the same direction for me.

When I attend the LDS Temple and I sit quietly in the celestial room and I seek God (it has been too long, note to self, “Go to the Temple!”), I can feel Him lift me up and call me to Him. What do you make of this experience? Did I look through the telescope the right way? Would it surprise you if my paradigm had room for what I hope you experience in the Eucharist? Does your paradigm have room for what I experience in the Temple? Will you sterilize my temple experience with your reason or …?

What about the Catholics who prompted my comments on the other thread? Do they look through the telescope the wrong way? Is it appropriate to say that the religion I do not embrace is illogical, but my religion is spiritual, wonderful, …?

I hope my comments here and there have generally evidenced that I do not demand rigorous logic from my LDS brothers and sisters or from my Catholic brothers and sisters. Instead, I think those who appear to demand rigorous logic of my faith should die by the sword if they cannot engage their faith with such thinking.

Finally, the God who loves IMO is far more beautiful than the God who loves comingled paradoxically with His impassibleness. When I apply reason to the God taught in LDS thought, I find a reasonable and absolutely worship worthy and wonderful God. I feel no impetus to exchange such beauty for the potential beauty of a paradoxical God. I see little about creation ex nihilo to recommend the God who created ex nihilo over the God who created out of love for already existing eternal intelligences.
God truly is love. We truly are to love Him and others as He loves us. Philosophical absolutes are no reason to love, but God the person is infinitely lovable.
Charity, TOm

ToM -

If I understand your posts correctly, it is the definition of God that appeals to you more in the LDS faith than Catholic, is that right?

Were your experiences (with God) different as a Catholic than LDS?

Do you think there is more focus on God in LDS teachings than in Catholicism?

 

[TOmNossor]

In short, God doesn’t become. He is. God already knows your every need and desire. When He is moved by our nothingness He is not changed. This would imply that He was lacking in something before and acquired something new. God is infinite in His perfection. It is illogical to say infinite perfection can acquire more.

I think the above is a big difference for you and me.
I understand the concept of absolute perfection. The idea is that God possesses the “great making” properties to a maximal extent. If God were to change in any way He would either become “more great” meaning He was less than perfect before OR He would become “less great” meaning He is no longer perfect. Neither of these are acceptable, but I think the whole premise should be scrapped.

For me this concept has a number of components all rapped up together. Let me start with two:
God is impassible – He cannot be affected or altered by those outside Himself.
God is immutable – He cannot be changed in any way.
If God is immutable, He is impassible (He could be impassible and yet not immutable BTW).

I have seen Christians, who maintain the above two as truths, appeal to the Bible for support; but I think the following statement explains why such appeals are poor exegesis.

Noted Luthern turned Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarsolav Pelikan wrote in
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.

While I am certainly no expert on 1st century and earlier Judaism/Christianity, the Biblical narrative IMO aligns FAR better with the idea of “trustworthiness of His covenanted relations” than it does with absolute immutability.
If it is correct to recognize that first century Judaism and Christianity did not include this immutability as “an axiomatic proposition” from where did it come? I, like I think most folks who have looked into the history of Christianity, believe to be an adherent to historic Christianity (be one Catholic or Protestant) one must recognize a development of doctrine. I do not subscribe to the view that all philosophy is evil or that Greek philosophy is some monolithic entity that imposed itself upon Christianity, but it seems to me that there is likely something external to the Bible that would lead to the belief that God is immutable.
I suspect the ideas of absolute perfection and divine impassibility/immutability were viewed as positives that simply must be part of God. The Christian apologists, steeped in Greek thought, knew that a God who changed either was imperfect and became better or was perfect and became worse. Even today such a statement sounds almost necessary when speaking of PERFECTION and CHANGE.

I would like to address the problem of perfection and change:
First, CHANGE (why I think we MUST acknowledge that God is not absolutely unchanging):
The Old Testament ascribes change to God. It regularly speaks of God deciding, responding, and interacting. In some very bold statements it even speaks of God repenting (or turning from a previous course).
The New Testament is about the exemplar of the Father, Jesus Christ, who became man. The Father sent Him to suffer and die for us. Jesus hungered and tired and …. The idea that the exemplar of the Father was radically bifurcated such that most of what the disciples experienced of the God-Man was the man part, seems not only strained but almost pointless. Why send the God-Man to be an exemplar when most of what would be exampled is the human part and not the divine part? Surely the hypostatic union of God and man in Jesus Christ is not the most clear way of reading the New Testament.
cont …

 

[TOmNossor]

Finally, my largest problem with the idea of an impassible God is that God LOVES. I have struggled with how “the impassible loves,” and ultimately all I have found is radically lacking. (1)The impassible can will the good for His subjects. But clearly the lover wills the good for the beloved. (2)The impassible does not get bogged down with emotions when “loving” action is required. But surely one as great as God can feel and act without being incapacitated by other’s suffering (or His own). In fact, I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in such a rich, loving, and perfect relationship that their joy could never be swallowed up in misery due to our rebellion, but this does not mean that our love or pain cannot be added into this reservoir and truly felt by God. (3)The impassible receives no reciprocation for the “love” given so one can argue this “love” giving is more pure than passible love. But do we not truly enter into selfless love even as humans? Should perfect spousal or parental love be condemned as less than selfless because it is offered by people who will be enriched if their offer is reciprocated. Surely we do not merely offer love in hopes of receiving back some satisfaction. While I think we as mere men can (and do) do this, surely God can (and does!).
(1) and (3) come from Father Thomas Weinandy in Does God Suffer? (I think #1 is from here). And (2) comes from The Suffering of the Impassible God: The Dialectics of Patristic Thought by Paul L. Gavrilyuk. I am unconvinced that any of these three arguments elevates impassible “love” above passible love.
That being said, what is lacking from impassible love is what we most desire from God. We seek to be loved as individuals. It is Christ’s unconditioned loving sacrifice for us that frees us from trying to self-justify ourselves so that we can appear lovable. That He knows us perfectly and loves us still is what redeeming love is all about. He must actually knowledgably enter into our lives and heal us because He cares for us. Some benevolent mayoral concern for the street sweeper is not enough. An impersonal universe designed to reward good and chasten evil is not enough. To make God impassible is to make Him impersonal and to strip LOVE of what is most important.

Now PERFECTION (why I think we can boldly claim God is perfect without meaning that God is a static absolute being who is perfect):
Ostler first introduced me to the idea of God as “self-surpassing surpasser of all.” I have explored “process thought” within the writings of Ostler, Whitehead, and a Catholic Priest, Father Thomas Hosinski (with a little Hartshorne). I have come to believe that not only does this metaphysic/philosophy/theology provide what is necessary for the perfection of God while avoiding what must be avoided, but it solves other difficult problems. Instead of seeing subjects and objects as separate entities, Whitehead sees all entities in process with internal interrelated-ness. Each entity or occasion prehends (like feels) past and present, prehends future possibilities (including the lure of God’s will), and creatively organizes these into a concrescing (developing/growing/emerging) reality. God within this metaphysics/theology has characteristics that both align well with ideas like omniscience and perfection and the conflict with these ideas.
God’s perfection should not be viewed as immutability and independence in contrast with changeability and dependence. These lines of demarcation result in problems like the problem of love described above. God is absolute in His complete relatedness with all entities. It is impossible to be more related, more loving, than God is. God does not become more perfect. Instead God continually surpasses His own degree of interrelatedness as He guides the world into increased communion with Himself. As individuals we may come to Him or rebel, but He has organized His component of the creative work of the universe such that He continually grows in communion with us as we choose to be in communion with Him.
To me the greatest condemnation of the above is that the God who is perfect in the way Hartshorne would say God is the “self-surpassing surpasser of all,” just is not Anslem’s greatest conceivable being. I think the proof that Anselm offers that His God exists because to exist is greater than not to exist has been solidly refuted. So my first response to the argument that Anselm’s God is greater than Hartshorne’s is, “so what! There is only One God and if He is as Hartshorne conceives of Him we best get to worshiping Him rather than lamenting His non-Anslemian characteristics.” My second response is the one that is most powerful for me. God the omnibenevolent/omni-loving cannot fail to actualize love as the impassible God does. God must be love (as the Bible says) and there is just no love in the “impassible love” offered by Thomist apologists. Finally, my last response is that the Bible does not teach an impassible God so this Anselmian philosophical absolute unchanging perfection does not describe the Biblical God.

So, I suggest that the God that we pray to, the God we love, and the God who loves us; is not the impassible God of non-LDS Christianity.
To whom shall I go indeed?
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Hi tOm.

I hate to admit this, but I have never read the first seven ecumenical councils in their entirety. Shocking isn’t it? heh. I wonder if it might not be helpful in this discussion to examine the words that have been used when the Church has certainly and definitively taught truths that allegedly contradict the love of God.

First, I would like to know what are the hopeless contradictions that you see in Catholicism?

I’ve read a little bit of the ecumenical councils. It seems to me, the writings were centered on their conclusions and not the process (dialetic reasoning?). It seems impossible to have a conversation on such a vague OP. I too think something more specific is required.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Finally, my largest problem with the idea of an impassible God is that God LOVES. I have struggled with how “the impassible loves,” and ultimately all I have found is radically lacking. (1)The impassible can will the good for His subjects. But clearly the lover wills the good for the beloved. (2)The impassible does not get bogged down with emotions when “loving” action is required. But surely one as great as God can feel and act without being incapacitated by other’s suffering (or His own).

TOm all you say is based on a premise that God is lacking in LOVE. That you must do something to provoke His Love for you. Otherwise He is but a cold stone with nothing to give you. Why do you think this?

analogies: He is the well, and all you have to do is take a drink. He is the sun, and all you have to do is grow.

concrete reality: He is LOVE and all you have to do is love.

Accept His Love. Stop thinking you have to be or do something to create it.

 

[TOmNossor]

I hate to admit this, but I have never read the first seven ecumenical councils in their entirety. Shocking isn’t it? heh. I wonder if it might not be helpful in this discussion to examine the words that have been used when the Church has certainly and definitively taught truths that allegedly contradict the love of God. I will look about myself too. And I have been thinking about this problem for some time and have to admit the difficulty you present. But I have done so within the context of the Summa and other reliable, but not infallible writings. At this point we are not committed to the Summa, the writings of St. Augustine, or any of the doctors of the Church, but rather to the ecumenical councils.

Hello Rory!
I am not sure if you have asked me this before, but I have thought about it some.

As you know I am unaware of anything irreformable within Catholic thought that precludes what I call a robust view of deification. Men could become dual natured like Christ and be homoiusian with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their divinity (that would be using Catholic terms, LDS would define deification differently). This IMO would align with the Bible and the teaching of the ECF better than what is typically espoused.

I may have read Nicea in its entirety, but perhaps not. I am sure I have not read the 1st 7 councils completely.
What I have concluded is that God’s impassibility and immutability is woven through many of these councils. If it were not for the idea that God was immutable and necessarily impassible, the discussions could not have proceeded the way they did. I believe both Weinandy and Gavrilyuk make this point as they argue against the view they claim is becoming very popular about God being passible.

More linked with the OP of this thread (from 2 years ago), I noticed that Energetic Processions there was a rejection of dialectic reasoning that was used to IMO avoid dealing with contradictions AND to this same rejections of dialectic reasoning was used to attack Catholicism. The idea that dialectic reasoning could be applied in certain ways and not in others was difficult to understand. I felt like I had gotten somewhere with the companion to this thread here:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=217932
But it still confuses me.

It seems clear to me that doctrine has developed and dialectic reasoning is one of the tools used to develop doctrine. Perhaps outside the charism of a council dialectic reasoning is not a valid tool. That would be an interesting position (that I just thought up).

Anyway, I do not know what within the 21 councils could be said to demand that God is impassible. Any declaration of God’s unchangeableness built upon the reasoning employed surely must be IN CONTEXT an avocation of the absolute unchanging-ness Jarsolav Pelikan said became, “an axiomatic presupposition for the discussion of other doctrines.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I understand what you mean here. It can be a difficult balance. I look at it as “rendering to reason the things that are reason’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Reason is important, but ultimately faith is more important.

But that does not mean that direct contradiction is acceptable in the name of “mystery”
Hello.
I agree most definitely that FAITH is more important. I am content with embracing LDS brothers and sisters who hold views that I cannot (and occasionally they acknowledge they cannot) reconcile using reason (by this I mean they do not avoid postulating A and not A not that we can understand perfectly all that is God). I try to find a way to systematize the theology I embrace so I do avoid postulating A and not A.
I also made the mistake of answering the charge, “LDS theology is irrational” with “actually no, but Catholic faith is even in its best manifestations as far as I can tell.” The rebirth of this thread resulted from that.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

If I understand your posts correctly, it is the definition of God that appeals to you more in the LDS faith than Catholic, is that right?

I bristle at the word “appeals.”
In this thread I am suggesting that the God who exists “a se” absolutely cannot know what a man’s free choices are. Personally, I do not care much about God’s aseity. I think it silly to suggest that God cannot watch a man make a free choice. Perhaps men are not free in any way and all choices we make are caused 100% by God. I might be able to live with this if it were not for the fact that I cannot conceive of love as anything but a choice.
So then we get into God’s impassibility and His love. I think the contradictions here are a little less easy to see, but they stem from the same root. And the idea that God cannot enter into an interpersonal loving relationship with me (or man in general) is in my opinion very unappealing. It is also IMO a problem for many other reasons.

Were your experiences (with God) different as a Catholic than LDS?

Most definitely yes.
I could offer some often heard, I was saved from Catholicism by discovering the true God. Much of that tale could be completely true. But, as I suspect is the case most of time the tale is told, it would not be fair.

I left Catholicism not recognizing what I had. I was a cradle Catholic and I can remember not knowing that attending a Protestant church was different than attending a Catholic Church. I can remember thinking that the girls in my CCD were sniffing mimeographs instead of paying attention like I was. I can remember thinking that my co-religionists were Catholic for 1 hour per week and just like everyone else for the other 167 hours (and you better not be in the way in the parking lot when it is time to leave).

But, I was wrong. There was much to Catholicism that I missed. There was a beam in my eye when I self-importantly looked to those girls getting high off of ink. I had not put into Catholicism my part. I was a LDS when I realized that this was true.

I explored returning to Catholicism. The Book of Mormon was one of the reasons I didn’t. And as I discovered great beauty and power in Catholicism I also appreciated my Mormonism even more. Ultimately, I did not return to Catholicism and it would be an extraordinary event that would prompt such a thing. I however cannot believe that God is not found within Catholicism or within Mormonism. Instead, I believe Mormonism is more satisfying intellectually and for me spiritually.

Do you think there is more focus on God in LDS teachings than in Catholicism?

I think if you pick two LDS at random only 1 of them will be attending church regularly. I understand the same is at least true of Catholics. However comparing the LDS half who attends and the Catholic half who attends, I think the LDS has much more focus upon God. Of the Catholic half that attends some significant percentage is going through motions (by my unscientific observation). Of the LDS half that attends I think a lower percentage is just going through the motions (and the motions include 3 hours of instruction on Sunday + 1 week night of something usually).
Now, among the top 1 % of committed LDS and committed Catholics, I think there is an almost total focus upon God. Everything is about God. So, these folks (the folks we want to be) are even in their focus on God.

Oh and BTW, I am quite committed to the belief that comparing the marginal Catholic to the marginal LDS is foolish. If you are serious enough about your walk with God that you are going to evaluate these questions, you should compare the BEST to the BESTs. If I become Catholic, I do not want to be the guy who shows up on only Christmas and Easter. So when I compare our two religions I am not particularly concerned about how this guy compares with the marginal LDS. I am also not particularly concerned about how I would feel embracing Limbo as a Catholic. I do not believe Limbo is an authoritative teaching of Catholicism so I would not be a Catholic who believed in Limbo anyway.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I’ve read a little bit of the ecumenical councils. It seems to me, the writings were centered on their conclusions and not the process (dialetic reasoning?). It seems impossible to have a conversation on such a vague OP. I too think something more specific is required.

Truth be told your appellation that logic was important is part of the reason this thread was resurrected. The OP may have died because of a lack of example for illogic in Catholic thought. I have offered a few examples since then in this thread. How about this one:

TOmNossor:
Let me state it somewhat differently.

1. All that God is and knows is uncaused. God is what He is independent of anything that is not-God. He possesses Aseity. Or he exists absolutely “a se” of Himself. Nothing predicated of God may be said to be caused by anything that is not-God.
2. Humans possess genuine freedom. What this means exactly is debated, but Aquinas and Augustine seemed married to the idea that we act by choosing what we think we should such that our actions are caused by our will. We act in a way that is the result of our choice.
3. God knows all things. While philosophers have debated what “all things” are, nobody would suggest that God does not know what I choose to do yesterday. God knows what I did yesterday.
4. It is impossible for what I did yesterday to be independently caused by me such that I was free act as I saw fit and for God to know what I choose to do yesterday without some component of His knowledge being caused by my choice.

So if I cause my acts FREELY, God cannot know what I FREELY caused and still not be affected by me.

I hope that is a satisfactory conundrum.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

The philosophical problems present when dialect reasoning is applied to the various council decisions however are insurmountable IMO. If dialectic reasoning is to be employed as a tool, and I believe it was at basically every council, then I believe Catholic theology is irreformably contradictive.

At this point we are not committed to the Summa, the writings of St. Augustine, or any of the doctors of the Church, but rather to the ecumenical councils.
** If you have any particular portions of councils in mind, I would be obliged to your saving me some time searching**.

I may have read Nicea in its entirety, but perhaps not. I am sure I have not read the 1st 7 councils completely.

I hope that is a satisfactory conundrum.

Could you point this conundrum out in one of the first seven ecumenical councils?

 

[KathleenGee]

And by the way, I have read all the posts here as well as looked at some of the references you shared from your university on some takes on the Catholic Church.

I am not able to respond to them. I did take a course on the first book of the Summa on God the Unmoved Mover, He is all intelligent, he is all understanding, he is all wisdom.

In Catholicism we first learn of God in the Old Testament. And yet it is Christ who gives face to God. We can look at the best in ancient Judaism, like you propose to look at the best Catholics and LDS…and they loved God and marvelled at His deeds, and – also how he extended and shared His gifts to those who believed and trusted in him…I see this as an act of love.

I read a passage from St. Peter who witnessed Christ, his teachings and life; Peter was not at the crucifixion, nor did he witness the actual resurrection. But he saw Jesus as the response to God’s place of unmovability.

Our Catholic catechism teaches that there is God the Creator, but yet it was through Jesus Christ that the universe was created. We see Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one, and I see your remarks as such, but it is not clear if you how you differ from Catholics in the understanding of the Holy Trinity.

I tend to find my comfort in tradition. Peter in Acts 10: 34-42 acknowledges the Jewish custom of the breaking of the bread with Jesus after his death, as well as acknowledging the God of forgiveness through Jesus.

My studies all focused on foundation and Christology. The early Christians believed heaven is already here. When we live in Christ we are in heaven here, and I get a sample of the same from you in your contemplation of God in your temple and I see you as a recipient of the Lord’s love.

Heaven has come to earth for the soul who believes in the Lord and the resurrection, the defeat of death.

But what I am getting at here is how far can one go philosophically anyway to find all the answers?

 

[KathleenGee]

Your comments about how the Holy Father loves all his people also drew on a memory for me and a common tradition we hold…and the bond of Christ among us.

When we eat His bread and drink His blood, Jesus is truly alive and present and aware within us. And it is sin that breaks this relationship.

I saw John Paul II. And I was standing at a certain place hoping to see him as he was leaving. I felt a deep connection to his spirit happening, and then he turned in his seat of the car and moved to glance to look at me, and then he was gone.

I may not know him personally or ever had a conversation with him. But it is the living Christ within us that enables us to recognize each other and know each other…some it seems you have known them for many years…and we all know each others’ reference points—our history, the saints, the common sufferings…we can look at each other and know the general reference…and it is all from Christ.

I see it in cardinals and pastors and in like souls at Mass, especially daily communicants. We look at each other and we understand and most of the time don’t need to say much, just a phrase and then it is known. I have seen and read of so many witnesses of people experiencing communion and understanding with our Holy Father, and it is the Holy Trinity at work–God the creator and provider of the experience, Jesus Who carnates and the Holy Spirit Who connects.

I read councils, histories, and from the perspective above and with my age, I can quickly pick up on incomplete statements, including St. Thomas regarding Mary and women for example and I say that lightly…or Augustine for that matter…meaning, we can recognize our Shepherd at work in saintly souls and we know when we are being fed the one true God and when their own human opinion comes through.

Everything works towards the wholeness and oneness of God which He shares with us.

So I guess I can only go this far as you wish a dialectic approach. Mine is more multiple…the authority of Peter, catechesis, liturgy and the sacraments, and the communion of saints…I see plenty of action of God by His essence of Personhood and His gifts of creation and see much love surround me everyday from Him.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So I guess I can only go this far as you wish a dialectic approach. Mine is more multiple…the authority of Peter, catechesis, liturgy and the sacraments, and the communion of saints…I see plenty of action of God by His essence of Personhood and His gifts of creation and see much love surround me everyday from Him.

KathleenGee, that has been my thought. There is a taking of something out of context here. The context being first, Jesus Christ. As usual you express very well the heart of the problem.