The Confusion of Catholicism

[Aloysium]

It seems like some Catholics think Catholicism is all about what and how to think. . . Can I fit in the mosaic?

Catholicism brings people together as taught by its founder Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, our saviour and redeemer. That is the truth.

People can think what they like.
To you it makes no sense; to me nothing else does.
The confusion that you say it conveys is but the disjointed unclear ideas of your own mind that seem to be emotionally driven and fail to connect with the Truth.
Sorry for the blunt words, I do realize I don’t know you, this is the Internet but that’s what I think.

I’m not really sure what is meant by fitting in, but it’s evident that it is something you do not wish to do. Catholicism not a club but rather a coming together of person into the body of Christ to bring about Gods kingdom in this world as it exists within each of us when we let God enter our hearts.

The truth is revealed in the reality of the church, it’s teachings and functions, and it illumines existence. Faith isn’t merely a set of ideas or beliefs, it requires action. Through that we know the truth.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What happens when we apply this to the heavens? Are the heavens rationally structured?
If they are not then we are denying that God is rational. If they are then they can either be rationally structured in the same way as our world, or in in a different - perhaps higher - way, with their own logic and metaphysics.
If the heavens are structured rationally in the same way as our world, then the accusation of the trinity’s self-contradiction - if it holds - does disprove the trinity, as we can hold the heavens to our own standard of logic (because we share this standard of logic). If, on the other hand, the logic and metaphysics of the heavens are of a different nature, then I see two complications. On the one hand we traditionally see the soul as the rational and ‘God breathed’ part of ourselves whereby we can recognise higher truths and somehow partake in divinity. If this soul does not use the same logical categories as the heavens then I see this as problematic for the idea that we have a divine soul, as it seems to place us in the category of animals, or imply that there isn’t really anything higher than the world.
On the other hand, if the logic and metaphysics of the heavens really are that different from ours then we cannot claim to know, comprehend or understand anything about God and the heavens. Revelation would be in a language and conceptual structure where ‘2+2=43’ could easily be true, and the words of scripture could mean absolutely anything or nothing. It would completely undermine any possibility of relation with he divine, and would make intelligible revelation impossible. It would be like us trying to explain the meaning of life to an ant.

I do believe this is similar to our situation. I doubt our ability to peer into the heavens with logic, and I don’t think our souls are “divine” but rather “human.” We’re above animals, in my opinion, because we are created in the image and likeness of God, but we’re much more similar to animals than God (so far as I know). I will admit that I have no understanding of God’s nature. He very well could be a trinity or whatever else. Who can know? For now I am content with considering him to be simply “unlimited.” “Trinity” is a specific limit, although, as you have rightly pointed out, there doesn’t appear to be a coherent referent for the term.

The absurdity here is that some of the “ants” insist they are certain the meaning of life is a specific thing with no coherent referent.

You have brought up some excellent points. The confusion is not only about which dogmas or doctrines are “Catholic” but their very meaning in the first place. It seems likely two different Catholics can both affirm belief in a trinity/eucharist/original sin/grace/etc while each having opposing conceptions of the very words. They believe they are in agreement with each other and with “the magisterium” but if they were to get into a discussion, they would find they disagree. The coherence of Catholicism exists only in the mind of the individual Catholic, it seems. I suppose this is true for every religious tradition so focused on rigid dogmatic beliefs about obscurities and ambiguities.

Consider this:

Pope Pius XII infallibly declared that Catholics must believe in a single Adam and Eve. His reasoning is that if there wasn’t ONLY one couple as the common ancestor of all living humans, then the doctrine of original sin would be seriously undermined. I brought this up once at a Catholic bible study and everyone was shocked. “What?” “That’s ridiculous!” “We know that isn’t true based on mitochondrial DNA analysis, etc…”

My point is, those very devout Catholics (two were considering the priesthood) had no knowledge of this specific statement by the Church, and when confronted with it, rejected it as false merely by reaction. Mind you, these guys had graduate degrees in biology, mechanical engineering, computer science, and philosophy. NOW, that isn’t to say monogenesis is certainly false. There is no conclusive and irrefutable evidence either way, to my knowledge. I don’t personally believe it, but I don’t think it necessarily contradicts reason or our best scientific understanding. It is very possible we will discover more in the coming years which will help clarify our particular understanding of our origins.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Raised Mormon, left for atheism, converted to Catholicism. Many stops along the way. I had an interest in “belief systems”. Tried out different things from New Age (gemstones and tarot) to Buddhism and a study for a couple of years the sutras of Pantanjali (Hindu). I found all that interesting but never believed during all that sampling of beliefs. The sutras were the most interesting, very thorough philosophy, but I couldn’t believe in the multiple gods of Hinduism and the attraction of the divine within, is not something I possess.

Anyway, it isn’t hatred. Give people the benefit of the doubt! Someone once told me years ago that my family view me like a toddler, who is sitting in the middle of traffic, and they aren’t going to leave me there. Some Catholics may be hateful, or even fearful of you, but most are indifferent. There are a few, probably less than 20, who will love you enough to view you as the toddler in the middle of the road.

Old Testamenty, as in destroying whole populations. You make a distinction between God’s right to total destruction in this life, while rejecting hell. I find that to be incongruent.

Gosh I feel for you. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have been raised as a Mormon. I think I would become a virulent atheist, and I absolutely don’t blame any ex-Mormons for being that way. I think I would see all religion as hucksterism, and all religious officials as charlatans and con artists. Have you ever seen the ex-mormon reddit page? It’s truly sad how much emotional, spiritual, and even physical abuse many ex-mormons have endured.

What encouraged you to pursue religious beliefs rather than just throw it all out?

Ok, you say “most are indifferent.” That’s the hate I’m talking about. They’re OK with the idea that people are going to be tortured relentlessly for eternity for failing to “agree” with their beliefs. To be alright with this, one would have to be a monster. Are you OK with torture in this life? Is it fine for North Korea to torture people who disagree with the dictator? Of course not! Now, maybe you can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean you are merely “indifferent” right?

Last point, and oh boy I really don’t want to turn this thread into another endless discussion of hell: isn’t there a qualitative difference between God’s right to extinguish life and God’s right to sustain it indefinitely for the purpose of relentless torment?

For instance, say I give you a dollar and warn you that I’m going to take it back someday. You can use it. Have fun! But, someday I’m going to take it back. I don’t owe it to you, you owe it to me. I’m never said I was giving it to you permanently, in fact I was clear that someday it will have to be paid back. I can take it back whenever I want, there is no guaranteed term to this contract. If I don’t like how you’re using my dollar, I’ll take it back. Actually, I can take it back for any reason whatsoever. I may allow you to abuse the dollar temporarily, but someday, inevitably, it’s coming back to me. Even one day with this dollar is better than nothing right?

Now what if, when I came to take the dollar back, I insisted that you now have to pay for the dollar I gave you by giving me all of your dollars forever and forever without ever ending? I will make you work in salt mines or something, and sustain your life for eternity just so you can pay me back endlessly. I will have given you a dollar, taken it back, and then taken an infinity of dollars from you forever. Does that sound just to you?

 

[o_mlly]

But as to the self-contradictoriness of the trinity, I have yet to find an explanation of the Nicene definition of the trinity that is not contradictory…

Follows, an argument for the plurality of persons in the Godhead. For simplicity, I only seek to prove more than one person in one being necessarily exists. But, I believe, that is sufficient for now. Please show the contradiction.

Doctrine of the Trinity belongs to revealed theology rather than to natural theology
No analogy from nature can explain fully that which is outside nature
God is by definition the greatest conceivable being
God must be perfect
A perfect being must be a loving being
Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself
God must be giving Himself in love to another
God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist
Created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves
God is eternally loving
The other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself
God is a plurality of persons

 

[grannymh]

Ok. Now there are two interrelated points which are at the heart of the issue.
The first is whether the trinity is or is not self-contradictory. If it is, then it won’t be a case of denying it because we can’t comprehend it, and I have already said in my last post that we are not entitled to do this anyway - I explained that reincarnation is not comprehensible in its working but is comprehensible in principle. So I agree with you so far.

But as to the self-contradictoriness of the trinity, I have yet to find an explanation of the Nicene definition of the trinity that is not contradictory. It seems to describe either a being with three modes, or three different beings which it simply calls persons for the sake of preserving cosmetic monotheism. Now, I can’t claim to have read every book on the subject or seen every argument ever made - that may not even be possible. But with the resources available to me I cannot find a satisfactory explanation. The Stanford encyclopaedia online is a good philosophy source which has a article on the trinity itself, as well as one on general Christian philosophy which includes further arguments for the trinity. Yet none of thee can preserve orthodoxy.

I have reasonable grounds - overwhelming, in fact - to say that the Nicene trinity is self-contradictory, and no good grounds to believe in the possibility that it may be otherwise. Of course, that is not to say that the trinity puzzle may have a solution which we haven’t found yet. But as it stands it seems to be a contradictory doctrine, with itself and with the old testament.

The Catholic Church includes the spiritual world as the base for its doctrines. The meaning of Divine is that whatever is Divine is in the spiritual world. When one looks at the Trinity as being in the material world, this results in misunderstanding. When one omits the factor that the spiritual world does exist, this results in a muddle.

Using the theatre expression – a willing suspension of disbelief – one can explore the spiritual world and find the Trinity as three Divine (spiritual) persons in one Divine (spiritual) nature.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi PC, (if you don’t mind my cutting in a little)

You have brought up some excellent points. The confusion is not only about which dogmas or doctrines are “Catholic” but their very meaning in the first place. It seems likely two different Catholics can both affirm belief in a trinity/eucharist/original sin/grace/etc while each having opposing conceptions of the very words.

I agree completely, but I would omit the words “It seems likely”. The more complex the concept behind the words, the more likely that no two people have the same definitions. “Agreement” has more to do with desire to affiliate, to claim that we all hold doctrine to be
true, yet with a wink toward our own impossible-to-completely-overcome subjectivity. The option, of course, is to have a congregation who is asked to “check their brain at the door”. The wink toward subjectivity makes being Catholic a practice in being a world citizen, does it not? Bottom line: “Confusion” has nothing over desire to affiliate. Being part of a family doesn’t mean agreeing on all of the head-stuff.

Where there is hatred, St. Francis says, let us sow love. Hatred is a condition that calls for healing. If I say to the hater, “you hate, and it is wrong” we have a non-starter. Did you hear that 2/3 of Republican voters in New Hampshire agreed with Trump on the keep-the-Muslims-out sentiment? It would go nowhere to tell those people that they are wrong.

Have you seen this?

youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU&feature=youtu.be

I believe in love too!

They believe they are in agreement with each other and with “the magisterium” but if they were to get into a discussion, they would find they disagree. The coherence of Catholicism exists only in the mind of the individual Catholic, it seems. I suppose this is true for every religious tradition so focused on rigid dogmatic beliefs about obscurities and ambiguities.

Focus on rigid dogmatic beliefs, as central to our faith and community gives us a sense of security, PC. Okay, it is a false sense of security, for true security is not found in written words or intellectual congruity (true security is found in relationship with God and others, it is found in commitments to love unconditionally). However, we can understand and forgive the individual for attempts to find security in doctrinal affiliation that excludes people and leads people to condemn the outgroup. Such is a natural phenomenon; people do not know what they are doing, but they eventually learn. You are an example, are you not?

Paz

 

[paziego]

Follows, an argument for the plurality of persons in the Godhead. For simplicity, I only seek to prove more than one person in one being necessarily exists. But, I believe, that is sufficient for now. Please show the contradiction.

Doctrine of the Trinity belongs to revealed theology rather than to natural theology

Ok, I know what you mean by this, even if I don’t hold it myself. However, the basis for this belief is rooted in the conclusion, which is begging the question. It is Jesus who reveals this doctrine on the authority of that very doctrine (ie his divinity). So you have to believe he is god first in order to buy his claim that he is god.

No analogy from nature can explain fully that which is outside nature

Then what entitles us to believe and assert what is inaccessible? This leads us to the problems we have been discussing.

God is by definition the greatest conceivable being
God must be perfect

Granted.

A perfect being must be a loving being

I’m not sure this necessarily follows. We could be anthropomorphising here.

Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself

Unless you are a pantheist, in which case self-love and love for god are not mutually exclusive.
More importantly, if there isn’t anyone else then loving yourself seems good enough.

God must be giving Himself in love to another

Ok, this is a bit more controversial, as it proposes some sort of inherent insufficiency in god. In fact, this goes against the definition that he is the “greatest conceivable being” as I can conceive of a being who is entirely self-sufficient.
Note also that you have posited “another”. This already implies something external to god.

God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist
Created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves
God is eternally loving

The other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself
God is a plurality of persons.

Explain how exactly this “other” is at the same time not an “other”. You are jumping from talking about god on the whole to god the father, and this is creating confusion. What you are saying is that the father should direct his love internally, but what he does instead in Trinitarian theology is create something external to himself.

You are making god split like an amoeba and then claiming that because they are both amoebas we can rightly call it one amoeba. But they are two distinct entities - amoeba ‘a’ has created amoeba ‘b’ external to itself.

If the love is directed internally, then it is directed into that same person. But you are saying that god needs another to love, so then he manufactures another person. But then, this other isn’t really another, but himself. That does not seem to solve the problem, as either god has successfully created another and you have polytheism or he hasn’t and he still has no object to love.

 

[paziego]

The Catholic Church includes the spiritual world as the base for its doctrines. The meaning of Divine is that whatever is Divine is in the spiritual world. When one looks at the Trinity as being in the material world, this results in misunderstanding. When one omits the factor that the spiritual world does exist, this results in a muddle.

Using the theatre expression – a willing suspension of disbelief – one can explore the spiritual world and find the Trinity as three Divine (spiritual) persons in one Divine (spiritual) nature.

So why suspend disbelief in the first place, or why suspend it for the Catholic church and not for another faith?

I know what you are saying, I used to believe in it and I was quite engaged with apologetics defending the faith. When you accept the basic premises any argument can get off the ground, and it can be liberating to see everything fall into place after that. That is precisely what St Augustine did. He “suspended disbelief” and immediately all the other Christian claims and general worldview made sense to him. But you can do the very same with Buddhism and Islam, or any other faith - so what value is there in that methodology? Or in the beliefs it leads you to?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi PC, (if you don’t mind my cutting in a little)

I agree completely, but I would omit the words “It seems likely”. The more complex the concept behind the words, the more likely that no two people have the same definitions. “Agreement” has more to do with desire to affiliate, to claim that we all hold doctrine to be
true, yet with a wink toward our own impossible-to-completely-overcome subjectivity. The option, of course, is to have a congregation who is asked to “check their brain at the door”. The wink toward subjectivity makes being Catholic a practice in being a world citizen, does it not? Bottom line: “Confusion” has nothing over desire to affiliate. Being part of a family doesn’t mean agreeing on all of the head-stuff.

Where there is hatred, St. Francis says, let us sow love. Hatred is a condition that calls for healing. If I say to the hater, “you hate, and it is wrong” we have a non-starter. Did you hear that 2/3 of Republican voters in New Hampshire agreed with Trump on the keep-the-Muslims-out sentiment? It would go nowhere to tell those people that they are wrong.

Have you seen this?

youtube.com/watch?v=Nq7us5Lf5IU&feature=youtu.be

I believe in love too!

Focus on rigid dogmatic beliefs, as central to our faith and community gives us a sense of security, PC. Okay, it is a false sense of security, for true security is not found in written words or intellectual congruity (true security is found in relationship with God and others, it is found in commitments to love unconditionally). However, we can understand and forgive the individual for attempts to find security in doctrinal affiliation that excludes people and leads people to condemn the outgroup. Such is a natural phenomenon; people do not know what they are doing, but they eventually learn. You are an example, are you not?

Paz

Hey, no worries. There is no “cutting in” in a forum! Contribute whatever you would like of course!

It saddens me that so many Americans are afraid of all of our Muslim brothers and sisters because of the violent atrocities committed by their most rigidly dogmatic adherents. I personally know many refugees, and I know that Catholic Charities is gearing up for the arrival of many hundreds from Syria in my area. Of course, I fear violent and rigidly dogmatic Muslims as well, but the vast majority of these people are neither! They’re fleeing horrible devastation and destruction, and they need our help.

I’d say, if having rigid dogmatic beliefs helps you live a good life, go for it. If it encourages you to hate and/or kill others, then I would say those beliefs need to be undermined for the good of humanity.

I personally know Jews who would think that video is offensive because they would see the child Jesus as an idol. Not necessarily Jesus in himself, but the 3D representational object. I also know Muslims who would think the same. On this very forum there are dozens of people who are offended by that video for seeming to equivocate between religious beliefs. “What??? How can the Pope do this??? ” is the response of many.

I do not think the video is offensive. I see that baby as an idol, but I also understand that you and other Christians don’t see it that way and are trying to worship and love God. God is beyond our understanding, in my opinion, and it is very natural to want to reach out and touch him in a representation of some kind or another.

I believe in love too. I’m not ready to accept the metaphysical and epistemological baggage that comes with affirmation of the statement God=love, but I believe it is our #1 job to love each other.

Yes “in-group/out-group” dynamics appear to be natural (based on that baby research you sent me). Anger, hate, gluttony, ignorance. They’re all natural. They’re from our animal nature. It’s our job to grow out of this and allow our spiritual nature to become predominant though, don’t you think? It’s OK if you disagree of course, I just think these things to help me understand.

It seems imperative that we outgrow this hate of the “other” though, doesn’t it? We could easily bomb each other into oblivion, God forbid. It is my hope that humanity will one day live in peace, can’t see a clear path to it, but may it happen soon!

 

[grannymh]

So why suspend disbelief in the first place, or why suspend it for the Catholic church and not for another faith?

I am so sorry that there is a misunderstanding. I apologize for not being clear. For me, a willing suspension of disbelief gives people the freedom to explore a world which for them is non-existent.

I am using the old-time saying “a willing suspension of disbelief” (see Google) as a means of learning where one sets aside one’s own preference in order to understand someone else. In a “willing suspension of disbelief” one does not change one’s position. Rather one simply sets it aside so that one can give full attention to what the other person is trying to say. As I recall, Google gave the history of that phrase which normally is used to enjoy a theatre production or creative fiction.

I underlined the operative words.
Using the theatre expression – a willing suspension of disbelief – one can explore the spiritual world and find the Trinity as three Divine (spiritual) persons in one Divine (spiritual) nature.

Please note that the theatre expression is not a substitution for the Catholic Church or for any real thing. Thank you.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes “in-group/out-group” dynamics appear to be natural (based on that baby research you sent me). Anger, hate, gluttony, ignorance. They’re all natural. They’re from our animal nature. It’s our job to grow out of this and allow our spiritual nature to become predominant though, don’t you think? It’s OK if you disagree of course, I just think these things to help me understand.

It seems imperative that we outgrow this hate of the “other” though, doesn’t it? We could easily bomb each other into oblivion, God forbid. It is my hope that humanity will one day live in peace, can’t see a clear path to it, but may it happen soon!

Yes, I agree, it is our job to “grow out of it”. We can take the Eckhart Tolle observational approach, to simply observe our emotions and drives, and in doing so our “being” is not the emotions and drives themselves. We still have them, but they are not central, what is central is love and awareness, a silence, our “spiritual nature”. That is where I find God. It does no good to battle hate, gluttony, etc. in the long run, for part of the problem is the natural (& automatic) use of condemnation to solve all of the problems. We can observe and transcend our condemnation too, not let it control us.

Yes, I also have hope!

 

[o_mlly]

Ok, I know what you mean by this, even if I don’t hold it myself. …

Granted, you are not a believer.

But the claim made was: "I have reasonable grounds - overwhelming, in fact - to say that the Nicene trinity is self-contradictory, … But as it stands it seems to be a contradictory doctrine, with itself … "

To prove this claim of internal inconsistency, one must show (not that any proposition is true or false) but that collectively the propositions cannot stand because one or more propositions contradict another.

So I ask you again, show me the self-contradiction you claim exists in this truncated doctrine of the Trinity.

No analogy from nature can explain fully that which is outside nature

God is by definition the greatest conceivable being

God must be perfect

A perfect being must be a loving being

Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself

God must be giving Himself in love to another

God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist

Created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves

God is eternally loving

The other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself

God is a plurality of persons

 

[RebeccaJ]

Gosh I feel for you. I can’t imagine what it would be like to have been raised as a Mormon. I think I would become a virulent atheist, and I absolutely don’t blame any ex-Mormons for being that way. I think I would see all religion as hucksterism, and all religious officials as charlatans and con artists. Have you ever seen the ex-mormon reddit page? It’s truly sad how much emotional, spiritual, and even physical abuse many ex-mormons have endured.

What encouraged you to pursue religious beliefs rather than just throw it all out?

Ok, you say “most are indifferent.” That’s the hate I’m talking about. They’re OK with the idea that people are going to be tortured relentlessly for eternity for failing to “agree” with their beliefs. To be alright with this, one would have to be a monster. Are you OK with torture in this life? Is it fine for North Korea to torture people who disagree with the dictator? Of course not! Now, maybe you can’t do anything about it, but that doesn’t mean you are merely “indifferent” right?

Last point, and oh boy I really don’t want to turn this thread into another endless discussion of hell: isn’t there a qualitative difference between God’s right to extinguish life and God’s right to sustain it indefinitely for the purpose of relentless torment?

For instance, say I give you a dollar and warn you that I’m going to take it back someday. You can use it. Have fun! But, someday I’m going to take it back. I don’t owe it to you, you owe it to me. I’m never said I was giving it to you permanently, in fact I was clear that someday it will have to be paid back. I can take it back whenever I want, there is no guaranteed term to this contract. If I don’t like how you’re using my dollar, I’ll take it back. Actually, I can take it back for any reason whatsoever. I may allow you to abuse the dollar temporarily, but someday, inevitably, it’s coming back to me. Even one day with this dollar is better than nothing right?

Now what if, when I came to take the dollar back, I insisted that you now have to pay for the dollar I gave you by giving me all of your dollars forever and forever without ever ending? I will make you work in salt mines or something, and sustain your life for eternity just so you can pay me back endlessly. I will have given you a dollar, taken it back, and then taken an infinity of dollars from you forever. Does that sound just to you?

Re the post Mormon stuff, been there, done that. There was about 25 years between leaving for atheism and converting to Catholicism. The interest in belief systems was spurred on by Joseph Campbell’s “Power of Myth”. I watched his interviews with Bill Moyer on PBS then bought his book. I wasn’t looking to join any religion, including Catholicism. When I took an interest in understanding Christianity, I had no intention, whatsoever, of converting.

I don’t agree hell is as simple as you present it. To begin with, hell is taught as a possibility, not an inevitability. It is also taught as respecting the person who is judged to be there, as their choice. In addition, the torment of hell is viewed as metaphorical in a lot of Catholic writings. The metaphor, being specific to what it will be like to be separated from God, for eternity.

There are some Evangelical Christians, who reject hell, believing that the souls who will not be in heaven will be anhilated. I find this to not be supported scripturally.

 

[paziego]

Granted, you are not a believer.

But the claim made was: "I have reasonable grounds - overwhelming, in fact - to say that the Nicene trinity is self-contradictory, … But as it stands it seems to be a contradictory doctrine, with itself … "

To prove this claim of internal inconsistency, one must show (not that any proposition is true or false) but that collectively the propositions cannot stand because one or more propositions contradict another.

So I ask you again, show me the self-contradiction you claim exists in this truncated doctrine of the Trinity.

Ok. The doctrine of the trinity says that god is a plurality of persons internally, that the three persons in mutual love are his inner life.

I see the contradiction in the statement “the other to whom god’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to god himself.”

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it is the father who loves the son, and the son is not internal to the father. The person of the son proceeds from the father and is external to the person of the father.

All three persons are internal to “GOD”, as in the godhead or the complete being (I will capitalise “GOD” to make clear when I am talking about the one being). But it is not this “GOD” who is loving himself, but the father who is loving someone - not himself, but another person external to him.

If we identify GOD with the father then we cannot say his love is internally directed because his son is a separate person external to him, unless you want to deny “the son is not the father”.

If we do not identify GOD with the father, but say that all three persons are internal to him, then just who is the father? And who is GOD, for that matter?
In this case, the statement “the other to whom god’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to god himself”, will not be true, as it is not GOD doing the internally directed loving - it is the father doing externally directed loving. The love happens entirely within GOD, and between persons external to each other, but GOD seems to play no part. I repeat, it would not be GOD doing the loving, but the father.

If you were a woman with triplets in your womb, and one of those triplets were to love another one, you would not say that this is an internal process YOU are carrying out. In fact, YOU would be redundant in this love story.

In the same way, it makes not sense to describe the trinity as GOD’s internal life because we would either need GOD to be a higher person above the trinity persons, or we would have to admit there is no GOD, but only father, son and holy spirit. But these three are external to each other and essentially different identities. Imagine that triangular diagram of the trinity but without the GOD in the middle: all you would have are links saying “is not, is not, is not” in between the persons. You cannot call them the same being. At most you can call them the same kind of being.

Anyway, in Trinitarian theology it is the father who loves the son, not GOD who loves the son. Son is external to father, therefore you have two different beings.

 

[paziego]

I am so sorry that there is a misunderstanding. I apologize for not being clear. For me, a willing suspension of disbelief gives people the freedom to explore a world which for them is non-existent.

I am using the old-time saying “a willing suspension of disbelief” (see Google) as a means of learning where one sets aside one’s own preference in order to understand someone else. In a “willing suspension of disbelief” one does not change one’s position. Rather one simply sets it aside so that one can give full attention to what the other person is trying to say. As I recall, Google gave the history of that phrase which normally is used to enjoy a theatre production or creative fiction.

I underlined the operative words.
Using the theatre expression – a willing suspension of disbelief – one can explore the spiritual world and find the Trinity as three Divine (spiritual) persons in one Divine (spiritual) nature.

Please note that the theatre expression is not a substitution for the Catholic Church or for any real thing. Thank you.

I am sorry. I did misunderstand you.
I thought you were saying that “suspending disbelief” was a way of understanding the act of faith necessary to access the truths of the spiritual world, as a way of bringing down barriers between us and that spiritual world.

 

[paziego]

OneSheep I agree completely, but I would omit the words “It seems likely”. The more complex the concept behind the words, the more likely that no two people have the same definitions. “Agreement” has more to do with desire to affiliate, to claim that we all hold doctrine to be
true, yet with a wink toward our own impossible-to-completely-overcome subjectivity. The option, of course, is to have a congregation who is asked to “check their brain at the door”. The wink toward subjectivity makes being Catholic a practice in being a world citizen, does it not? Bottom line: “Confusion” has nothing over desire to affiliate. Being part of a family doesn’t mean agreeing on all of the head-stuff.

Wait, hold on a minute. You are forgetting the violence unleashed in the formulation and enforcement of these doctrines. You are grossly understating the seriousness of the problem. of these “disagreements” and confusion.

During the councils where these doctrines were elaborated fits or rage and fistfights were common. Centurions had to be deployed to keep the peace. The divisions, especially between monophysites and Catholics helped tear the roman empire apart. Then we have a whole history of persecution for the sake of doctrinal correctness which outdoes any other atrocity in terms of the history of its duration and sense of self-righteousness of the persecutors.

I can remember which of the Fathers it was right now, but he was complaining about the tendency of all rival Christian sects to fabricate scriptures and stories about Jesus to justify their point. Even Paul had problems with Christians who disagreed with his particular take on things.

Such is a natural phenomenon; people do nFocus on rigid dogmatic beliefs, as central to our faith and community gives us a sense of security. Okay, it is a false sense of security, for true security is not found in written words or intellectual congruity (true security is found in relationship with God and others, it is found in commitments to love unconditionally). However, we can understand and forgive the individual for attempts to find security in doctrinal affiliation that excludes people and leads people to condemn ot know what they are doing, but they eventually learn. You are an example, are you not?

Paz

The words of Pious IX

In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging… Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength.

So if you disagree with the Church you are a puppet of masons and the devil, and the Church is at war with you.

It is not a fault of individual Catholics. The problem IS the Church.

How can one pope take such a different line from another and still be said to be of the same religion. It seems like at least one of them is practicing “taqiyya”.

(Notice that satan has a synagogue. How loving the Holy Father is towards the Jews).

 

[paziego]

The absurdity here is that some of the “ants” insist they are certain the meaning of life is a specific thing with no coherent referent.

You have brought up some excellent points. The confusion is not only about which dogmas or doctrines are “Catholic” but their very meaning in the first place. It seems likely two different Catholics can both affirm belief in a trinity/eucharist/original sin/grace/etc while each having opposing conceptions of the very words. They believe they are in agreement with each other and with “the magisterium” but if they were to get into a discussion, they would find they disagree. The coherence of Catholicism exists only in the mind of the individual Catholic, it seems. I suppose this is true for every religious tradition so focused on rigid dogmatic beliefs about obscurities and ambiguities.

You are absolutely right. And we see from the very start of Christianity, which was originally a very broad movement, that this has always been the case. But it didn’t take long for Christians to talk to each other and realise that they had all sorts of divergent beliefs, often in very important matters. The result was the early councils, where no consensus was reached and everybody went home feeling bitter and believing their own Christianity. The empire enforced a particular vision and that has been the story ever since. There is a constant process of “controversy” followed by discussion and definition. But this means you can’t be certain of anything in the faith.

This is what I don’t get about Jesus’ supposed teaching mission. All we have record of are things which any man could have said - to forgive and love one another, to love god, and to follow the law in spirit rather than to the letter. These ideas were already commonplace in that region at the time, we didn’t need a divine teacher for what we already know. You would think that god incarnate would spend his time more wisely and teach things which people did not know at the time, and clarify the points which seemed to cause so much trouble in the future, such as Trinitarian theology and Christology. Why are none of the core doctrines taught explicitly in the record we have of his teachings? Everything is a vague interpretation; it is only there if you want to see it there. The whole thing is an exercise in seeing what you can get away with justifying with reference to the text. Of course that is going to cause controversy and a multiplicity of beliefs.

 

[o_mlly]

I believe your explanation does not sufficiently separate the use of the terms “Person” and “Being” but uses them interchangeably as if their meaning were identical. Also the post tries to invent a fourth person in the Trinity as being the collection of the Three which is not Catholic doctrine. I have tried clumsily to insert and edit your post - sorry but this mode of debate has its limitations.

Ok. The doctrine of the trinity says that god is a plurality of persons internally, that the three persons in mutual love are his inner life.

I see the contradiction in the statement “the other PERSON to whom god’s love is necessarily directed must be internal ONE IN BEING WITH THE DEITY ITSELF -]to god himsel/-]-]f./-]”

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but it is the father who loves the son, and the son is not internal THE SAME PERSON AS to the father. The person of the son proceeds from the father and is external to the person of the father. BUT NOT EXTERNAL TO THE BEING OF THE FATHER.

All three persons are internal – ONE IN BEING WITH EACH OTHER -]to “GOD”/-], as in THEMSELVES -]-]the godhead or the complete being/-]/-] (I will capitalise “GOD” to make clear when I am talking about the one being). A PERSON CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM HIS NATURE – THERE IS NO “THIS GOD” OR "THAT GOD’’ ONLY “THE GOD” FOR THE PERSONS ARE ONE IN BEING. But it is not this “GOD” who is loving himself, but the father who is loving someone - not himself, but another person external to AND ONE IN BEING WITH him.

If we identify GOD with the father, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT then we cannot say his love is internally directed because his son is a separate person external to hiS-]m/-] PERSONHOOD BUT NOT HIS BEING, unless you want to deny “the son is not the father”.

If we do not identify GOD with ONLY the father, but say that all three persons are internal to hiS-]m/-] BEING, then just who is the father- THE FIRST PERSON OF THE TRINITY? And who is GOD, THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT for that matter? THE TRINITY.
In this case, the statement “the other PERSON to whom god’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to god himself”, will -]not/-] be true, as it is -]not GOD/-] THE THREE PERSONS doing the EXTERNALLY -]internally/-] directed loving - it is the father doing externally directed loving. The love happens entirely within GOD’S BEING, and between persons external to each other, -]but GOD seems to play no part/-]. I repeat, it would not be GOD WITHOUT PERSONHOOD doing the loving, but the father ,SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT.

If you were a woman with triplets in your womb, and one of those triplets were to love another one, you would not say that this is an internal process YOU are carrying out. In fact, YOU would be redundant in this love story. TRIPLETS ARE SEPARATE PERSONS AND SEPARATE BEINGS.

In the same way, it makes not sense to describe the trinity as GOD’s internal life because we would either need GOD to be a higher person above the trinity persons, or we would have to admit there is no GOD WITHOUT PERSONHOOD, but only father, son and holy spirit. But these three are external to each other and essentially THE SAME - ONE IN BEING OR ESSENCE different identities AS IN PERSONS. Imagine that triangular diagram of the trinity but without the GOD in the middle: all you would have are links saying “is not, is not, is not” in between the persons. THE TRIANGLE ALSO HAS “IS” CONNECTING THE PERSONS TO BE ONE GOD. You cannot call them the same being. WHY NOT? At most you can call them the same kind of being.

Anyway, in Trinitarian theology it is the father who loves the son, not GOD WITHOUT PERSONHOOD who loves the son. Son is external to father, therefore you have two different PERSONS -]beings/-].

 

[OneSheep]

Wait, hold on a minute. You are forgetting the violence unleashed in the formulation and enforcement of these doctrines. You are grossly understating the seriousness of the problem. of these “disagreements” and confusion.

Good morning, paziego, hello!

Well, if I am “grossly understanding”, then it sounds like I have a grasp of it.

During the councils where these doctrines were elaborated fits or rage and fistfights were common. Centurions had to be deployed to keep the peace. The divisions, especially between monophysites and Catholics helped tear the roman empire apart. Then we have a whole history of persecution for the sake of doctrinal correctness which outdoes any other atrocity in terms of the history of its duration and sense of self-righteousness of the persecutors.

Yes, there are those who find security in doctrine, as I mentioned. It is a false sense of security, but it is very human to seek it in this way. After all, people form their ingroups within the institution based on favored language and concept formation, which is also quite observable on the fora. And then there is spiritual development; in different phases we see God very differently. It’s all human, and all has its place. Of course, the violence can be avoided through transcendence of compulsions, through awareness, through commitment to Love.

I can remember which of the Fathers it was right now, but he was complaining about the tendency of all rival Christian sects to fabricate scriptures and stories about Jesus to justify their point. Even Paul had problems with Christians who disagreed with his particular take on things.

It’s understandable. Somehow or another, Love, the Spirit, continues to (slowly) guide us.

*The words of Pious IX:

In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging… Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength.*

So if you disagree with the Church you are a puppet of masons and the devil, and the Church is at war with you.

Well, the Church is the Body, and we are part of it. I get the impression that you are not at war with those who disagree with the Church, and neither am I. (Nor am I at war with those who wage war.) There is plenty of room in my notion of Church for disagreement, for “disagreeing without being disagreeable” as people say. It takes some awareness to know the huge variation of experiences, the underlayment of concept and opinion.

It is not a fault of individual Catholics. The problem IS the Church.

How can one pope take such a different line from another and still be said to be of the same religion. It seems like at least one of them is practicing “taqiyya”.

(Notice that satan has a synagogue. How loving the Holy Father is towards the Jews).

Popes are human. We all have different ways of seeing the divine, as we are all in different places in our spiritual journeys. People also have very individual “shadows”, and project their shadows in unique ways. Also, people also affiliate based on shared condemnation of a particular “other”, which is also very human.

Good catch on “synagogue” . I think that the Church’s attitude has come a long way toward accepting Judaism and its followers, to the point that we can look back at the use of “synagogue” in context and find it amusing rather than something that expresses a modern reality.

I find it freeing to say things like “that person is capable of lying, condemning, carrying out violence, vehemently defending a concept, persecuting others, and behaving in these horrible ways - just like me.”

Paziego, when people behave in these ways, they do not know what they are doing, right? The Church remains a group of individuals. If I am individually not part of the solution, then I am part of the problem.

Thanks for your response.

BTW: when you are working with the quotes, be sure to leave at least one of the “Quote=Onesheep” with the following reference number and all that, so I can look back on what you were quoting (my quotes were inadvertently chopped up a bit). Thanks!

 

[OneSheep]

There is a constant process of “controversy” followed by discussion and definition. But this means you can’t be certain of anything in the faith.

Hi again,

We can be certain of love, commitment to love God and one another, as certain as we are steadfast. It is no accident that these were Jesus’ primary commandments. He did not say “believe in all doctrine put forth by the Church”. Faith is not a set of doctrines; sorry to be repetitive. Central to faith is relationship.

This is what I don’t get about Jesus’ supposed teaching mission. All we have record of are things which any man could have said - to forgive and love one another, to love god, and to follow the law in spirit rather than to the letter. These ideas were already commonplace in that region at the time, we didn’t need a divine teacher for what we already know.

Did the people “already know” that God loves them unconditionally, even when the condition arises that we are actually killing Him? Did the people “already know” to love their enemies, forgive the unrepentant, do good to those who persecute them? Were they inspired to embrace a discipline to be free of the compulsions to gain status, wealth, multiple mates, etc as an “eternal life”? Were the people previously inspired to break down the walls of ingroup/outgroup, to see God in the “least of my people”? Well, maybe some of those can be found in other contemporary teachings, but not all, correct?

Trinity, etc., and such carefully defined concepts are still, at best, attempts to explain the unexplainable. If you have a better explanation, bring it forth! You won’t get any flack from me…