Sounds Greek to me

[Buddy1]

So much of the Catholic faith it seems is defined through a both/and logic instead of either/or logic. If this is true where did this logic come from? Or is it even a type of logic?

 

[John_Martin]

It is more about metaphysics than it is about logic.
Faith or works; faith and works.
Which equals justification?
If justification is a legal decision about whether a person has a right to enter Heaven, Protestants say that the decision is made by whether or not the person has faith alone.
Catholics say that justification is equal to righteousness, which means that the Justified person is a fully good person who does all good things and he is not guilty of anything. When a person is Justified something is done to that person so that he is new and does good things. When I say that I am justified by faith, I mean that I saw Jesus, trusted in him, came to him; he baptized me and gave me his Holy Spirit so that now I do good things due to infused Grace and Virtues. The whole picture is my justification. I am trusting in Him AND doing what a virtuous person does.
“Justification” means I have been altered in my soul, converted into something new, a “just person” who all would agree is virtuous.
Oh, I see myself missing the mark, but do not cling to that, rather, turn from it.

 

[ZMystiCat]

As far as I’m aware, it wasn’t something that was ever actively embraced, at least not until a need for it arose. As an example, if you read early Church writings on Scripture, Tradition, and Church, you’d find that the value and necessity of all is consistently taught. They may not always be taught together, but the fullness of writing clearly extols all of them.

Ultimately, the both/and logic seems to only really be explicitly embraced when an either/or dilemma comes up. In this case, you can perhaps try to trace back the origin. In many of the cases discussed today, the popularization came in the 16th century with Protestantism, but you can perhaps find an origin predating that time. For instance, St. Vincent of Lerins addressed a sort of proto-sola-scriptura as early as the fifth century, and you can sort of see his both/and thinking coming out in contrast to the either/or thinking he’s addressing:

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

With all that said, I don’t think the Church has ever declared a both/and mentality as the right one to take in all circumstances. Just as either/or can be dangerous (obviously), so can both/and if taken to relativistic places like moral relativism and, more humorously, if-by-whisky. The point is being thoughtful about where conflict actually exists.