I think rationalism is kind of like stoicism (both philosophies I like and try to practice, though I don't really "identify" as either a rationalist or a stoic)
They are absolutely different philosophies. Ethically, Stoicism (similar to Christian ethics) is virtue ethics system, rationalists/Yudkowskyans are utilitarian consequentialists. Stoicism is focused on individual and it teaches how individuals can lead a virtuous life. One of the principles is Hierocles’ Concentric Circles (similar to Catholic subsidiarity) where responsibility flows from virtuous individual to virtuous broader society. Yudkowskyian rationalists have completely opposite system, they ground their morality in "greater good" of Effective Altruism, where they obsess about macro level and maximizing utility for maximum number of conscious beings including those not yet born.
Rationalists are reductionist materialists/physicalists. The universe is dead, intelligence is emergent property of unthinking universal wavefunction, morality is accident of evolutionary engineering of biological computers that gave birth to human intelligence. Stoics believed that the universe has telos, that it is a thinking organism and by being virtuous you align with this universal telos - it is similar to Thomistics natural law philosophy.
Those two systems could not be more different. In fact it is one of my main criticism of Rationalists.
The problem is with the wife and husband to be. If they are both Catholics, for a valid catholic marriage they need to be married by a properly ordained catholic priest. If two Catholics get married by protestant pastor, their marriage is invalid from catholic perspective. This is an interesting situation - for instance if there are two atheists who married in front of Elvis and who later convert to Catholicism, their marriage is considered as valid natural marriage and it is automatically promoted to sacramental marriage upon baptism. If one of them was atheist but the second one was baptized catholic in apostasy and they both married in front of Elvis, then their marriage is null and void from catholic perspective, they are just living in concubinage as lovers. They need to remarry right after baptism of the atheist and after the apostate goes through general confession (the special confession taking into account his whole life).
This seems strange, but from the standpoint of Catholic Church the Catholics as soon as you are baptized you are bound by the canon law for life. You agree that the Church is providing the legal structure to your life. Protestants or atheists did not do that, so they are not obligated to follow it.
It’s helpful to look at the history; old Catholics did originate with a handful of individuals who disagreed with papal infallibility, one of whom was a bishop.
It is more complicated than that. The whole succession of bishops goes back to 1723 where Jesennists had dispute with Vatican regarding ecclesiology, the remnants just joined forces with other rebels over time. These things tend to split and merge, for instance even Union of Utrecht had merger with Polish Catholics who then left after they saw the push toward liberalization. In a sense these wandering rebels just use random bishops to create their own priests.
The SSPX does not have mercenary origins. It continues to deny Mel Gibson communion for adultery despite his fame and large donations. It does not endorse whatever is fashionable on the political right(much to the chagrin of some members), and only cooperates with secular politics when it thinks it needs something.
Nevertheless they are strictly radical. They go hard against Vatican II and demand that the Catholic Church declares at least parts of it as in error. This never happened in Catholich Church for 2000 years. Even most egregious doctrines like Doctrine of Discovery are not outright dismissed as erroneous, they are declared as "product of their time" or some such. This is by the way exactly what Benedict XVI offered with hermenautics of continuity: interpret church documents in a way that gives primacy to more important dogmas and doctrines thus basically castrating them.
All in all SSPX are absolutely boneheaded:
-
The whole crusade against Vatican II is by itself one of the most radical and modernist stances currently available. If Pope can annul results of ecumenical council such as Vatican II then why not Trent or Nicaea? This only gives ammo to radicals. Vatican II will stand, there is no way it will be overturned or declared as erroneous as it would mean that the visible Church was in error for over 60 years now and counting. This creates orders of magnitudes more problems than it solves.
-
It will not even help. There are older documents like Summi Pontificatus and Plane Compertum Est by Pius XII in 1939, which (re)introduced concept of incluturation - incorporating local customs into Catholic life. This is at least as radical as Nostra Aetatum or Dignitas Humanae as it basically makes what "traditionalists" considered as idolatry permissible directly overturning Ex quo singulari from 1742 by papal fiat. And BTW SSPX consider Pius XII as a good and traditional pope and they have no problem with Summi Pontificatus, they just obsess over Vatican II. If you specifically focus on the inculturation vs idolatry doctrine and Magisterium, there were several 180 degrees turns at least since 600 till Vatican II and beyond. There are dozens or hundreds such historical documents for this or other topics, that can be used by progressive pope to bash over peoples head, Vatican 2 is not some unique aberration that changed pristine history of church Magisterium.
I studied SSPX and I even have some sympathies toward them. But I concluded that they are bunch of morons who at this point just revolt for revolt's sake. Their arguments are circular, illogical and ultimately come from place of pride - they use strong language more suited for online CW as opposed to theological disputes inside Cathoilicsim. They will never be a better deal than the one offered by Benedict: having personal prelature (bishop structure under pope himself sidesteping local diocesan bishops), just having to pay lip service to accept Vatican II as a valid ecumenical concil that is to be interpreted correctly, having full right to be custodians of Tridentine Mass and all that.
Instead SSPX chose confrontation. There will for sure be more splits and arguments inside the SSPX, the whole thing is unstable as it is self-defeating, the whole movement is based on personal reading of what the church teaching means and it will be their undoing.
They are not only different, they are opposite to each other in all ways that matter. They are bitter enemies.
More options
Context Copy link