I'm leaving Catholicism

[Maximian]

Ok, I suggest you write to Father Spadaro and tell him that. And see what happens.

I anticipate he will start by calling you a rigid traditionalist.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

So if you agree that it is irrational, why would you believe/follow it?

I’m assuming you do, but if you don’t then that’s fine and we’re on the same page.

 

[Basil]

Wow! It’s quite an exciting post to follow, much better than Netflix! As someone mentioned above, and being Aristotelian, arguments flow from definitions, but the messy part here is just the definition. Aquinas’ own idea on categorical relation spreading out in many works and they are (at least for me) somehow hard to summarize into simple terms. One needs to read also John Poinsot, Suárez, etc. And so far scholastic is an important part of Catholic tradition but it is not the Catholicism. It’s only a mean not the end, no one cuts his toes to fit the shoe. The Trinity is a doctrine but not the way to understand it. Franciscan (Duns Scotus is a big fish here as someone mentioned above, also Ockham) and (good old dead) Jesuits have contributed a lot to this debate over times (17 century is a treasure field). Furthermore, after St. Augustine and before the raise of schoolmen and till now, there are many debates with a huge body of works dealing with this hot issue. It could form a fine doctoral thesis. So before you reach any fixed conclusions, I highly suggest you to read through major relating primary sources on all sides (especially Franciscans, you have to read for your own instead of relying on secondary sources. they are muddy, which makes them fascinating), original texts the best if possible (a friend of mine spend many years learning several dead languages and some modern ones to reading levels one his own, in order to read books for solving his difficulties with some particular theological issues, while not being a full-time researcher, so it’s hard but possible). Then you make your own decision. But in any religions there will always be “the darkness”, or, the “magic realism part” of the faith. Where I come from, to believe in some sort of personal supreme transcendental force/being is a magic realism itself, let alone all other stuff.

Most prominent Thomistic scholars as I know do not or could not (the community life stuff, etc. ) engage in internet discussions. If you are interested in knowing their thoughts on this issue, I suggest to reach out Thomistic Institutes (not only American ones, Europeans are more familiar with this theme) and/or try to attend their conferences (most of them should be open to the public). Catch some presenters afterward, engage in the talk and enjoy the dance.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

This is why if a particular belief system claims to have historical evidence for it but contains a doctrine that is philosophically incoherent (which is what I think of the Trinity), then it cannot be rationally held. It’ll have to be the case that the historical questions surrounding Jesus of Nazareth have to be explained some other way.

But again, you are attempting to understand a concept that is outside of the physical universe using the philosophical boundaries of the physical world. For example, how do you explain the concept of eternity? You can’t philosophically, but “something” or “Someone” must be eternal. And scientifically, as well as logically, the physical universe cannot be eternal, because you must have a starting point for space-time.

Regarding the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, there is more verifiable, historical evidence for this than any other historical event you or I believe is true that we were not alive to eyewitness ourselves. The way we can know that Jesus rose from the dead is because those who wrote down this event were eyewitnesses. The way we can be certain of this is that they died excruciating deaths after experiencing horrific torture, and never recanted. It’s one thing to die for something you aren’t certain is a lie. It’s quite another to die for something you witnessed with your own eyes. No other historical event or figure can claim this. So, if you aren’t going to believe in the Resurrection, and the Trinity which is verified by Jesus rising bodily from the dead, then to be consistent with your disbelief, then you must reject EVERY historical event you didn’t eyewitness for yourself.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

But again, you are attempting to understand a concept that is outside of the physical universe using the philosophical boundaries of the physical world.

As I’ve stated time and time again, I understand that God transcends human understanding. That doesn’t mean that blatant contradictions in God are possible. We know that they aren’t through negative theology (knowing imperfectly what God is by knowing what he isn’t/can’t be)

So, while yes I could not completely understand the Divine Essence, much the same way a completely blind person could not fully understand what it’s like to see color, one thing I know God can’t be is be a composite, or contradictory.

That’s why I know that God isn’t a banana, or an apple, or a tree. These things imply composition and could not in principle be the Absolutely Simple, Pure act.

For example, how do you explain the concept of eternity? You can’t philosophically

You can but imperfectly. You can say that Pure Actuality, because he lacks potency, could not in principle be in time because time implies succession, and thus it implies change, which implies potency. Therefore, God is eternal because he could not be bound by time. That doesn’t mean that I know what it’s like to be outside of time or eternal, of course not, but I can explain its coherence.

Regarding the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, there is more verifiable, historical evidence for this than any other historical event you or I believe is true that we were not alive to eyewitness ourselves. The way we can know that Jesus rose from the dead is because those who wrote down this event were eyewitnesses. The way we can be certain of this is that they died excruciating deaths after experiencing horrific torture, and never recanted. It’s one thing to die for something you aren’t certain is a lie. It’s quite another to die for something you witnessed with your own eyes. No other historical event or figure can claim this. So, if you aren’t going to believe in the Resurrection, and the Trinity which is verified by Jesus rising bodily from the dead, then to be consistent with your disbelief, then you must reject EVERY historical event you didn’t eyewitness for yourself.

I will admit that the history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth was completely puzzling, but since I philosophically hold that orthodox (small o) Christianity is false (because of the Trinity Doctrine) I know that it cannot be explained that way, since it would be logically incoherent.

Maybe it was an alignment of highly improbable (but still possible) events of individuals having separate post-traumatic hallucinations (which, to my knowledge, has been documented in people who have lost loved ones). The truth is I don’t know how to explain those events, and I promise to look into it more, but it cannot be an explanation that is philosophically incoherent (which is what I’m arguing the Trinity is)

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Why would the truth: 1 + 1 = 2 be divisive?

Because when it comes to boolean logic, 1 = True and 0 = False. + means logical addition (which means “or” in our language). Hence 1+1 = 1 is also True in this context. That means some might interpret 1+1 = 1 to be true and say everything else is wrong… (wrong notion of course) which is why it can divide. Truth is divisive because Satan wants us not to believe in it.

“That’s because Jesus was speaking from his divinity.”

How is that not an answer? Did our Lord not call himself “Son of a Man” ? Did not our Lord say “He is my Son” ? Would that logically mean that God the Father is a Man? If we exclude our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ having two natures then this is the only explanation. God is “a” Man…

The question, “How can Jesus and God be EQUAL when Jesus said the Father is greater?”

Trinitarian answer: (NOT an answer) -

“That’s because Jesus was speaking from his humanity”

Oh no. Trinitarian answer is called “Monarchy of the Father”. Your assumption is wrong.

I still don’t understand why 2 + 2 = 4

If I put them as real numbers into a programming code, computer will tell you this isn’t true. 2+2 == 4 just isn’t true for him when it comes to real numbers… which is why it ought not to be used in computer sciences. Using it in a code will be really divisive… and I mean honestly it just will.

The Trinity was a theological compromise among the various early Christian sects to unify the Church.

So you believe Trinity to be just a compromise and not really true?

 

[MarkRome]

My problem is that I’m questioning whether or not this Divine Revelation really was a Divine Revelation, so appealing to it makes no sense.

That’s the thing with Divine Revelation, it makes no sense because no senses are involved. Jesus said the same thing to the disciples who left him after the Bread of Life discourse in John 6.

Do you believe in any Divine Revelation?

 

[Theban]

but it isn’t relevant to our discussion so I’m more than willing to drop it. It’s just semantical anyway.

Ah, victory.

there are other analogies to show that logical distinctions are possible,

The water thing was meant more light-heartedly than anything, I don’t deny that it is possible to make a fictional distinction in order to explain something. I’m just pointing out that in the case of water and H2O there really are two different realities that are described (when the terms are properly used).

There isn’t. If by “is” you mean identical to or equal to , then no. It’s literally not possible. Period. X = Y entails Y = X.

I’m not saying that x=y, I’m saying x is y and not the other way around specifically. If God and the Father were equal, as in God=Father, then naturally it follows that Father=God and Father=Son and all that.
But since we know from Divine Revelation that the Persons are really different, then it cannot be that the Father is synonymous with God. Yet we also know that the Father is fully God, so it must be the case, then, that the Father is God, but God is not the Father (alone).

It is not a law of logic that all relationships where x is y entails x=y. That has been the point of my examples, and whether it happens that they have all described a difference in properties is irrelevant. If it doesn’t need to be the case on Earth, then it surely doesn’t need to be the case with God.

Meaning that personhood just is identical to being or existence in God.

I don’t think this is correct, if we look at the world around us we can clearly see that it’s possible for something to Be, without being Personal. When a Being “has” a person, we call it a personal being. And in a personal being the person and the being become intertwined, so there is no person without the being, and no being without the person.

So being a person is a state of being, just as being a statue is another state of being. In God, who is Being itself, we see a personal state of Being. The Persons and the Being are not only the same, they constitute each other.
Therefore, God being the Father is not the same as God being Omnipotent, because the personal aspect of God is already engraved in the word “to be”. God is, but not in the way a rock is; He is in the way a Person is.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

I’m not saying that x=y, I’m saying x is y and not the other way around specifically. If God and the Father were equal, as in God=Father, then naturally it follows that Father=God and Father=Son and all that.

Ah, I see. I thought you denied this before, but if you agree then good.

It is not a law of logic that all relationships where x is y entails x=y.

Oh no I didn’t mean that. I agree, however, for you to say that x is something within some category y, therwe would have to be a differentia. Under close analysis, as I’ve argued already, this can’t exist in God.

I don’t think this is correct, if we look at the world around us we can clearly see that it’s possible for something to Be, without being Personal. When a Being “has” a person, we call it a personal being. And in a personal being the person and the being become intertwined, so there is no person without the being, and no being without the person.

I didn’t mean to say that all beings are persons, but rather Being Itself is a person (because of the arguments given that Being Itself, Pure Actuality, must have something analogous to an intellect and will.

Therefore, God being the Father is not the same as God being Omnipotent, because the personal aspect of God is already engraved in the word “to be”. God is, but not in the way a rock is; He is in the way a Person is.

What do you mean by “The personal aspect of God is already engraved in the word “to be””?
If we’re taking the Thomistic view of personhood seriously, and if (as the entire Catholic philosophical tradition agrees with) it is believed that God’s Intellect, Will, Omniscience, Divine Essence, etc. are the exact same in God, then it would have to follow that God’s personhood (his intellect and will) are the exact same as his Divine Essence.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Do you believe in any Divine Revelation?

As of now, no. I do think it’s possible that God (Pure Act, Existence Itself) gave a Divine Revelation, but I don’t (and can’t) assume a Divine Revelation to be true without any basis. It’s dangerous.

Your way of thinking is the same as Rdj69’s, and basically, most Muslims and Jews’, understanding of Divine Revelation.

Let me ask you this. How do you know that your Divine Revelation is true? If your answer is that “it comes from God”, I’d ask “How do you know that?” If your answer is “because it just is”, I’d point out that you’re being circular, and you’re begging the question. If your answer is that you had a personal experience, I’d ask "How do you know that your experience is correct and not the Muslim’s experience? Or, how do you know that your personal experience is reliable? I mean, after all, we know from psychology that humans are susceptible to all sorts of biases and problems when it comes to just personal experiences. If your answer is an appeal to the Historical arguments for Christianity, or some other argument, then it turns out that all along you were basing your faith on reason.

This is why what we know from reason must be prior to what we know from “Divine Revelation.”

 

[MarkRome]

As of now, no. I do think it’s possible that God (Pure Act, Existence Itself) gave a Divine Revelation, but I don’t (and can’t) assume a Divine Revelation to be true without any basis

OK, at least I understand now that this isn’t about an understanding of philosophical terms, you reject all Divine Revelation, including the Incarnation of the Son of God.

As for your question, how do I know my beliefs are true? I think that question is a bit premature for discussion. I would have to first understand if you believe God exists. We start there.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

As for your question, how do I know my beliefs are true? I think that question is a bit premature for discussion. I would have to first understand if you believe God exists. We start there.

Ah I see. So you do agree that we need to know that God exists and we need to know (imperfectly) a few things about him before we think about religion and Divine revelation? Well alright, I guess we agree. I initially thought that, just like rdj69, you were appealing to Divine Revelation to show how I’m wrong.

To answer your question, I do believe in God. I believe in Classical Theism (that God is immutable, impassible, absolutely simple, etc.), which is the source of my objection to most of Christianity and Catholicism more particularly, that the God of the Catholic Church is irreconcilable with the God of Classical Theism, and since I know that Classical Theism is true (because of reason), I ought to reject Catholicism.

 

[Dudd]

The Trinity was a theological compromise among the various early Christian sects to unify the Church. It was never meant to be logically consistent. There are many illogical and irrational concepts within Church theology. The Trinity is certainly one, there are many others.

You are quite correct. The average Trinitarian doesn’t know how the doctrine developed. It developed over a period of 100 years and ‘Trinity’ was voted on 3 times by the Bishops of Rome before it finally passed by a very small margin of votes…that’s when Jesus became God.

The Trinity doctrine developed from a power struggle between Arius and Athanasius. Arius was non-trinitarian and Athanasius - largely developed Trinitarianism. It became more of a political argument than a theological or biblical one. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire, power within the church became political. Arius and Athanasius had significant followings and the two groups fought savage battles with each other and were rioting against each other over it. Athanasius was more brutal, more powerful, and more emotional about his beliefs and literally destroyed his opponent Arius and his followers, so Constantine sided with him.

Because of this turmoil the state religion of Rome was in trouble and Constantine realized that Christianity itself had to be united if it were to be the state religion. The issue of how to formulate a creed about the nature of Jesus became a political dispute, not a religious one. One side had to be chosen as right, and the other side must be silenced. He came down on the side of Athanasius for political reasons- adopted the trinitarian creed for the church, and exiled Arius. And so, Jesus ‘became’ God because of that.

“There are numerous accounts of Athanasius’ followers beating and murdering non-trinitarian Christians in the lead-up to the Council of Nicaea, torturing their victims and parading their dead bodies around.” (See Richard Hanson, The Search For The Christian Doctrine Of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) p. 386.)
The trinitarian Athanasius was by far the more brutal. “Bishop Athanasius, a future saint… had his opponents excommunicated and anathematized, beaten and intimidated, kidnapped, imprisoned, and exiled to distant provinces.” (Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God (London: Harcourt, 2000) p. 6.)

“Arius complained in a letter that “We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning” (3). At the Council of Nicaea, Bishop Nicholas- who later became the legendary saint of Christmas in much of Europe- slapped Arius around the face.”(Mentioned in Rubenstein, ibid p. 77)

 

[MarkRome]

To answer your question, I do believe in God.

Do you reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God?

 

[MarkRome]

…that’s when Jesus became God.

No, Jesus has been God from the very beginning, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

By the way, nothing that you wrote contradicts the truth of the Trinity. The Church dealt with Christological errors for the first few centuries. Other councils dealt with still other Christological heresies.

There are many pseudo-Christian sects in the world today and they all disagree on who Jesus Christ was and is. Bad Christology leads to bad Theology which leads to all sorts of erroneous beliefs and teachings.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

If by reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God you mean Jesus being God, then yes.

If you mean Jesus Christ being a messiah that a Unitarian (non-trinitarian) God sent, then I’m not sure, but probably yes too, because I’m fairly certain (like 99% sure) that if there was any Church that Jesus Christ established, it was the Catholic Church, or possibly Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Dudd]

There are a host of ways to interpret John 1. The word, “WORD” is SPEECH. Jesus is never called God the Son, he never claimed to be the same person as God the Father, and is said to be the ‘FIRSTBORN’ of all creation.

There was no such thing as a trinity to the 1st century church. Trinity is bad theology. It developed over a religious/political dispute and follows suit to triads of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Sumerian gods. There is no such thing.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Jesus is never called God the Son, he never claimed to be the same person as God the Father, and is said to be the ‘FIRSTBORN’ of all creation.

Why is Holy Spirit called “Spirit of the Son” then? Holy Spirit is Spirit of the Father, no? And as such, how can God’s spirit belong to someone else?

Why did our Lord call himself “Son of a Man” and then God said “He is my Son” ? Would that make God a mere man?

There was no such thing as a trinity to the 1st century church.

Yet Church baptized (as Bible told them to) in name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That would mean they baptized in name of God, Human and… God’s force or whatever you think Holy Spirit is.

 

[MarkRome]

If by reject Jesus Christ as the Son of God you mean Jesus being God, then yes.

Then you also reject Jesus as Messiah because if Jesus was anything but God there could be no atonement for the sins of the world and therefore there is no salvation.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Then you also reject Jesus as Messiah because if Jesus was anything but God there could be no atonement for the sins of the world and therefore there is no salvation.

That’s true. There are, however, some esoteric theories regarding Jesus, but I highly highly doubt hat they’re correct.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, you can say that I reject Jesus Christ.