Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Heretics - Dialectic Reasoning

[TOmNossor]

RebeccaJ:
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.

I wrote but did not post the following in response to you:
I believe that Pelikan is correct that this is a post Biblical development. I believe contrary to Pelikan that it is a horrible mistake. God’s unchanging-ness is associated with His covenantal faithfulness. His perfect unwavering love. His eternal purposes for the ultimate benefits of His children.
God is not absolutely unchanging AND such a being is not IMO perfect in any morally defendable way.

I believe God loves me because “the worth of souls is great.” I do not believe I must earn His love, motivate His love, or …. But, I believe His love for me is personal and takes me as an individual into account. His love is responsive to me. The Bible tells us to love one another as God loved us. This is not impersonal love.

I am not feeling like you are understanding me. Did you read about the Pope loving you and loving me? I believe God’s love for me takes into account who I am in a way that the Pope’s does not. The Bible cannot possible mean impassible love. It just doesn’t work. It has nothing to do with earning or deserving God’s love.

And I definitely accept His love. I have walked paths that resulted in me not deserving His love, and yet I know He loved and loves me still. The atonement is not merely the sacrifice on the cross, it is the healing love that pulls me up when I fall (or worse when I rebel).

Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wrote but did not post the following in response to you:
I believe that Pelikan is correct that this is a post Biblical development. I believe contrary to Pelikan that it is a horrible mistake. God’s unchanging-ness is associated with His covenantal faithfulness. His perfect unwavering love. His eternal purposes for the ultimate benefits of His children.
God is not absolutely unchanging AND such a being is not IMO perfect in any morally defendable way.

I believe God loves me because “the worth of souls is great.” I do not believe I must earn His love, motivate His love, or …. But, I believe His love for me is personal and takes me as an individual into account. His love is responsive to me. The Bible tells us to love one another as God loved us. This is not impersonal love.

I am not feeling like you are understanding me. Did you read about the Pope loving you and loving me? I believe God’s love for me takes into account who I am in a way that the Pope’s does not. The Bible cannot possible mean impassible love. It just doesn’t work. It has nothing to do with earning or deserving God’s love.

And I definitely accept His love. I have walked paths that resulted in me not deserving His love, and yet I know He loved and loves me still. The atonement is not merely the sacrifice on the cross, it is the healing love that pulls me up when I fall (or worse when I rebel).

Charity, TOm

Well TOm, you write like this and then say complete opposite things about God. You seem to have a confusion that, no, I do not understand. As though God does not exist in this form in the Catholic Church, which I think you have been assured here several times, he does. Saints throughout the ages speak with us.

The God you describe is not one I ever knew in mormonism. It is sort of amazing to me that you think you found Him there. I don’t quite believe it. I have to believe it is the graces of your valid baptism at work.

Perhaps for you it is impossible to believe that He never left His Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not a philosopher, and it has been a long time since I studied it at all. Unfortunately, I do not presently have the time to take it up again. So what I say may have no meaning to the OP or to anyone else.

To me, this whole thing is like trying to put the sea in a coke bottle with a view to slapping the proper label on the bottle; “the sea”. I can’t say that other philosophers or those in councils said the following, but I know St. Thomas Aquinas did. He did not claim that human reason could penetrate the nature of God. He admitted that it could not, and that included himself. All he tried to do, and said so, was reconcile one system of philosophical analysis with faith.

Now, when one philosopher or theologian’s writings are compared to those of another, whether accepted by the Church or not, it’s all just human thought, and it would be surprising if one could not find apparent contradictions within it.

Reminds me of a blind sea slug reacting to the touch of a human. The slug knows it has been touched, and the sensation of the touch can swirl around in its neurosystem, and it might react this way or that. But it doesn’t know, from the touch, anything about “MacBeth”, E=MC squared or Mozart, notwithstanding that those may be manifestations of the being that touched it. And it never will, because it is inherently incapable of even fully perceiving, let alone understanding Shakespeare, Einstein or Mozart. It is even more impossible for us to penetrate the nature of God than it is for the sea slug to fully understand the nature of humanity.

But if the human gently picks up the slug and deposits it back into its favorite tidal pool from which it was washed by an unfortunate wave, the slug will know, insofar as it is capable of knowing it, that there is a connection between the touch of the human it can’t even see, and finding itself again in its tidal pool. And, if picked up again off a rock after another unfortunate wave, it may then have faith that it will be again placed in the tidal pool.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Rebecca,

My training went for over 5 years parttime, all on foundation…there are some types of foundation for me that I am just not able to address-- or continue from what I did share – on various threads here on CAF.

I also agree with you that when I first read Tom’s remarks and his sharing, I did perceive a part of Catholic faith in his spirit…but when I went to the references…it was very personal for me…I immediately I did not sense the Catholic spirit and it was verified with the identity of the sources…for me, in the Spirit, it is like seeing grey and white…no color and life…same thing with how we Catholics can identify with each other immediately…‘My sheep know me and I know them…’…we can experience Jesus loving us through each other and our Holy Father and priests…a communion among us…an understanding that is supernatural. It doesn’t set off bells or whistles, but it is a deep and abiding peace and joy that we are one.

Somehow Tom, I wonder if the LDS understanding of God the creator, Jesus and the Holy Ghost…that construct if I understand them correctly is seeing each person as separate…we see the 3 persons as distinct but one…

So I don’t see God as having walls around His stillpoint…He is willing all to exist through Him.

The Holy Trinity has always been, will be for ever…Three in One …always, no separation…

Outside of the salvation history of the Jewish people, Catholicism revolves around Jesus Christ and as Gentiles, He connecting us to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, His life and death and resurrection, a new life.

Jesus is the source of all our hope and joy…and through Him we enter His kingdom present here on earth…

 

[lax16]

I wrote but did not post the following in response to you:
I believe that Pelikan is correct that this is a post Biblical development. I believe contrary to Pelikan that it is a horrible mistake. God’s unchanging-ness is associated with His covenantal faithfulness. His perfect unwavering love. His eternal purposes for the ultimate benefits of His children.
God is not absolutely unchanging AND such a being is not IMO perfect in any morally defendable way.

I believe God loves me because “the worth of souls is great.” I do not believe I must earn His love, motivate His love, or …. But, I believe His love for me is personal and takes me as an individual into account. His love is responsive to me. The Bible tells us to love one another as God loved us. This is not impersonal love.

I am not feeling like you are understanding me. Did you read about the Pope loving you and loving me? I believe God’s love for me takes into account who I am in a way that the Pope’s does not. The Bible cannot possible mean impassible love. It just doesn’t work. It has nothing to do with earning or deserving God’s love.

And I definitely accept His love. I have walked paths that resulted in me not deserving His love, and yet I know He loved and loves me still. The atonement is not merely the sacrifice on the cross, it is the healing love that pulls me up when I fall (or worse when I rebel).

Charity, TOm

ToM - When you say that God is “unchanging and that this is His coventantal faithfulnless” are you referring to God as defined by the Old Testament or LDS doctrine?

The LDS God has changed immensely from Jewish teaching. The LDS definition of God teaches that God has a body, he was born vs Jewish definition is that God is Incorporeal and is First and Last.

Maybe God doesn’t want us to know everything there is to know about Him so that we, His faithful servants, will continue to discuss and learn about Him in true fellowship.

 

[mfbukowski]

I hope that is a satisfactory conundrum.

TOm

Great example(s)

I hesitate to step in too strongly because I have been through recent discussions of a similar nature here, and I think we are all sick of each other, but I share your wonder at why these paradoxes are not seen.

 

[KathleenGee]

And beyond the Old Testament, it is Jesus Christ Who is carrying us through in this stillpoint of the Creator…it makes sense to me…

Whatever can help bridge is fine, but I think the fracture may have to do with different doctrines of the two religions.

 

[TOmNossor]

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

At this point I cannot. I thought that was clear in my comment to Rory that you quoted? I could point the EC where God’s creation ex nihilo was declared (that would be the 4th Lateran).
I could then walk you through Aquinas and how he claimed that from these basics, God’s impassibility, immutability, and … all LOGICALLY followed.

So, instead of me digging through data in councils that I do not believe were sealed by the Holy Spirit (as I am the non-Catholic in this discussion). I would rather you deal with what I have presented.

If you believe there is a logical contradiction (which it seems you do), you can respond in two ways (I think).
You can say, “This is component of 1-4 is not Catholic doctrine and in the name of logical consistency I reject it.”
Or you can say, “I love God, I know the Catholic Church is His Church, and I must accept some things that appear to be contradictions. It is a mystery.”

My hope is that if you choose the second option that you will recognize that you should give your LDS brothers and sisters similar leniency.

None of that changes the fact that I hope to START MYSELF a thread about the consistent view of LDS deification that I believe I embrace. You will be welcome to tell me that despite all my claims of logic being important, I do not have a logical view. Or whatever you might say.
In my wildest dreams I will also start ANOTHER thread about the Catholic view of deification and ask that you rescue it from the charge of “illogical” as you seemed to indicate you could and would on the now locked thread.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I am working on more for Kathleen and Rebecca.

 

[Stephen168]

At this point I cannot. I thought that was clear in my comment to Rory that you quoted? I could point the EC where God’s creation ex nihilo was declared (that would be the 4th Lateran). I could then walk you through Aquinas and how he claimed that from these basics, God’s impassibility, immutability, and … all LOGICALLY followed.
So, instead of me digging through data in councils that I do not believe were sealed by the Holy Spirit (as I am the non-Catholic in this discussion). I would rather you deal with what I have presented.

You claimed in your OP that Catholic Theology is contradictive because of various council decisions; more specifically the first seven councils. After being asked three times for a specific example of a contradiction, you admit, you have not read the decisions of the seven councils. This seems dishonest to me.
Because you have not read the decisions of the church councils, you would like me to solve a riddle, you made up. I’m not interested. I am interested in explaining Catholic teaching as presented by the Church; not as presented by you.

None of that changes the fact that I hope to START MYSELF a thread about the consistent view of LDS deification that I believe I embrace. You will be welcome to tell me that despite all my claims of logic being important, I do not have a logical view. Or whatever you might say.
In my wildest dreams I will also start ANOTHER thread about the Catholic view of deification and ask that you rescue it from the charge of “illogical” as you seemed to indicate you could and would on the now locked thread.

I hope when you start these threads they are specific and referenced to insure they reflect the Mormon or Catholic view, and not your interpretation.

 

[TOmNossor]

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.
…
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?
…
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.
Kathleen,
I see many acts of love from God witnessed in the scriptures and even in my own little life. I do not question God’s love for me or anyone. I merely suggest that the doctrine of impassiblity is logically inconsistent with the love that we all feel and desire from God.

From what you said here, I would think you would sympathize mightily with Ostler’s statement I already quoted:
Blake Ostler:
Yet in many ways rational exploration of the meaning of “God” is inevitable for the thoughtful believer, even though it is also strangely irrelevant, irreverant and even “irrevelant.” Rational exploration of God is strangely irrelevant to religious belief because what the believer seeks is a personal relationship with God rather than an intellectual grasp of his nature and attributes. To the believer who stands in God’s presence, the proofs of God’s existence derived from natural theology must seem quite absurdly superfluous.

I would not suggest that if you feel what I hope you feel when you commune with God through the Eucharist, that you must take my “bull in a china shop” philosophic arguments and question your faith. I am certainly not ready to take what I have found in the Temple and abandon it, and I do not think I would if the Problems With Theism and the Love of God were solved within non-LDS Christianity. I would also apply the term “mystery” to illogical conflicting doctrines IF that was what was necessary to continue to sit at God’s feet and feel His love. Logic is important to me, but KNOWING God is much more than being able to offer consistent logical propositions about His nature.
I do however maintain that LDS thought has the teachings necessary for a logical concept of God. This does not mean that we know the traits of God with certainty. But, it does mean there is no dogmatic boundary that requires us to say, “it is a mystery.”
For the purposes of this thread:
I want to feel understood by RebeccaJ (mostly because I do not feel understood and I don’t get it).
I want Stephen168 to acknowledge that while he may think there are illogical aspects of LDS deification teachings (and I deny this with respect to how I conceive of LDS deification, but in fairness to Stephen I have not defined such for him to evaluate YET) that surely there are illogical aspects that he cannot resolve within Catholic theology. The result IMO should be that the illogical stick is wielded by him with less importance than it seems he currently wields it (this of course is my flawed and individual perception and the problem is mostly a personal problem).

It personally frustrates me when the illogical stick is wielded against what I believe to be incorrect perceptions of LDS theology.
Where I a Catholic I would feel similar frustration when critics say “Catholicism can’t be true because the Bible says ‘call no man father’”

Or in fairness to well meaning critics of my church, the criticisms are built upon a perception that is not necessary.
Where I a Catholic I would feel similar frustration when critics say “1)Catholics say Tradition is important, 2) Limbo was taught with great uniformity, 3)I cannot believe in Limbo OR I cannot accept the non-binding nature of previous Limbo teachings and not impute Limbo upon all that is Catholicism.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Well TOm, you write like this and then say complete opposite things about God. You seem to have a confusion that, no, I do not understand. As though God does not exist in this form in the Catholic Church, which I think you have been assured here several times, he does. Saints throughout the ages speak with us.

The God you describe is not one I ever knew in mormonism. It is sort of amazing to me that you think you found Him there. I don’t quite believe it. I have to believe it is the graces of your valid baptism at work.

Perhaps for you it is impossible to believe that He never left His Church.
Rebecca,
I am sorry you didn’t find God in Mormonism.

As I said to Lax16, it was the BEAM IN MY EYE that prevented me from communing more fully as a Catholic. I do not believe God chooses to withhold the greatest manifestations of His love from Catholics because they are in the wrong church, have the wrong baptism, or didn’t make it into the LDS temple last week. The God I worship loves unconditionally.

I do not know your personal experience in Mormonism, but I might as easily say to you it is your valid LDS baptism (or your LDS teachings on how to seek God, or your parents temple sealing, or …) that allows you to find God within Catholicism. Such IMO would be unhelpful and even slightly offensive. (BTW, I am not offended by your statement because I choose not to be, and I hope you are not offended by the suggestion that my statement could be made just as easily).

Now, when you say, “you write like this and then say complete opposite things about God” it makes me feel like you are not understanding me. I will try to explain in a slightly different way. As I do, I hope you can try to remove some of your experience of Mormonism from mine.

Before I do this I want to tell a true and funny story.
As I said to LAX16, I really did say that some Catholics I worshiped with would run me over in the parking lot if I was in their way, because some folks were Catholic for 1 hour a week and the other 167 hours were up for grabs.
Well, God is my friend and He wanted to communicate to me something through irony. He knows that sometimes irony gets through our defenses.

The LDS ward building was down the road past a large Catholic Church. One Sunday morning as I hurrying to the ward building in the rain, someone existing the Catholic Church pulled in front of me. To avoid hitting them in the drivers side of the car at about 45mph, I slammed on the brakes and swerved from the left (fast lane) to the right lane. I then slid into the back of another person leaving the Catholic Church. My wife and I watched as the car that pulled in front of us drove away with kids unbuckled in the backseat pointing at the accident that mom (that is my best understanding) caused. Mom never stopped. The only person in this story that I cannot say anything negative about is the wonderful witness family that saw the whole thing (also Catholics). They made it clear to my insurance company that I could not have avoided the accident and it was not my fault.

Now, I suppose I could have taken the above as confirmation that I was right all along about those Catholics. But, the priest was sorry and offered to help, the witness family got me out of trouble with my insurance company and …. I do not believe I ever had a lot of animosity towards my former faith, but like my present faith there are folks closer to God and folks still not quite feeling His love.

On to my explanation… cont …
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

While I have very definite thoughts on God’s true church and where logic/reason points and where the spirit points (the spirit pointing is for me as an individual IMO), I do not doubt that when St. John of the Cross speaks of God, he KNOWS God and God loves him. I do not doubt when Elder Maxwell speaks of God that he KNOWS God and God loves him. And even I know God and KNOW that God loves me.

Much of this thread has been about God’s love as it would be were God to be impassible vs as it would be were God to be passible. I believe we all experience the passible God. I believe we all worship God with the underlying assumptions that He is passible. How could we really open our hearts in prayer if we decided that God was impassible and TOTALLY unaffected by anything we choose to do. 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.

The above is what I believe you ask me to understand. It is how Kreeft was relevant to our discussion. But, it is a paradox that affirms and deny traits for God. It is not reconcilable to logic IMO. That is my point.

I personally believe that the assumption that the God who is passible and who is not absolute in His immutability and … can quite easily be relied upon.

God’s power is so great that bringing to pass the eternal life and immorality of mankind is as easy for Him as it is for me to will to type another letter.
God’s character and covenantal faithfulness is far more sure than the tri-combination of Pope Benedict XVI, President Thomas S. Monson, and the late Mother Teresa. I find the idea that God would choose to abandon me thousands of times less likely that that Pope Benedict XVI, President Thomas S. Monson, and the late Mother Teresa would get together and start a brothel. In short, I do not think fearing God’s passibility is of any concern if we truly believe God is who the scriptures say He is (or more importantly if we truly believe God is who we KNOW).

So, I reject the paradox that I think Kreeft would invite Catholics to embrace because it is illogical. Instead, I believe that God is passible and does truly love me.

Some of the discussion on this thread and other like it have tried to defend God by suggesting that He loves impassibly. That is what Weinandy and Gavrilyuk did. This is why I bring up the Pope’s love.

If God is impassible then his love is more like this:
The Super Pope, loves all men. He wills the good for all men. As the head of 1 billion Catholics he exercises power for the good of all men. I can know he loves me because of the great and good man he is. Even if I rebel he still loves me. I am an ex-catholic, I am quite convinced that Pope Benedict XVI would express his love for me. But, he doesn’t know me or you. He doesn’t experience our hopes, fears, and desires. He cannot at the distance he stands from us, and he could even less where he to be absolutely impassible.

If God is passible then his love is more like this:
God’s love is like the love a husband and wife. They experience each others hopes and dreams, successes and failures, trails and triumphs. There love (if centered in God) is unconditional and unwavering. But their experience of one another is powerful. Even when the husband is overwhelmed by work, the wife still loves him. He helps her through trials with judgmental folks at church. Together they face life. There love never waivers, but as they engage the good and the evil, they experience each others most intimate hopes, fears, and desires.

I believe God simply must intimately experience my hopes, fears, and desires. If He only “wills the good” for me impassibly, then I do not believe He loves me as deeply as my wife, and I know God loves me even more perfectly than does my wife.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m not a philosopher, and it has been a long time since I studied it at all. Unfortunately, I do not presently have the time to take it up again. So what I say may have no meaning to the OP or to anyone else.

To me, this whole thing is like trying to put the sea in a coke bottle with a view to slapping the proper label on the bottle; “the sea”. I can’t say that other philosophers or those in councils said the following, but I know St. Thomas Aquinas did. He did not claim that human reason could penetrate the nature of God. He admitted that it could not, and that included himself. All he tried to do, and said so, was reconcile one system of philosophical analysis with faith.

Now, when one philosopher or theologian’s writings are compared to those of another, whether accepted by the Church or not, it’s all just human thought, and it would be surprising if one could not find apparent contradictions within it.

Reminds me of a blind sea slug reacting to the touch of a human. The slug knows it has been touched, and the sensation of the touch can swirl around in its neurosystem, and it might react this way or that. But it doesn’t know, from the touch, anything about “MacBeth”, E=MC squared or Mozart, notwithstanding that those may be manifestations of the being that touched it. And it never will, because it is inherently incapable of even fully perceiving, let alone understanding Shakespeare, Einstein or Mozart. It is even more impossible for us to penetrate the nature of God than it is for the sea slug to fully understand the nature of humanity.

But if the human gently picks up the slug and deposits it back into its favorite tidal pool from which it was washed by an unfortunate wave, the slug will know, insofar as it is capable of knowing it, that there is a connection between the touch of the human it can’t even see, and finding itself again in its tidal pool. And, if picked up again off a rock after another unfortunate wave, it may then have faith that it will be again placed in the tidal pool.

Thank you for posting. I acknowledge that as “sea slugs” we cannot plumb the depths of God.
I just maintain that there are aspects of the teachings offered within many churches that postulate direct contradictions. I personally believe that when Thomas Aquinas experienced God toward the end of his life, he knew that God was not as he had written. Aquinas put done his pen, called all his writings straw, and never explained why (or what was wrong with his writings). I believe his logic is strong in many places and building from creation ex nihilo he got to a concept of God that largely stepped logically from dogma. But when he encountered God, he knew something was different. He like me like the sea slug couldn’t reconcile his logical progression from creation ex nihilo with the Person he met that day. So he joyed in God and didn’t fret about his inability to do what no man or sea slug could. I too joy in God as I am sure you do. That is far more important than trying to be smart sea slugs.
Charity, TOm

P.S. There are surely other less STRETCHED explanations for Aquinas’s straw comment. I do not dispute this even a little.

 

[TOmNossor]

ToM - When you say that God is “unchanging and that this is His coventantal faithfulnless” are you referring to God as defined by the Old Testament or LDS doctrine?

The LDS God has changed immensely from Jewish teaching. The LDS definition of God teaches that God has a body, he was born vs Jewish definition is that God is Incorporeal and is First and Last.

Maybe God doesn’t want us to know everything there is to know about Him so that we, His faithful servants, will continue to discuss and learn about Him in true fellowship.

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

 

[TOmNossor]

You claimed in your OP that Catholic Theology is contradictive because of various council decisions; more specifically the first seven councils. After being asked three times for a specific example of a contradiction, you admit, you have not read the decisions of the seven councils. This seems dishonest to me.

Because you have not read the decisions of the church councils, you would like me to solve a riddle, you made up. I’m not interested. I am interested in explaining Catholic teaching as presented by the Church; not as presented by you.

I hope when you start these threads they are specific and referenced to insure they reflect the Mormon or Catholic view, and not your interpretation.
I have very clearly suggested what I think Catholicism teaches. I have then asked that you either tell me I am mistaken OR explain how it is not a contradiction.
You should remember that this thread was started 2 years ago to facilitate discussion between Catholics, EOs, and Heritics (Me); because I feel overwhelmed by the rate at which I am challenged. I have appropriated this thread for a very specific purpose that I have made clear to you.
As I said to Rory, having studied Catholic and EO scholars on the first seven councils, I am quite convinced that God’s absolute immutability was “axiomatic” in virtually every decision of consequence.

However, you said, “I am interested in explaining Catholic teaching as presented by the Church.”
So, let me ask you. Is it the Catholic teaching as presented by the Church that God exist “a se” in the way Aquinas uses the phase “a se” or the term aseity?

I hope you can answer this. I hope nothing I say will lead you to believe this is about “riddles” or “dishonesty.” Truly it is not.
**I sincerely believe that Catholic theology in a number of places is illogical. I have NEVER been able to get answers to these questions that preserve logic and avoid contradictions. ** I also truly believe that critics of both of our churches (you included in this case) regularly level charges against our churches that they themselves could not assuage if leveled against them. I think acknowledging this would be appropriate.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm

Great example(s)
…
I share your wonder at why these paradoxes are not seen.
Well, thank you.
I am not sure Stephen168 agrees with you, but truth be told I am not sure if he thinks I have misunderstood Catholic thelogy or what.
Oh well, if we all thought the same life would be pretty boring.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do not know your personal experience in Mormonism, but I might as easily say to you it is your valid LDS baptism (or your LDS teachings on how to seek God, or your parents temple sealing, or …) that allows you to find God within Catholicism. Such IMO would be unhelpful and even slightly offensive. (BTW, I am not offended by your statement because I choose not to be, and I hope you are not offended by the suggestion that my statement could be made just as easily).

I know it is not what your church teaches, so there is no comparison to be made. Your church teaches when you leave mormonism, God leaves you. Mormonism also has no belief in graces of baptism, otherwise, they would baptize their children asap.

To the rest of your post, you seem to have this idea that God must be human in order to love. God must be able to react in human ways in order to Love. And you still are out of context…Jesus Christ IS GOD. You ignore this. I’m not sure why.

God is LOVE. This is His nature. To say He cannot love unless it is in a imperfect human manner is to not understand Catholicism at all. Let alone God.

 

[Stephen168]

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

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.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi Tom,

I do not have the ability to satisfy you regarding the speculations of the doctors, but I think I may have a chance at making you reevaluate the apologetic usefulness of your argument. I think you will be a little disappointed to discover how little the Church has definitivekly taught regarding God’s immutability. Even if I grant your point, the Church is not, I think you will agree, necessarily committed to its defense.

I am the one who raised the important question about what it is in the Councils that teaches that God has a kind of immutability that removes the possibility of love. The words are the teaching. And I will show that if it is a difficulty for the Catholics, it is equally a difficulty for Mormons.

First we need to examine what the Church has officially taught regarding impassibility. It is rather late in arriving on the scene, and then very briefly, without any developed explanation, with the Church already over a millenium old and the Eastern Schism having occurred.

1. “We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple…”

-----Lateran Council IV, Ecumenical XII, canon 1, 1215 AD, (Fordham Univ. translation)

The official teachings that follow will be of the same character.

1. “We believe that this holy Trinity is not three Gods but one God, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, and unchangeable.”

-----Council of Lyons II, Ecumenical XIV, Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus, 1274 AD, (Denzinger’s #463) (for chronological reference, St. Thos. Aquinas died on his way to this council)

1. “First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons.”

-----Council of Florence, Ecumenical XVII, Session 11, 4 Feb., 1442, (EWTN website)

1. “The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.”

------Vatican Council I, Ecumenical XX, Session 3, ch. 1, 24 April, 1870, (EWTN website)

In conceding your argument, I do not disparage the great doctors and saints of Holy Mother Church who have expounded upon God’s impassibility with such rigor that you find it inconsistent with love. I am nearly certain that they correctly expIain the apostolic teaching. But even if they have corrupted the true meaning, I think you will see that the difficulty is not found in the teachings of the four councils quoted. The difficulty is only among the speculative theologians. However reliable Catholics hold them to usually be, they are fallible.

I suggest that in whatever way we reconcile God’s love with His unchangeableness in James 1:16, 17, is the way we do it with regard to the four recent councils. I am sure, accepting the Epistle of James as canonical, Latter-day Saints acknowledge a sense in which God is immutable without compromising the possibility of love. If this was the only objection you could raise toward your becoming Catholic, I could heartily encourage you to endorse a Jamesian “modified immutability”.

Following the apostolic teaching which is clearly found in James, and without necessarily endorsing the speculations of the Fathers, schoolmen, or doctors, we simply find that the Church has officially taught us what is said in Scripture about unchangeability. Whatever James meant, the Church means and it is compatible with the love of God revealed elsewhere in Holy Scripture. If philosophy is helpful to our theology that is fine, but we believe whether she is a serviceable handmaid or not.

“Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.”

------The Epistle of James 1:16, 17

Rory

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Yeah, it just seems to be “feeling”. Nothing concrete or objective.