I'm leaving Catholicism

[MarkRome]

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

So who was Jesus? Just a man?

 

[MarkRome]

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

Unfortunately, one cannot reason themselves into faith. Faith is not contradictory to reason, though. I have a reasonable faith. I will say that only the Catholic Church (by extension the Orthodox as well) place a high regard for reason.

I encourage you to read Pope Saint John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason). http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...nts/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Unfortunately, one cannot reason themselves into faith. Faith is not contradictory to reason, though. I have a reasonable faith. I will say that only the Catholic Church (by extension the Orthodox as well) place a high regard for reason.

I’m sorry but there’s no way to say “one cannot reason themselves into faith” without faith being unreasonable in some way. I think I mentioned it here:

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.

In short, there’s really no way to say that faith cannot be arrived at through reason without being unreasonable. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church affirms that the existence of God and Jesus Christ’s resurrection can be affirmed purely through reason without need for faith. So the Catholic Church itself admits that faith can be arrived at through reason.

 

[Theban]

What do you mean by “The personal aspect of God is already engraved in the word “to be””?

What I wrote turned out a bit messy, I mean that for God to be always entails a personal state of being. I didn’t mean to say that His Attributes are different to His Persons per se, but rather that when we refer to Gods simple Existence (His Ent) that is still a personal kind of existence. Therefore His Persons can’t simply blend into the other aspects of His entity. (Well they could, but they don’t have to).

for you to say that x is something within some category y,

That is not what I’m trying to say, I am trying to say that in order for an x is y to become x=y we need the specific piece of information that we’re talking about an equation.
That’s not given in the doctrine of the Trinity, in fact it is specifically specified that the Father is God and the Son is God, but these are distinct from each other. If you need to use an analogy of species and genus to make sense of how such a relationship is possible, then do so, but don’t claim it is logically impossible.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

What I wrote turned out a bit messy, I mean that for God to be always entails a personal state of being. I didn’t mean to say that His Attributes are different to His Persons per se, but rather that when we refer to Gods simple Existence (His Ent) that is still a personal kind of existence. Therefore His Persons can’t simply blend into the other aspects of His entity. (Well they could, but they don’t have to).

I’m sorry but I’m very confused as to what your point is when you say “when we refer to God’s simple existence, that is still a personal kind of existence” because, if anything, this is supporting my view rather than refuting it. If you agree that God’s simple existence is personal, or that it is personhood, then it would have to follow that there could not be a multiplicity in persons precisely because it is equal to his Simple Existence, which could not be a multitude.

Unless you’re trying to say that God’s existence has personhood but not is his personhood, which would entail a property in God distinct from God itself, which obviously makes God compositional.

Therefore His Persons can’t simply blend into the other aspects of His entity. (Well they could, but they don’t have to).

How does this follow from what you said earlier at all? If anything, this is the exact opposite of the conclusion that is entailed. If you agree that God’s existence is a personal kind of existence, meaning that it is his personhood, then how could you say that these “other aspects” of his entity aren’t? We both hold to Divine Simplicity. We both understand that the “aspects” of his “entity” are and must be identical to his entity, so why does this follow?

That is not what I’m trying to say, I am trying to say that in order for an x is y to become x=y we need the specific piece of information that we’re talking about an equation.

That’s true. I don’t disagree, but we do have that specific piece of information. It’s called the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. The reason why this shows that we must be talking about an equation is that for us to not talk about an equation would lead to some composition. Either the genus/species distinction, or a substance/properties distinction, neither of which can exist in God.

That’s not given in the doctrine of the Trinity, in fact it is specifically specified that the Father is God and the Son is God, but these are distinct from each other. If you need to use an analogy of species and genus to make sense of how such a relationship is possible, then do so, but don’t claim it is logically impossible.

I’m not claiming that it is logically impossible in light of the Doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, in light of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Sure, the Trinity can work, but only in a being that isn’t absolutely simple, which wouldn’t be the Pure Act, Uncaused Cause.

 

[o_mlly]

Where are you going to?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Where are you going to?

I don’t know. I might look into other religious traditions, or, I might just become a Classical Theist with no religion who just contemplates Pure Act (God).

 

[MarkRome]

In short, there’s really no way to say that faith cannot be arrived at through reason without being unreasonable. Also, if I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church affirms that the existence of God and Jesus Christ’s resurrection can be affirmed purely through reason without need for faith. So the Catholic Church itself admits that faith can be arrived at through reason.

Not true. Only the existence of God can be known through reason alone. Aristotle found this. However, Jesus Christ, as Son of God, is Divine Revelation. He came to reveal the Father to us as His Son. Even those who were with Jesus didn’t believe he was the Son of God. Many disciples turned away. Jesus asked the twelve after the Bread of Life Discourse, “and who do you say that I am?” where Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” and Jesus said to Peter Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." That’s Divine Revelation.

Additionally, even the resurrected Jesus said to Thomas, "Jesus said unto him [Thomas], 'Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”

Please read the encyclical I mentioned. God bless.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Not true. Only the existence of God can be known through reason alone. Aristotle found this. However, Jesus Christ, as Son of God, is Divine Revelation.

Here is a quote from the Catechism…
I. THE HISTORICAL AND TRANSCENDENT EVENT

639 The mystery of Christ’s resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness. In about A.D. 56 St. Paul could already write to the Corinthians: "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. . ."491 The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his conversion at the gates of Damascus.492

I don’t know about you but the fact that the Church in the Catechism appeals to historical attestation on Jesus’ resurrection shows that they did in fact believe that it could be known by reason, otherwise, they would just say that we know it because of faith and nothing else.

But it doesn’t matter either way. So what if faith isn’t based on reason. Why then should I have faith in what you’re calling the Divine Revelation? Why couldn’t you just directly answer the question I posed?

Please read the encyclical I mentioned. God bless.

I read a lot of it (because the encyclical itself is very long and I don’t have much time to read it), and it seems to me that the Church very much affirms the use of philosophy and science, so much so that they go as far as to say, and I quote (from this encyclical)

“Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.”

Now does this mean that the Church doesn’t value faith? Of course not. Right after this passage the encyclical stresses the need for faith. However, what this shows is that even the Church itself knows that faith can easily lead to errors. This is why St. Thomas Aquinas refutes the faiths or religions of other people by appealing to reason, showing contradictions in their views (He mainly does this in his Summa Contra Gentiles). This is also why St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as the entirety of the Scholastic and the NeoScholastic Catholic tradition, thought it was so important to refute philosophical arguments against their positions. They didn’t just throw their hands in the air and say “Faith is mysterious and it transcends human reason” pr something like that, because they knew that in principle there could not be a contradiction between faith and philosophy, because they both refer to what’s true. So, why aren’t you doing the same? If you do believe that your faith is reasonable then why can’t you show me the flaws in my reasoning, just as St. Thomas Aquinas would?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

And by the way, if you’ll just scream “Divine Revelation” at me, even knowing that epistemologically speaking I don’t believe it to be true, then I’m not interested in having a conversation. It’s like using the Bible when arguing against an atheist. I’d much rather talk to someone like TheBan, OrbisNonSufficit, Wesrock, etc. who at least agree that philosophical coherence is important.

But, if you do want to actually argue philosophy then be my guest. We can, as the Book of Isaiah states, reason together

 

[MarkRome]

The resurrection was an historical event. That’s what the Catechism is attesting. Many bore witness to it. There still is an element of faith even to verify what you are seeing. Thomas didn’t believe that the others saw Jesus until he saw him for himself. Doubters and skeptics will always find a natural explanation. Maybe you don’t believe that the apostles really saw the risen Jesus? It was a herd mentality? Delusions?

The thing is, you haven’t demonstrated anything that the Church teaches is contrary to reason. Have you thought that maybe you don’t have the correct definitions of Person, Simplicity, Essence, etc.?

 

[TheDefaultMan]

Maybe you don’t believe that the apostles really saw the risen Jesus? It was a herd mentality? Delusions?

I’m still agnostic on that issue. I’ll think about it more, but like I said, it cannot be small o orthodox Christianity because, in my view, it’s illogical and incoherent.

The thing is, you haven’t demonstrated anything that the Church teaches is contrary to reason. Have you thought that maybe you don’t have the correct definitions of Person, Simplicity, Essence, etc.?

What would you say is incorrect about my definitions?

 

[Megwalters2288]

A lot of the questions non-Catholics, and questioning Catholics for that matter, ask have been asked a hundred times over. I found that the Catholic Answers YouTube channel is very helpful. Along with the ability to search a topic on this website. Everyone is different but if I have something that is bothering me I try and search the topic through one of these. I have to say also Trent Horn is an amazing Catholic apologist who is always respectful and patient with every topic and I enjoy very much listening to him speak. Never condescending or dodgy to questions. I don’t know if you were looking to engage someone directly or to simply find answers but just thought this would be helpful for you.

 

[MarkRome]

I’m not here to argue with you about this.

As I’ve said, you cannot reason into the Trinity like you can for the existence of God. The Trinity isn’t contradictory to reason, but maybe your understanding of the philosophical terms. Apart from that, this really is a rejection of the authority of the Church, which you do seem to think is the Catholic Church. So, since you say you hold to “classical theism” and reject Divine Revelation, I will just end with the Catholic faith does not contradict reason.

I do hope you keep searching and return to the faith.

Pax.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

I’ve been a hardcore and devout Catholic Thomist for about 4 years. In fact, I was still a hardcore devout Catholic when the quarantine started. Trust me when I say that I am very familiar with Catholic Answers and with Trent Horn specifically. He was very instrumental in bringing me into the Catholic Church in the first place, and till this day I consider him, and the rest of the CA apologists, to be very intelligent and very respectable.

That being said, I don’t find their common answers to this to be very satisfactory. Either they appeal to the common relational distinctions, which has already been discussed at length in this thread, or they (Trent Horn, specifically, does this) appeal to the fact that since there are beings that are one person (like me or you), then it doesn’t seem problematic to say that God, who is infinite and beyond our understanding, could have three distinct persons.

There’s a problem with this approach as I would go as far as to say that God couldn’t. This makes sense once you understand what God’s Divine Simplicity entails and what personhood even means. God’s Divine Simplicity entails that his Intellect, Will, Existence, Omnipotence, etc. are all the same in him. Now, personhood as defined by the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition, is a rational nature, specifically, an intellect and a will. What this means is that for there to be a multiplicity in persons entails multiple intellects and wills, which, as established earlier, are the same in God with his Existence. So, to say that there is a multiplicity of intellects and wills in God (which is essentially what it means to say that there are 3 distinct persons) entails that there are multiples Gods, which is absurd.

Also, the real distinctions between the persons is incoherent because any real distinction is, obviously, a distinction in reality. Reality is just synonymous with being and existence. This means that a real distinction between the persons is a distinction in being, which has to turn God into an act/potency composite, which could not be God (since he is Pure Act)

 

[Megwalters2288]

Well, to me, sometimes I just have to remind myself that some of my questions wont be able to be answered in this life and that some of the answers I get that I question I am just going to have to go off faith with. And I deal with very bad anxiety so that is extremely hard for me to say that to myself. As humans I think one of our faults is that we all wish we could have the definite answers right now. In my spiritual walk I found that sometimes I need to accept that I will just have to wait for the answers to my really hard questions. Now I am not by any means saying that is what you need to do so please do not be offended. But, I just pray that if the answer you seek is available now that i hope you can find it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I just said, he is one person with two natures. I think that is pretty self explanatory.

It is not at all, in the incarnation as with the trinity, the undefine-edness is pushed onto “person.” So before we go further, just lay out a correspondingly self explanatory definition of “person” that applies to both mysteries. Think “necessary and sufficient conditions for being a person” kind of definition.

 

[TheDefaultMan]

I can respect that.

 

[Dudd]

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?

I think you need to refamiliarize yourself with the tenets of the Trinity doctrine. Think about this…Trinitarians tell us that the holy spirit is a ‘third’ person - and completely different - yet same person as God the Father and Jesus. So if that’s the case, what’s is the holy spirit’s name?
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?

Jesus called himself son of man and Ezekiel was called that more than Jesus was. The phrase implies Jesus was human and NOT God. Jesus is the SON of God NOT God the son. I have no idea why you would say, “Would that make God a mere man?”

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.

Baptizing in the name of Father, son, and holy spirit has nothing to do with a co-equal Trinity. Yes, the holy spirit IS the power of God - His active force which is manifested through the 7 spirits of God.
The holy spirit is the POWER of God.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, in its article on the Holy Spirit, describes it as “The manifestation of divine presence and power perceptible especially in prophetic inspiration” (Vol. 3, Doubleday, New York, 1992, p. 260).

Luke 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

Acts 1:8 says, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…”

Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Romans 15:13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about to Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

 

[Dudd]

Of course he was just a man just as every other man is ‘a man’ when born of a woman.