I'm leaving Catholicism

[Wesrock]

Theban:

To back up this assertion that a third type of distinction is possible I propose the simple example of a human being. The human person has a relation to its own being, in the sense that a person knows itself. So the person is the knower and the being is the known, and while the two are not ontologically different they are still distinct in the sense that the person cannot be said to be the known and the being the knower.

This doesn’t really work as a model for the trinity for a number of reasons.

I agree with this assessment at this point. A human being is not a good example. The intellect and the product of thought in a human being are not the same as human nature or the essence of a human being. Human knowledge is also discursive and ratiocinate. There are ontological distinctions when it comes to human thought, self-knowledge, the self, and essence.

But another more fundamental problem is that you misunderstand what it is to know yourself because there is indeed an ontological distinction between the knower and the object known. When you know yourself, there is an idea, or a form in your mind, of who you are. That is not ontologically the same as who you actually are. Your idea of yourself is not the same as yourself. It is not an idea in the human mind who literally eats, sleeps, has sex, etc.

Quite true, and why the analogy to a human being does not work, and also why two posts above I said I think there’s a danger or considering the divine relations in anthropomorphic ways.

 

[Magnanimity]

You’re talking about personhood amongst humans which is quite different.

The claim is that personhood as such is inherently relational. It’s not at all obvious what might be meant by a “person-in-isolation.” As far as we know all instantiations of persons exist in relation to others (whether God, angels, humans). The mother-child relation of persons is a co-identification. There is no way to define the mother without reference to her child (and vice-versa).

 

[Magnanimity]

It doesn’t really make sense to say that they differ in definition but not in reality. A definition always refers to essences in reality, so to say that there is no distinction in reality but there is a distinction in definition seems to be incoherent.

This wasn’t a response to Scotus, it was a Thomistic talking-point. Again,

It is possible to speak of the perfectibility of various divine attributes (power, knowledge), but personhood is not spoken of in terms of degrees of perfection. What would be meant by an infinitely perfect “father?” By its very nature a father is relational so can’t admit of perfectibility on its own. But, Scotus continues, “wherever we have two formally distinct entities, if they are compatible,” they can be “two realities fit by nature to actuate the same thing.” (Treatise, 4.6).
Whatever someone wants to say of divine Fatherhood, divine Sonship, etc, for Scotus, there is no reason to believe that the distinctive reality of each Person is itself a perfection.

 

[Wesrock]

Magnanimity’s post brought something to mind I meant to say earlier. I’m a Thomist and will continue to defend it, but there’s more than one approach to Divine Simplicity. Duns Scotus did think there was a greater distinction (compared to St. Thomas) between the Divine Attributes but still defended Divine Simplicity (for example). And Eastern Christian theology also affirms Divine Simplicity but in less… rigid ways.

 

[Magnanimity]

Duns Scotus did think there was a greater distinction (compared to St. Thomas) between the Divine Attributes but still defended Divine Simplicity.

Quite right, he avidly defends divine simplicity in his Treatise, as staunchly as Aquinas does, from what I understand of each of them. And although, like you, I generally incline toward St Thomas, it is probably the greater part of wisdom to be open to other great intellects that may have held helpful, nuanced positions for issues such as these. And too, there is variety within Thomism itself, as I tried to show earlier in this thread. I do wonder whether the personalist Thomism of W. Norris Clarke might have been helpful for DefaultMan (and the rest of us!) on these particular issues. If you posit that relationality is properly a transcendental of the Divine, then maybe…

 

[AlNg]

When above poster said Truth is divisive you were quick to jump in with example obviously unrelated to what he meant just to prove him wrong. Unfortunately you were incorrect in that too.

It is error that is divisive, not truth. Mathematical truth is a great unifier but those who sow discord and error are divisive.

 

[MarkRome]

worst of all, pretending it was fully an accepted doctrine at the time of Christ.

Neither was circumcision. But when the Church had settled the matter, it was binding.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I am not smart enough or educated to understand the answers to challenges to the Church.

I never said you weren’t smart enough, just that you either didn’t learn or refused to learn things about Catholicism that directly counter your arguments against it. Don’t twist my words into something they’re not. You’re entirely capable of knowing these things. That’s why discussion isn’t going to go anywhere with you.

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Would you consider your Father to have precedence in your life? Like if your Dad asked you to do something for him would you do it? Its really not that hard to understand. It stems from the 4th Commandment. Honor your Father and Mother.

Even if there is one being and three persons those three persons have a relationship to each other.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You specifically said we are not meant to question the Church.

I said we aren’t meant to interpret scripture by itself, by ourselves. Don’t twist my words.

“The father is greater than I”. This contradicts the Trinity.

No, it does not. It’s supportive of the Monarchy of the Father. Saying things like this convinces me that you don’t know enough about the Trinity to argue against it.

I am more than open to discussing this. But when these perfectly reasonable points

They aren’t perfectly reasonable, and that’s what I’ve been telling you. You’re dismissing entire parts of Trinitarian theology and making arguments which are easily debunked by including them. So long as you continue to argue against your strawman of the Trinity, there is no point in attempting to defend the real one. The problem is not with me, or doctrine, or the Church. The problem is with your reluctance to actually learn and ponder the real teachings of Catholicism.

 

[AlNg]

The problem is with your reluctance to actually learn and ponder the real teachings of Catholicism.

Would that be an ad hominem argument?
Catholic priests have studied the real teachings of Catholicism and yet there are Catholic priests who have converted to Judaism and there are Catholic priests who have converted to Islam. Both Judaism and Islam do not accept the Trinity.

 

[MarkRome]

And then why did it take 400 years, two Councils, and numerous back and forth compromises and theological battles until it was finally formalized?

Because for most of the first 300 years the Church was persecuted and underground. That’s why you didn’t see councils until the 300s. The Church called councils to deal with heresies.

But there are also many statements that directly contradict the doctrine.

No, there are no Bible passages that directly contradict the Trinity. Maybe according to your interpretation, but nothing in the Bible contradicts any Catholic doctrine or dogma. I often challenge Protestants that if you can find just one, just one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic teaching, I will cease to be Catholic immediately. No Protestant has been able to.

 

[MarkRome]

Can you explain that Jesus says the meek shall inherit the earth but the Catholic Church is the richest private institution in world history?

Not sure what you are asking because meekness and wealth are not related. You can have a wealthy person who is meek and a poor person who isn’t.

2,000 years of history is a lot of time to be gifted many things, which are open and free for all to enjoy. The Vatican’s annual operating budget is less than many smaller city’s budget in the U.S.

No contradiction.

 

[Dudd]

No, there are no Bible passages that directly contradict the Trinity. Maybe according to your interpretation, but nothing in the Bible contradicts any Catholic doctrine or dogma. I often challenge Protestants that if you can find just one, just one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic teaching, I will cease to be Catholic immediately. No Protestant has been able to.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

I know what your going to tell me. You’re going to say that’s because Jesus was speaking from his humanity. When people say that they are saying the answer to that Trinitarian contradiction is the Trinity!

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

Did Jesus forget or does he simply NOT know?

 

[AlNg]

No, there are no Bible passages that directly contradict the Trinity…if you can find just one, just one Bible verse that contradicts a Catholic teaching, I will cease to be Catholic immediately.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

If only the Father knows and the Son does not know and the Holy Spirit does not know, then would that be a contradiction to the divinity of Jesus and the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

 

[MarkRome]

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

As Augustine said, Jesus Christ is “equal to the Father in his divinity, less than the Father in his humanity”. So, yes, I am gong to talk about his humanity. Jesus could also be talking about his origin. The Son proceeds from the Father eternally by way of generation.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."

Jesus veiled his divinity likely to ensure that the disciples would stay alert. Jesus, being Divine, knew everything about the plan of salvation including the date.

No contradictions.

 

[AlNg]

Jesus veiled his divinity likely to ensure that the disciples would stay alert. Jesus, being Divine, knew everything about the plan of salvation including the date.

No contradictions.

And why would not the Holy Spirit know the day and the hour?

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

real relational distinction has to imply an ontological distinction

Assertion. Show proof of this.

 

[MarkRome]

And why would not the Holy Spirit know the day and the hour?

He does. Most likely Jesus didn’t mention Him because the Holy Spirit had not yet come and he was speaking to them about things they knew.

No contradiction.

 

[MarkRome]

Regardless, if you’re trying to say that a $10B budget is not that much

I am saying your numbers are way off. The Vatican’s budget is in the $300 million range. By comparison, Harvard University’s annual budget is $1.3B.

Not sure how the rich man and camel come into play here. I could talk about how the Church is the largest non-governmental charitable organization on the face of the earth but I doubt that will sway you.

Again, no contradictions.