OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I, of course, agree that God is love and spend more time rejoicing in His love than getting into philosophical debates. I didn't pick the topic of conversation.
I am 100% correct to contest the word Omnibenevolence as it is not the Theist claim.
To say God is Love is to say God wills the good of all. What is that good? It depends on the nature. The God of philosophy is the Triune God.
As Catherine of Sienna reports God said to her, "I am He who is, and you are she who is not." When she wrote this, was she expressing how far away she was from God or expressing a closeness unfathomable?
I'm not writing about infused prayer over here. I'm picking a fight over a specific word.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
To be merciful is to exceed justice, to give someone something more than they deserve. To be less merciful would not indicate moral deficiency on God's part. We can be grateful for God's great mercy to us. But if God was less merciful we would not be able to judge God negatively.
Funny you bring mercy up here, I recently heard a priest say, in summary, "God's mercy to us is justice to Himself. Divine simplicity entails that God's mercy and justice are the same thing. It would be just to humanity for humans to never be redeemed, but it would have offended against what God owes to Himself - God's justice due to Himself. He deserves our reconciliation because that is what He created us for. Therefore He offers to us salvation, which is mercy to us but justice to Him."
I still insist, that when Catholics talk about God, we are taking in analogy. There are very few statements we can positively say that are true about God. Most of what we can say about God is what He is Not. This is called Apophatic theology.
It is true that Catholic.com uses unspecific language, because it is a apologetic outreach website and not a university-level publication.
that did not permit making any deeper claims about the supreme deity than can be made about a pretty sunset or a cuddly kitten!
Obviously God's greatness is far greater than a sunset or a kitten! I'm also arguing that His greatness is far greater than human understanding of good behavior. These are all poor analogies to the reality of the full significance of God's goodness.
If Orcus existed, I maintain that Catholics would not routinely say "Orcus is good", even if the statement could be narrowly defended.
Ok, here. Dolphins are good. They also rape and murder other sea creatures. Explain to me in your example the significant difference between Orcus and Dolphins so I can understand what you think I would object to.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Why should we praise Him, if we cannot actually come to any conclusions of our own about whether he's morally good or not?
Do you praise a sunset for being morally good? Do you praise a cat because purring nicely on your lap is morally good? What does praise have to do with this?
I think something that may be confusing is that Jesus is praiseworthy in a moral way - He actually has a human nature and can be described in the framework of "well-behaved." But God the Creator can be praised for his steadfastness, the largeness of His creation, etc, without being praised for being a moral agent that does the right thing when its hard.
I am asking you to picture an entity with abilities comparable to those ascribed to Satan, but which never used to be an angel; a being for whom it is instinctive to maim and torture and corrupt in the same way that it is instinctive for a scorpion to sting.
Ok, I think I understand the question better. I thought you were asking if there was no God, but instead the Devil was God. Which confused me obviously.
If the question is then, "Can God create a creature for whom their good involves hurting other creatures?" and the answer is yes. He makes spiders and flies and calls them good, even though to us their value is difficult to identify.
But that is hardly the only thing Satan does. He also tempts people to chose depravity over behaving according to their own nature and God's will for them. Can God create a creature where this behavior is good for their nature? I think not, because it would be a contradiction in God's active will.
I think another confusion comes from the question, is it human nature to be prey, or is that a deprivation caused by the fall? Christianity teaches that it is not human nature to be prey, and that had there been no fall there would be no predation of humans by viruses or organisms. Natural disasters would not harm us somehow. Etc.
So a creature who's own good involves hurting humans, I would say that creating such a nature would be a contradiction to God.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Angles live in an eternal moment. They do not have time and so do not change. They have free will, in which they make one choice - the choice to serve God or reject God.
Every being that can love has free will. God made angels to love, and so they have that choice - love God or not. Everything they do is a consequence of the single choice they made at the moment of their creation.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Ok? Sure God could strike someone with lightning. No problem with that at all in most Christian belief systems. I think it's actually a cliche? A literal literary trope? You keep throwing these at me and I don't know why.
God could also preserve someone who was struck by lightning miraculously. He doesn't have to. But he could preserve and give being to a body that was struck by lightning so that no biological disruption occurred.
God can and will destroy the whole world one day - He will no longer provide it with the constant ground of being and will remake it. When God destroys He does so by no longer providing for being for a thing. Everything that exists now only does so due to God's continuous, active action of providing being to everything. He can remove this at any time without being malevolent. Nothing is owed existence except in the sense that God owes it to Himself to keep his own promises. God breaking His own promises would be an injustice to His own simple, unchangeable nature.
Saying, "well what about a hypothetical where God isn't the sustain-er of being" is just describing a hypothetical without anything that pertains to what I understand the category "God" to be. "What about a circle that had no sides?"
God made tigers. A good tiger is not a friendly or well-behaved tiger. "What about a God who made you a tiger? No eternal life, no love, just violence and raw nature?" Ok, there are tigers. It does seem to be within God's capacity to make a tiger. What does it prove that you think Christians don't know already?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
When the Bible says "God is good" it is usually in the Psalms, sometimes in the prophets, and refers to God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel. God is good = God keeps promises. I would argue that His nature doesn't let Him do anything but keep His promises, so it's not a statement that "God is well-behaved."
The other place we see God is good is when Jesus says, "What do you mean by calling me good? No one is good but God alone." Which you have to admit is cryptic and does not necessarily point to God being well-behaved.
it seems incoherent to conclude that God is beyond human judgement, while also asking man to sing His praises. Praise is by definition a value judgement. If God isn't an admirable being, then on what basis could the Church recommend that I praise Him, i.e. express admiration?
God is adorable, but He is definitely beyond human judgement. We can only adore him and praise him by analogy.
supposing you substitute your preferred nonexistent deity whose nature is destructive and malevolent
You are assuming that malevolence is a presence instead of a lack. A being that is pure act without any potential cannot be destructive, only creative. Destruction is a privation of the good, not an active existence. Your arguments have lots of assumptions that you have not examined.
And then you go on to say that the theology that is routinely mocked for arguing about friction-less thought experiments like "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" isn't set up for friction-less thought experiments. :) There is a lot for you to learn if you want to open up a few philosophy books. Good day to you.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not sure I would agree that God has principles. He has a nature, and this nature cannot deceive or be deceived. Would you describe that as a principle that God has to live up to? I wouldn't.
if God punished people for being kind and generous, he'd still be good.
I don't see how. Or rather, I think you need to expand upon the scenario a lot more. What are these people's natures, can God make a creature whose nature is to not be kind/generous, does God punish people or simple refrain from rewarding people?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I am specifically a Catholic, so great.
I would recommend reading Brian Davies "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil" for a study on this topic. Catholics do not believe saying "God is Good" is tantamount to saying "God is well-behaved."
Satan is not good, his nature is to be an angelic messenger in constant adoration of God and serving humanity. He is not living up to his nature at all. He is a very bad example of an Angel.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not sure which theological/philosophical tradition uses the word "omnibenevolent" when describing God, but it's not mine. It kind of implies that a theist believes that he is "well-behaved," which is a category error. God is good, in that he is "actual" - to say that X is good is to say that it has succeeded in being in some way. A pencil is a good pencil when it is able to draw, is sharp, long enough to be held easily in a hand, etc. God is good in that sense. God is not good in the sense of being accountable to others for duties and obligations that he performs admirably.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Have you read The Sun Eater series?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Piranesi - Most books you're on the ride with the Main Character knowing more than you about the setting, characters, etc. This book provides the odd experience of feeling like you know more than the MC while having all the same facts as him. It is beautiful, haunting, all about the process of reading it while still having some exciting bits. Think House of Leaves for people who don't hate themselves.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Check out Astronautalis. Greek mythology, historical references, etc.
This is our Science: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PbnumphZdPE
The Case of William Smith: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I20yLeuhUDs
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Ugh! I had a comment almost 100% finished and then closed out the tab by accident.
Basically here are the four things Vatican I requires someone believe:
-
The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth
-
He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church
-
To be a member of the Catholic Church a man must be in communion with the Pope
-
The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.
There are many, many people in the East, outside of Constantinople, who wrote things that either explicit agreed with these statements or logically entailed them.
If you want to imagine the longer version of my comment, I was mostly summarizing https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/archbishop-minnerath-on-rome-the-papacy-and-the-east/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
The Orthodox would grant the Pope primacy, but for the Orthodox that means a position of honor as the first among equals. The Pope would not have direct universal jurisdiction over the whole church and could not alter dogma, as he did neither of those things prior to (the lead-up to) the schism.
The Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority define dogma, superseding the findings of a council of over 400 bishops from the East and West.
but at the Ecumenical Councils did everyone just defer to the Pope? (at some he was barely involved) Did all the apostles just defer to St. Peter? St. Paul resisted him "to his face". The Council of Jerusalem was not decided by St. Peter and was presided over by St. James (if you want to go all the way back).
Papal primacy does not require the Pope to be always correct, to never be resisted, or for him to be involved with every dispute. However, for there to be a teaching out of a Council that is binding on the whole Church, it does require the acceptance of the Successor of Peter. Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, even if he's not the one who wrote the Council documents he set the tone and James promulgated it:
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
I think most people don't understand that the Catholic Church does not make claims that the Pope is always correct or that he can just make up a new doctrine. The claim is not that the Pope is the one who has to call each council or determine the final council documents. We don't want the Orthodox to believe anything like that. We would just like for the same position of honor that was held in the past, because that is the road to unity instead of division.
Prior to the last 50 years or so there wasn't much discussion between the East and the West, and lots of misconceptions flourished. We didn't have as clear communication as we have now. The Petrine Doctrine is not the cartoon that (some) Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants act like it is.
I think from the Orthodox perspective what you are leaving out about the schism is that the Roman Catholics made an addition to the Creed.
That's because Dag said Catholics went off the rails in 1054, which is after the Filioque controversy. I would argue that the Filioque controversy is another instance of the East being intolerant towards Latin customs and usages.
Rome has never asked the East to say the words in their Creed. Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the Filioque. The East grew upset that the West created a new translation of the Latin text for internal Latin use.
The trouble with the Filioque is that, in Latin, there is no obvious difference between Spirate and Generate. In Greek it is clearer. The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.
But if the persons of the Trinity are only distinct in relation to each other, and there is no distinction in the Latin Creed, then the Latins risk falling into heresy that either the Son and Spirit are the same or that there are differences in the Trinity that are not relational. In the Latin Church, the formulation "From the Father and the Son" has ancient roots, far older than the schism. Tertullian, Jereome, Ambrose, and Augustine all used this formula.
What about Ephesus I canon 7? Didn't that say that no other creed than the one promulgated at the First Council of Nicaea should be used? If that's the case, the East is in as much trouble as the West here. Because the creed from the First Council of Nicea isn't the one you say at your Divine Liturgy. Both the East and the West use the creed from the First Council of Constantinople. Take a look here, which do you use?
Ephesus I Canon 7 wasn't actually considered a part of the universal deposit of faith. Ephesus I canons 7 and 8 are omitted in some collections of canons and the collection of Dionysius Exiguus omitted all the Ephesus I canons. At the time, it was not held that they concerned the Church as a whole.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome. There's no position available for "The Pope but not the Bishop of Rome."
The Bishop of Rome can only be elected by bishops in his rite. Eastern Catholic rites do not participate in the election of the Pope.
Nobody on either side of the debate wishes to force all Orthodox to change to the Latin rite. That would not be worth the fraction of political power gained by sending a cardinal to the conclave.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I was taught the Schism by a Ukranian Byzantine Catholic who didn't present it as a "Rome was always right" point of view, who clearly felt the wound deeply, but still felt like union was more important than our disagreements.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
See, that's not clear to me that this is the schism! For me, I think I'm asking that the East just goes back to believe about the Roman Pontiff the same things they believed before the 800s. Even Photius and Cerularius, the critical players in the East-West schism, never argued that the Petrine doctrine could justify schism.
For example of a Pope exercising primacy:
Before Sergius died, in 638, he assembled a great Synod at Constantinople, which accepted a "one will" formula as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching." This synod was without any Papal legates nor did it receive Papal approval afterwards. The outcome of this council is not considered infallible or orthodox.
Subsequent Popes and Patriarchs rejected Monothelitism (with one Pope refusing to confirm Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople until after he stopped using the "one will" formula), but there was still some confusion about if Jesus had "one operation" or "two operations."
To clear all this up, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to the General Council in Constantinople in 680. The legates brought with them a letter in which the Pope defined the "two wills, two operations" terminology with authority as the successor of St. Peter, binding the council to accept. The council did and rejected the Monothelites.
That seems to me like the Pope undoubtedly exercising Primacy and the East recognizing this. I can point to dozens of other examples of the Pope settling disputes among various other Apostolic Sees, like when Dennis of Alexandria was accused of heresy, he appealed to Rome and was cleared. Let's look at a council document:
Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that you give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination. (Ephesus 431, Acts of the Council, session II).
To me, the source of the schism is the liturgical intolerance exhibited by the Byzantine Greeks towards Latin customs and usages. In every council document and story of the schism that I see, that is the primary difficulty that starts the argument. Even Photius admitted to Papal Supremacy in his letters to Rome, when he is appealing to Rome to help his case.
Instead, arguments about Papal Supremacy seem to be ad hoc justification, because the best reason not to be in communion with the Pope would be something like a lack of agreement on the Petrine doctrine. But that wasn't the actual disagreement.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
The local prior, not the prior provincial (Prevost), accepted the request of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
I would say the stuff that happened in the Diocese of Chiclayo is stronger evidence of poor responses to sexual abuse.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong.
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
More information on Prevost available here: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
He's lived in Peru most of his recent years.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Like for example, and maybe this isn’t actually a big sticking point, the longtime celibacy requirement of the Western church, I heard there was talk of changing that?
This is 100% capable of change, because it is not a matter of faith or morals. There is no declaration at all that requires us to believe that priests must be celibate as a matter of faith or morals. Of all the things that people list, this is such an easy thing to change. Almost as easy as rescheduling the donuts and coffee get together after mass. About as significant to our theology as rescheduling a parish breakfast.
We currently have married priests! One was my neighbor! If an Anglican or Orthodox priest converts, they are still a priest and still married. If a Lutheran pastor or similar level protestant converts, they can seek ordination while still married.
It's a discipline to have unmarried men enter the priesthood. Discipline means it's just a choice we made. Now, there's reasons we made that choice. But it's as significant as a uniform at a private school. It's distinctive! But it can be changed easily.
Doesn’t seem like there is much particularly different this century vs previous ones that that would become an issue still unresolved.
The reason people are talking about changing this is because there has been a real shortage of priests in the past few decades. That shortage seems to be changing - the flock itself is getting smaller, more young people are entering the seminary, there might not be a need.
There is a significant change this century, but either way this is a prudential matter.
but where does the power (theologically) reside?
In the Church's magisterial teaching authority. The bishops all together exercise this authority. When there are disputes, the Pope is where the buck stops.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
In 1042 Monomachus became emperor peaceably by marrying Zoe... He remembered his old friend and fellow-conspirator, [Cærularius], and gave him an ambiguous place at court, described as that of the emperor's "familiar friend and guest at meals" (Psellus, "Enkomion", I, 324). As Cærularius was a monk, any further advancement must be that of an ecclesiastical career. He was therefore next made syncellus (that is, secretary) of the patriarch, Alexius (1025-34). The syncellus was always a bishop, and held a place in the church second only to that of the patriarch himself.
In 1034 Alexius died, and Constantine appointed Cærularius as his successor. There was no election; the emperor "went like an arrow to the target" (Psellus, ibid., p. 326). From this moment the story of Cærularius becomes that of the great schism.
The time was singularly unpropitious for a quarrel with the pope. The Normans were invading Sicily, enemies of both the papacy and the Eastern Empire, from whom they were conquering that island. There was every reason why the pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-56) and the emperor should keep friends and unite their forces against the common enemy. Both knew it, and tried throughout to prevent a quarrel.
But it was forced on them by the outrageous conduct of the patriarch. Suddenly, after no kind of provocation, in the midst of what John Beccus describes as "perfect peace" between the two Churches (L. Allatius, "Græcia orthod.", I, 37)... Cærularius sent to the other patriarchs a treatise written by Nicetas Pectoratus against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy. Because of these "horrible infirmities", Nicetas describes Latins as "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars" (Will, op. cit., 127-36).... Still entirely unprovoked, [Cærularius] closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in unleavened bread.
The pope then answered the letter... He points out that no one thought of attacking the many Byzantine monasteries and churches in the West (Will, op. cit., 65-85)...
For a moment Cærularius seems to have wavered in his plan because of the importance of the pope's help against the Normans. He writes to Peter III of Antioch, that he had for this reason proposed an alliance with Leo (Will, 174).
[Pope] Leo answered this proposal [to join forces to resist Norman invasion] resenting the stupendous arrogance of [Cærularius]'s tone, but still hoping for peace. At the same time he wrote a very friendly letter to the emperor, and sent both documents to Constantinople by three legates, Cardinal Humbert, Cardinal Frederick (his own cousin and Chancellor of the Roman Church, afterwards Stephen IX, 1057-58), and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi.
The emperor, who was exceedingly annoyed about the whole quarrel, received the legates with honour and lodged them in his palace. Cærularius, who had now quite given up the idea of his alliance, was very indignant that the legates did not give him precedence and prostrate before him, and wrote to Peter of Antioch that they are "insolent, boastful, rash, arrogant, and stupid" (Will, 177).
Several weeks passed in discussion. Cardinal Humbert wrote defenses of the Latin customs, and incidentally converted Nicetas Pectoratus [The original author of the treatise against Roman practices of against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy].
Cærularius refused to see the legates or to hold any communication with them: he struck the pope's name from his diptychs, and so declared open schism. [A diptych was used to record the names of those in the Church, typically high-profile people like Bishops and nobility. Striking someone from a diptych is basically saying that they are no longer a member of the Church.]
The legates then prepared the Bull of excommunication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054. Two days later they set out for Rome. The emperor was still on good terms with them and gave them presents for Monte Cassino.
Hardly were they gone when Cærularius sent for them to come back, meaning to have them murdered (the evidence for this is given in Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 186-7). Cærularius, when this attempt failed, sent an account of the whole story to the other patriarchs so full of lies that John of Antioch answered him: "I am covered with shame that your venerable letter should contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other most blessed patriarchs" (Will, 190).
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
How can a Catholic distinguish between a Tradition that's OK to change, and one that isn't?
First, we need to establish what actually counts as Church teaching. And that can be challenging, because there are lots of people running around on the internet and in real life saying, "My personal theological interpretation is the one true teaching of the Catholic Church, I know this because it is the personal theological theory my favorite saint expounded, who are you to say you're smarter than St X of X?"
So what is Catholic teaching? Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ott is an encyclopedia of doctrine that is still used in Seminaries today. You can read it with a free account here. The introduction lays out seven categories in shades of certitude, ranging from "De Fide Definita" (which are defined by a solemn judgement of faith of the Pope or of a General Council) to "Tolerable Opinions" (which are weakly founded, but currently tolerated by the Church.)
Traditions that are "De Fide Definita" are not able to change. But they are pretty rare. There are about 1000 of them, and no, there isn't an infallible list of infallible teachings. People have read through every Church document and made lists, Ott's book above is one such list (though it then gives non-dogmatic explanations under each dogmatic statement. The explanations could be wrong.) Not every statement by a Pope or by a Church Council is infallible. Most are not. To make a De Fide Definita requires the magisterial source saying something like, "This pertains to the deposit of faith and binds everyone forever universally" before the statement. The statement itself is then considered infallible. The justification or explanation of the statement is not infallible even if it is given by the same authority that made the infallible statement.
So questions like "How many people are supposed to elect the pope?" is not infallible. It's not even a question of faith or morals. There are lots of disciplinary questions, like should priests marry or what songs should be sung at Mass, which are not even in the category of Faith and Morals, and therefore cannot by principle have an infallible answer.
How does doctrine develop? Acts gives us a good, basic example of what it looks like. At the beginning of the Church, every follower of Jesus was a Jew. Everyone was circumcised. There was no conflict to resolve, no debate. While it was true, even at that time in the past, that Jesus died for all, gentile and Jew, there was no need for the Church to have a clear teaching on circumcision yet. The truth was the same, but there was no clear teaching.
And then Gentiles started converting. Peter had a vision that he interpreted as God saying to baptize Gentiles. It fit into prior revelation - with Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations. There was a prior teaching which was held in tension to this one - that Jews should not visit with Gentiles. But Peter recognized the voice of God calling him to baptize Gentiles and that Jesus also commanded the baptism of all nations.
Over time, this theological tension grew. Conflicts arose with people who thought Gentiles needed to be circumcised and basically become Jewish first before receiving salvation. There was genuine disagreement with both sides thinking they were following the tradition handed to them.
So a council was called. The Council of Jerusalem declared that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. The council found other portions of scripture that supported this doctrine, and then promulgated the new doctrine that uncircumcised Gentiles can be baptized and saved.
So the fundamental aspects of doctrinal development are:
-
Due to a temporal change in circumstances, a legitimate disagreement has developed between two or more groups of well-intentioned believers. Both groups believe they find support in tradition and scripture.
-
A large number of bishops gather together to discuss the differences. (Catholics would say it's important that this gathering has either Peter or one of his successors promulgating the findings of the council, but outside of that distinction I think most Orthodox and many Protestants would agree without this point added.)
-
The gathering comes to a conclusion. Since both sides had some justification based on prior teaching, the conclusion will also be based on prior teaching, but will close off one of the previously acceptable theological positions.
And that is how Doctrine develops in the Catholic Church.
God is not just good by analogy, but what humans like you and I can understand about His goodness is only by analogy. He is not good the same way you are (presumably) good. When we see a saint, we see God's goodness there. A saint is good in the way God is, but God is so far beyond human behavior that we can't work the other way back to him. It's directionally confused.
Yes, we learned something additional to God's nature through revelation, that doesn't discount the things we can reason about His nature and is revealed in Scripture as well.
No, explicitly God is good but not in the sense we mean when we say a human is good. When we say a human is good, we colloquially mean something along the lines of a human behaves well. That is not what we mean when we describe God as good, that is entirely the point I am trying to make!
Omnibenevolence is a recent term and I object strongly to people outside the religious tradition inventing it and then using their own invention as an attack against the logical consistency of God. I have no objection to calling God benevolent. He is. I object to Omnibenevolent, because it can be defined any which way. It's the "omni" part that I object to.
Goodness, must I sing God's praises with every Motte Post!
God is great, He created us for such good things. He is an ocean of love. He holds nothing back, He takes pity on my who is weak and has entered into the depth of God-forsakennesss for our sake. God went out from God to the furthest reaches of not-God, to the furthest reaches of degradation, torture, despair, guilt, shame, DEATH! So that no matter how far we run away from him, He will always be there first. So we can always find our way back to Him. Forever His praise shall be on my heart!
If I start every theological discussion like that will it make people listen better?
More options
Context Copy link