tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8765771534262326132..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: More on AmorisEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66642065693178282112017-01-31T08:38:06.022-08:002017-01-31T08:38:06.022-08:00"FYI, you don't sound like someone whose ..."FYI, you don't sound like someone whose mind isn't unsound."<br /><br />Wow, three nested negations! Let's simplify the statement in two ways. <br /><br />First by cancelling the two innermost negations:<br /><br />"FYI, you don't sound like someone whose mind is sound."<br /><br />Then by cancelling the two outermost negations:<br /><br />"FYI, you sound like someone whose mind is unsound."<br /><br />OK, now I get it.<br />Systematic string processrornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60663511339482125612017-01-27T08:31:00.595-08:002017-01-27T08:31:00.595-08:00Dianelos,
You're a curious and reflective sou...Dianelos,<br /><br />You're a curious and reflective soul, which are very good things. It's also clear you are wanting to think for yourself; and that, too, is a virtue. These are traits that make for some of faith's finest communicators. But humility must temper ambition. You've unloaded far too much than can be engaged. I will instead submit my observations that more concern methodology: You speculate about the biblical texts in a dubious manner. To say a text could have been written in error is not the same as demonstrating that it was. We have no scalpelic powers to dissect the text in such a manner, absent certain indicators pertaining to textual criticism (where corruption can be seen among copies of the same text). But biblical criticism akin to the the Jesus Seminar, where lines of the text can be objectively adjudicated as original versus embellished, erroneous accretion at a verse-by-verse level of resolution is not realistic or appropriate methodology. To subsequently construct doctrinal opinion on such what-ifs is unsatisfactory. Anyone can push any theological idea desired by the expedient of denying the biblical evidence traditionally seen as running against it, construing issues in such a way that such-and-such is instead the case if this or that factor is reinterpreted. This is not very difficult, and the scenarios or reading one can assert in this manner is limited only by the imagination of the one speculating. Conspiracy theorists operate in this capacity as a matter of course.Dane Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09518321825538617128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40052260676684854762017-01-27T06:07:26.965-08:002017-01-27T06:07:26.965-08:00[continues from above]
A final comment: I don'...[continues from above]<br /><br />A final comment: I don't think that being a non-Catholic it's not my place to criticize the Catholic church. The Church is not a neighbor one shouldn't judge, but an institution. Indeed one of the most important institutions in the world. I am convinced that through the explosive growth of technology humanity is entering an especially dangerous phase of its development, and I think that religion, represented by the Catholic church as well as the other great religious institutions, has a critical role to play. Perhaps the critical role. So I really wish the best for the Catholic church. Not to mention I am green with envy that the Catholics have a Pope like Francis, a priest who reminds me of the charity, courage, <a href="http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445" rel="nofollow">universality</a>, and the spirited child-like <a href="http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/pope-offers-new-beatitudes-for-saints-of-a-new-age.cfm" rel="nofollow">manner</a> of Christ. Nevertheless I feel this is a good time for me to stop. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24133273230040096502017-01-27T06:06:16.531-08:002017-01-27T06:06:16.531-08:00[continues from above]
It seems the idea goes ba...[continues from above]<br /> <br />It seems the idea goes back to something <a href="http://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/mse/c/character-dominicus.html" rel="nofollow">St. Augustine wrote</a> when arguing that it is never necessary to get baptized twice. Which I find reasonable: Once welcomed into the church it makes no sense to welcome the same person again – even excommunication can be lifted and that's enough. Augustine of Hippo is of course a huge figure in Christian tradition, and I notice that he was not only a theologian but also a Bishop and thus an administrator of the church. The exigencies of administering such an institution naturally enough influences one's theological thought. Thus when the Donatists raised the bar for priests and laity to an impractical level, and among other things argued that baptized Christians who had failed to some significant degree should re-baptized before being accepted to the church, Augustine pointed out that a soul's welcome to the church is definitive. <a href="http://relationshipscience.com/bruce-t-morrill-p97095386" rel="nofollow">Bruce T. Morrill</a> in his <a href="" rel="nofollow">book about the Eucharist</a> explains that <i>”Augustine reasoned that baptism has two effects upon the believer. The first, the seal of character, is indelible, as the fathers had taught. The other effect, God's grace, could be lost. The sacramentum was the seal, the dominicus character, literally 'the mark of the Lord,' that the rite conferred.”</i> Now was idea of an “indelible seal” necessary to explain why multiple baptisms should not be performed by the church? Not really, but it did work as an explanation that people could easily understand. Many centuries later St Aquinas retakes the idea but uses it as a metaphor or analogy (little can be said about God except as a metaphor or analogy) clarifying the deeper and more abstract reality, namely that through the sacrament of baptism the relation between soul and Christ is changed. I copy from the same book: <i>”Thomas Aquinas revived the Augustinian notion of indelible character, based as it was on the biblical metaphor of a seal and the patristic analogy of branding a soldier. Rooted in baptism and evident in the confirmation and holy orders, character was for Thomas a matter of a new relationship between God and the individual believer.”</i> Both the first step by Augustine and the later development by Aquinas strike me as quite reasonable. <br /><br />Now fast forward several more centuries to the current state of the catechism (from <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm" rel="nofollow">#1272 to #1274</a>). Observe the complicated and opaque manner in which what is really a simple idea is presented. Not to mention in a form that appears to be self-contradictory: So in #1272 we read that <i>”Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ “</i> and in #1274 that <i>”The faithful Christian who has "kept the seal" until the end”</i>. But if the seal is indelible how is it that one may not keep it? I am sure there is some answer to this apparent contradiction – but the point remains: why make it so complicated? Aren't “Repent and you'll be saved” and “To repent is to grow in charity” enough? Do we really need to visualize a whole complicated structure of celestial mechanics with indelible marks and keeping of seals and whatnot? And by the way, the catechism should make things clearer to the average reader, not more confusing. I mean I managed to half-way understand the meaning of these few sentences of the catechism after hours of searching. If a Catholic would have to invest a similar amount of time before understanding the whole of catechism then no time would be left for actually following Christ. I would like to suggest the Church should prepare a shorter and much simpler “Catechism for dummies”; I think this simpler version would be more useful to the flock (including to non-Catholics like me). <br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37050916578153416092017-01-27T05:57:39.654-08:002017-01-27T05:57:39.654-08:00[continues from above]
Now the fact that a marita...[continues from above]<br /><br />Now the fact that a marital promise cannot be undone, does not imply that the marriage cannot be undone. Marriage is not a promise; marriage is what the promise is about: the actual love and being together of two souls during all their life. I have already explained why I consider it unreasonable to talk about an invisible bond between two souls that supernaturally keeps existing no matter what (the “ontological bond” as you put it). As a general epistemological principle I think it is unreasonable to speak of ontological existents that are by nature invisible both to the senses and to the spirit. The divorced person who failed to realize the end of the sacrament she received from Christ is aware that she broke her vows and that this sin harmed her soul, but she is also aware that her vows are broken and that the life-long commitment she had promised to her spouse is not there anymore. This is a reality which the church must recognize; for one cannot guide the flock without recognizing the reality it lives in. <br /><br />2. On baptism:<br /><br />Responding to my claim <i>”Yet we don't speak of the “indissolubility of baptism” or “once baptized always a member of the church””</i> you offered this bit of the catechism: <i>”1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.”</i><br /><br />A minor comment first: The end of all that the church does is salvation (indeed the salvation of all humanity and not only its flock). The specific end of baptism it seems to me is by being accepted to the church to partake in the church's life and thus benefit from all the church has to offer in one's path towards salvation. That specific end is not always realized by the baptized Christian; indeed the church in some cases through excommunication formally places baptized Christians outside of the church. But should one insist that the specific end of the sacrament of baptism is salvation then, again, according to the Catholic church's dogma of hellism, that end is not always realized. But that was my argument all along: That the end of a sacrament may not be realized. Not in the sacrament of baptism, not in the sacrament of marriage. <br /><br />As for the “indelible spiritual mark” a general comment first: One of the clearest principles of reason is the so-called Occam's Razor, namely that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. From the little I have seen from the catechism it seems to me that its complexity is the result of trying to incorporate into a consistent whole every bit every saint has ever written. This is unwise. First of all, one is saint because of the charity in one's soul, not because of the correctness of one's beliefs. Theology is a science, and as all sciences it grows in understanding based on older discoveries. But this does not entail that one should do whatever it takes to retain every single bit of the previous efforts, but to recognize that when knowledge advances some ideas that were held before with good reason, are now overtaken. Trying to retain all ideas results in an unseemly and ultimately deceitful multiplication of entities. (Personally I think that a splendid and certainly sufficient theology can be build on the premise that only God and created souls exist.) So I was moved to do a little research on the “indelible spiritual mark” and I want to share what I found, for it seems to be a good example of a more general phenomenon of multiplication. <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29546185581033169452017-01-27T05:55:45.600-08:002017-01-27T05:55:45.600-08:00@ Tony,
I'd like to comment on two points of...@ Tony, <br /><br />I'd like to comment on two points of fact about the teaching of the Catholic church:<br /><br />1. On marriage, you write:<br /><br /><i>”The Church teaches, rather, that EVEN NATURAL MARRIAGE (i.e. without any sacrament, between non-Christians) that is consummated cannot be dissolved by any natural means.”</i><br /><br />So marriage exists even without the sacrament of marriage. But only for non-Christians; as I read in point 3.3 <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1977_sacramento-matrimonio_en.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> marriage cannot exist (“really and truly”) between baptized persons without the sacrament of marriage. Further the early Church by invoking the so-called Pauline exception (in 1 Corinthians 7) did allow Christians to divorce their pagan spouses and marry a Christian, so it appears some non-sacramental marriages were not considered to be marriages after all. Or perhaps were not considered to be indissoluble marriages. <br /><br />Frankly, that's too complicated. To me the following is much simpler, clearer, and consistent with Christ: 1) Marriage is the life-long bond between two people who who entered into it wishing to form a family and after having given the respective promise to each other and their community, 2) Christ through the sacrament of marriage gives divine grace to all couples who have decided to marry, whatever their religious state may be, 3) Within the church that sacrament is made visible by the celebration of the sacrament of marriage, 4) The end of the sacrament of marriage is the realization of marriage, but couples sometimes fail to realize that end and break apart, 5) In the case the church judges that failure to be definitive and irreparable, and that the penance for breaking the marital vows to be authentic, the church does in charity and in consideration of what's best for the souls of its flock allow remarriage. After all, as Paul observes, “it's better to marry than to burn with passion”. <br /><br />(A final argument that just occurred to me: When a marriage breaks apart usually both sides are responsible to some degree. But consider the case that one side is completely innocent: If not allowed to remarry she would be punished to a life of burning with passion even though she had no fault.)<br /><br /><i>”A marriage consists in an ontological bond, a relationship, that is the invisible reality created when two persons enter into the specific contractual relationship that specifies marriage. They enter into the contract by exchanging vows, promises, which are indeed available to the senses - an outward reality that attests to the inward reality. Once consummated, the ontological reality exists and there is no natural power that can dissolve it.”</i><br /><br />The promise groom and bride give one another – as all promises – exists for ever and cannot be undone. There is no such thing as “I take back my promise”. On the other hand the promise people give the day they marry – as may happen with all other promises – is sometimes broken. (I don't understand why exactly the marriage must be “consummated” in sex for the promise to be valid; as far as I know people may marry even if incapable of having sexual relations. Nor do I understand how it is that these vows disappear if the marriage is “annulled”. But let's overlook these problems.) <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8276314587338327662017-01-27T04:22:53.859-08:002017-01-27T04:22:53.859-08:00Thank you for the update to your recent article on...Thank you for the update to your recent article on the subject Dr. Feser. I wonder what the recent upheaval with the Knights of Malta, about which Cardinal Burke was admonished by Pope Francis, will have on all the " Amoris..." controversy? If the Holy Father is sincere, he must clarify " Amoris..." or the situation will become impossible.<br /><br />E. ReinhartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77497141919279787122017-01-26T08:59:54.280-08:002017-01-26T08:59:54.280-08:00@ Dianelos,
"...during the past few months [...@ Dianelos,<br /><br />"...during the past few months [snip]"<br /><br />"Months"! He used the word "months"!!<br /><br />:- ) For months now you have been reminding us that something of yours will continue below. Why, seven times alone under just the current OP you have done so. Does this sobering fact -- that you believe or are convinced that something of yours will continue below -- have anything to do with why you're a universalist?<br /><br />Btw, what did you have to eat for dinner last night? <i>Did</i> you eat dinner last night? Just curious.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br />PS If you're wondering what this might genuinely have to do with what you actually said, then I'd say you're close to recognizing the right track. (I almost said, "...close to <i>being on</i> the right track", but I don't want to get my hopes up too high, so I didn't say that.)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3692690383105931422017-01-26T05:59:10.356-08:002017-01-26T05:59:10.356-08:00Tony,
”There is no point debating these things w...Tony, <br /><br /><i>”There is no point debating these things with you, Dianelos, you don't even know all the things that you are ignorant of, and that allows you to go off on wild goose chases hither and yon.”</i><br /><br />You are certainly right I don't even know all the things I am ignorant of. Now I do appreciate your responding to my comments; on the other hand I don't think you are debating. When I argue about X your typical response is that X is not the position of the Catholic church. But in a discussion about truth to simply offer dogmatic statements does not help. <br /><br />A central case in point is this: I do hold that scripture is an instrument of God's revelation, and I do hold that scripture and especially the gospels are rightly placed at the center of Christian tradition. But there are other instruments of revelation too, instruments the Church has profited from. After all much of theology has been developed after the NT was published (indeed after having to decide which texts to include in the canon). Much of what is important in theology is only found in germinal form in scripture, if at all. Finally we should never overlook the fountain of truth, who is Christ, who is the maker of all reality, who is alive and present in spirit as we speak, and who desires to guide the church. But who will not impose Himself on the church, which explains the appearance in history of the various sometimes antagonistic church denominations. <br /><br />Having said that, I also argue that in scripture the whole is greater than the parts, that some parts are evidently of lesser beauty or wisdom or relevance, and that some are evidently in error (e.g. the injunction “slaves obey your master like you obey God”). The state of the whole thing is just what one would expect to find given the messy way by which scripture was formed in its particular time and place in history. I argue that scripture itself reveals that even Apostles could be in error, and that much will be revealed later. Finally I argue that the command against idols is universal and includes anything one might take to stand for or to represent God – which is a great temptation when faith is lacking. I have given many reasons of different kinds why I think all of this. But you simply reply that this is not how the Catholic church (and BTW as far as I know all great churches) view scripture, and write the following: <br /><br /><i>”the Catholic view of Scripture is that nothing entered into the original written text (by the human author) that God did not want included, and nothing was omitted from the written that God wanted included, and that everything that was included was stated in such fashion as met God's design. God's inspiration of the human author was complete enough that the human author could not by mistake fail of God's intention on what was to be stated: there are no errors of omission nor of commission nor of translating the Aramaic to the author's Greek text.”</i><br /><br />Observe that this is simply a series of dogmatic statements. Where's the debate?<br /><br />I trust we agree that there two recognized sources of knowledge: reason and faith. It's not like a third source of knowledge is the Catholic church's dogmas. All religious texts are the deliverances of human effort based on reason and faith, and are therefore imperfect, may contain errors, and require continuous testing and improvement. You claim that some of the texts are made perfect by God's special action, but I dispute this and explain my reasons. Given how easy it is to err I'd love to have some substantial counterargument, but I don't see it. Not that I am complaining since my participation in this blog during the past few months has been fruitful for me. For example just a little while ago something you wrote moved me to consider the importance of feelings in our salvific life. <br /><br />Now in your recent comments you did clarify for me a couple of points of fact about the Catholic church's teaching. Thanks for that; I will comment on them later. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8138176840300996672017-01-26T05:56:25.162-08:002017-01-26T05:56:25.162-08:00@ Tony,
”One more time, and with feeling this ti...@ Tony, <br /><br /><i>”One more time, and with feeling this time [snip]”</i><br /><br />:- ) Feelings are God-given too. Reason is God-given, faith is God-given, feelings are God-given, our body and the physical world around us is God-given. When they are all in harmony we have an indication that we are on the right path. <br /><br />What about evil feelings – are they God-given too? Yes, everything that is, is made by Christ and thus is God-given. The question that theodicy answers is not “Why does God allow evil to exist in the world?” but “Why has God created a world in which evil will exist?”. Or, in short, “What's the reason for evil?”. Plantinga noticing the “felix culpa” used in Catholic mass was inspired to suggest that a world with evil is necessary for the great beauty of sacrificial atonement in Christ to obtain. I agree that without the incarnation life and suffering of God in the world, theodicy cannot be complete. I wonder what non-Christian theists would say about this. There are so many interesting and important things to discuss in theology and in soteriology, and it's a pity that we spend time discussing how great a sin it is to use condoms, or whether a priest should have the freedom to give Christ's communion to a sinner.<br /><br />About feelings: Since we are made in the image of God, and since there is a strong emotional dimension in our being, it is important to consider their place. In our fallen condition feelings can be good or evil: <br /><br />Evil feelings are those which move us to error and sin; I suppose one can correlate each of the seven cardinal sins to its respective evil feeling. In the context of doing theology I'd say a bad feeling is pride about one's knowledge, fear about being wrong, and anger at the suggestion that one may be wrong. As is the case with material goods, if one holds that one's value depends on the knowledge one possesses – then one is weighted down. <br /><br />On the bright side of the emotional dimension of the human condition I find there are three feelings by which we directly experience God, and which therefore move us towards God: Love, beauty, and joy. These are broad concepts and here I mean them in their perfect complete-in-themselves form, namely as universal and self-transcending love, beauty which is not influenced by fashion or pleasure but conquers the soul, and the sheer joy of recognizing how reality is. These three feelings always come together, in the sense that one cannot experience one without experiencing the others, at least in the background as it were. <br /><br />Feelings, then, are states of soul which can be fruitful and move the soul towards Christ, but can also damage the soul and move it towards sin and perdition. What's important to notice is that it is usually much easier to distinguish good from evil feelings than to distinguish true from false beliefs. In my experience (and I strongly suspect that's a universal fact about the human condition) good and evil feelings much more powerfully instigate good and evil actions than true or false beliefs do. On both grounds therefore we should care more about cultivating good feelings than about cultivating true beliefs. This may sound shocking to the brainy kind of people who enjoy philosophy and theology, but I find that's how it is. <br /><br />Interestingly enough a possible translation of the first beatitude in Matthew is “Blessed are the simple-minded, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. And I am reminded of Christ in the gospels saying “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.” So what are little children but bundles of playful emotions with hardly a serious thought in them? Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-929735628725466932017-01-26T00:22:07.686-08:002017-01-26T00:22:07.686-08:00@Anonymous 12:38 PM
”The Orthodox Church doesn...@Anonymous 12:38 PM<br /><br /><i>”The Orthodox Church doesn't hold, as Dianelos is accused, either that marriage is not a sacrament or it isn't a form of Christian love.”</i><br /><br />I do hold that marriage is a sacrament given by Christ, whether performed in church or not. I also explained that it is not for us to know what Christ does if Christ so chooses outside of the church. I also pointed out what should be evident, namely that the end of this sacrament, namely life-long union in marriage, is sometimes not realized. Perhaps people have trouble accepting that sacraments (supernatural gifts given by Christ) sometimes fail. <br /><br />And I do hold that marital love is a form of Christian love, but is not the same with it. Here's what I wrote: <i>A different matter is the factual love between spouses, how things in marriage actually are. Speaking for myself that love has elements of Christian love – such as so movingly is described by Paul [in 1 Corinthians 13]. But it is not true Christian love most obviously in the fact that it is not universal but is selfish – as a matter of fact one loves one's family to the exclusion of others. This is not bad in itself; love comes in many colors as it were. Christian love is the life giving ground of all.</i><br /><br />We should try and avoid complicating things. Of course there are different forms of love. Christ did not love Peter in the same way that I love my wife. But all love is love to the degree it is grounded in God, who is love. In the human condition that divine love is realized in Christian love, the love that Christ taught and demonstrated in His own life and Paul described in quite some detail and with admiring insight and clarity, the love that is universal and selfless. Extravagant love for all, without the need of any reason or justification. The way God loves us. <br /><br />I findthat spiritual truth is simple and clear; if in theology we find things becoming too complicated and opaque then we have probably taken some bad turn. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13159969681709173342017-01-25T14:25:41.382-08:002017-01-25T14:25:41.382-08:00Dianelos, you are simply ignorant of so many facts...Dianelos, you are simply ignorant of so many facts of Church teaching that your disparagement of it CAN'T HELP but be full of straw men. <br /><br />Dianelos: <i>Yet we don't speak of the “indissolubility of baptism” or “once baptized always a member of the church”.</i> <br /><br />Catechism of Catholic Church: <br /><br /><i>An indelible spiritual mark . . .<br /><br />1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the <b>indelible</b> spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 </i> <br /><br />Catholic Encyclopedia, on the Donatist heresy, reporting on the results of the Council of Arles: <br /><br /><i>The Fathers in their letter salute [Pope] Sylvester, saying that he had rightly decided not to quit the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment"; had he been with them, they might perhaps have dealt more severely with the heretics. Among the canons, one forbids rebaptism...</i> <br /><br />Dianelos: Now marriage is a special sacrament in that Christ touches two souls at once and thus calls them into union. ... but the gift must be taken and realized by us imperfect beings. So, not surprisingly, we often (all too often) fail. Couples who receive the sacrament of marriage often fail to realize the end of the sacrament which is the union in marriage.<br /><br />The Church teaches, rather, that EVEN NATURAL MARRIAGE (i.e. without any sacrament, between non-Christians) that is consummated cannot be dissolved by any natural means. A marriage consists in an ontological bond, a relationship, that is the invisible reality created when two persons enter into the specific contractual relationship that specifies marriage. They enter into the contract by exchanging vows, promises, which are indeed available to the senses - an outward reality that attests to the inward reality. Once consummated, the ontological reality exists and there is no natural power that can dissolve it. The bond created exists per natura, it is not the result of civil ordinance, and no civil authority can dissolve it. Nor can misbehavior dissolve it: the contract terms EXPRESSLY refer to "until death", and do not make the terms of the contract contingent on good behavior following. (If the contract IS contingent, then by that very fact it fails to be a contract of "marriage" but some other animal). If you don't WANT an indissoluble contract, don't ENTER one. <br /><br />The supernatural reality of Christian matrimony as a sacrament adds to this natural reality, but does not alter its basic form. The perfectly normal indissolubility of marriage does not primarily hinge on its sacramental aspect, though the sacramental aspect STRENGTHENS it with a supernatural charism added. <br /><br />There is no point debating these things with you, Dianelos, you don't even know all the things that you are ignorant of, and that allows you to go off on wild goose chases hither and yon.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5056607578604407032017-01-25T06:11:00.748-08:002017-01-25T06:11:00.748-08:00Dianelos,
A short exchange which never took place...Dianelos,<br /><br />A short exchange which never took place (but that it might have does not tax the imagination):<br /><br />Glenn: "No school of art, such as, e.g., the Impressionist School of Art, can be defaced."<br /><br />Dianelos: "I will prove that the belief that no school of art can be defaced is false. Take a look at this photo of The School of Visual Arts in Manhattan. Notice how its walls are covered with graffiti. Only last week the graffiti with which it had been covered had been completely removed. But graffiti artists are a dedicated lot, and won't stand for having their work erased. So they quickly got busy, and now its back again. As I said it would, this shows that the belief that no school of art can be defaced is false."Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41222921022876493832017-01-25T00:44:05.117-08:002017-01-25T00:44:05.117-08:00Here an apparently serious source about which lang...<a href="https://askdrbrown.org/library/what-language-did-jesus-and-apostles-speak" rel="nofollow">Here</a> an apparently serious source about which languages were spoken by Christ and apostles. <br /><br />Things may be more complex and less certain than I thought. I wonder how probable it was that some of the relevant eleven apostles spoke Greek. The source above says that Peter probably did, but I understand there is near scholarly consensus that the author of the epistles of Peter was not the apostle, and I wonder how probable it can be that a poor fisherman from ancient Galilee would speak Greek. I would very much like to believe that John, Christ's beloved apostle, was the author of John's gospel, but I understand this traditional belief does not at all hold up to critical scrutiny. <br /><br />This is a relevant issue, because if all the apostles who heard the Sermon on the Mount did not speak Greek then the probability that an error of translation slipped into the Greek text of the gospels is raised. <br /><br />In any case Peter died in the 60s, and the other disciples who perhaps spoke Greek: Phillip died at about 80, and Andrew perhaps at about 70. Matthew was written between 80 and 90, Luke between 80 and 100. The point is that when these gospels were written the authoritative witnesses of Christ's relevant teaching were probably dead. On the other hand the so-called Q document which recorded many of Christ's sayings in Greek, if it existed, was probably written decades earlier. If so the probability of an error in translation is lowered. <br /><br />I like to think that scripture reflects all of creation, in that it gives us both confidence and uncertainty for belief. I don't think a robust theology can be built without depending primarily on the living Spirit of truth, rather on the given of scripture. That in the gospels only little truth is revealed and that much more would be revealed later by the Spirit is found in the gospels themselves: <i>”This much I told you because that's what you can understand now; much more will be told to you by the Spirit”</i> (John 16:12,13) <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42012614276304263972017-01-24T23:48:32.896-08:002017-01-24T23:48:32.896-08:00It's too long...It's too long...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69421815617978779652017-01-24T23:19:46.903-08:002017-01-24T23:19:46.903-08:00I've been asked to justify my claim that the C...I've been asked to justify my claim that the Catholic belief in the indissolubility of marriage is mistaken. In response I posted a fairly long comment above. In order to simplify its analysis I proceed to summarize its main points: <br /><br />1. One must not conflate the sacrament of marriage with the marriage itself. These are two related but different concepts.<br /><br />2. Sacraments are supernatural events in which the soul receives a gift from Christ. But Christ does not impose Himself on the soul, and in many cases people fail to realize the end of that gift. <br /><br />3. Only in the context of the sacrament of marriage, the end of which is life-long union in marriage of two people, is there the belief that the sacrament always leads to its end independently of peoples' choices. Namely the belief in the indissolubility of marriage once the sacrament has taken place. <br /><br />4. The belief in the indissolubility of marriage basically goes back to a single verse in the gospels, namely Matthew 5:32. That verse includes an exception, but I ignore it. I explain why the literal interpretation of that verse leads to the belief in the indissolubility of marriage, namely that if adultery exists after divorcing one's spouse then the marital bond still exists. <br /><br />5. In the real world marriages factually break apart, and break complete and irreparably. Thus the belief the indissolubility of marriage is false.<br /><br />6. I argue that the error is produced by the dogma of biblical inerrancy, which leads people to consider that every verse of scripture has some absolute significance. I argue that in scripture the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and therefore that each part should be understood in the context of the whole. Matthew 5:32 is part of the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount which describes how things should be, not how things necessarily are - as the belief in the indissolubility of marriage has it.<br /><br />7. I concede that what Matthew 5:32 says does imply the indissolubility of marriage, and thus that this verse as written is in error since it leads to error. I explain that the gospels do not record the actual words of Christ which were spoken in Aramaic, and describe the messy process by which the gospels were produced, and thus the many potential ways in which error may slip into our understanding of some verse.<br /><br />8. I propose a speculative but plausible hypothesis of what Christ said and how it was mistranslated in the text we have today. In short: The tenor of the Sermon on the Mount was to raise the ideals of morality against the lax moral norms of the times, including the common and all-too-easy practice divorce. So Christ spoke also about the sacredness of the union in marriage and characterized sexual with another person after divorcing one's spouse as a “betrayal” of the original trust. That word in Aramaic may have been misreported as “infidelity” and mistranslated in the Greek of Matthew 5:32 as “adultery” - which is the key concept which leads to the belief in the indissolubility of marriage. I notice that Paul who certainly spoke Greek did not hear the Sermon on the Mount, and that the other apostles probably did not speak Greek. By the time the gospels were penned down and started to circulate most of those who were present at the Sermon would probably be dead. So such an error of translation might easily slip through. <br /><br />9. Finally I wonder how people manage to hold the belief in the indissolubility of marriage when it is proved wrong by reality, and speculate that they probably modify the meaning of the word “marriage” to fit the text. Perhaps they define “marriage” to mean a supernatural bond between two souls that is created at the sacrament and is only broken when the body of one of them dies. I give several reasons why this move is unreasonable, including the observation that God would not have instituted marriage to be invisible both by the senses and by the spirit of those still married.<br /><br />That's my argument in short. I would be thankful for any substantial criticism of it. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90801789664342037172017-01-24T16:33:20.025-08:002017-01-24T16:33:20.025-08:00Dianelos strikes me as confused, based on his resu...Dianelos strikes me as confused, based on his resume of past religious affiliations. He replicates the Protestant failure that seeks to (re)establish the One True Faith as it should be understood, since everyone before now has missed the mark. If only past Christians had been as open minded and critical as he.Dane Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09518321825538617128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41146885790630925912017-01-24T16:25:49.651-08:002017-01-24T16:25:49.651-08:00How is this an issue? The Pope's ambiguity asi...How is this an issue? The Pope's ambiguity aside, the deposit of faith on this is clear and reaches back across the Church Fathers to Sacred Scripture.Dane Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09518321825538617128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23330618575309046372017-01-24T14:41:24.642-08:002017-01-24T14:41:24.642-08:00Dianelos,
Considering that the gospels have been ...Dianelos,<br /><br />Considering that the gospels have been studied in great detail by a very impressive number of people in the last centuries.<br /><br />Saying things like<br /><br />«That in the production of the gospels such misunderstandings and mistranslations took place strikes me as rather plausible.»<br /><br />As a basis to the argument one is making concerning the meaning of the gospel, doesn’t appear to make much sense, does it?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05113406033301115509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42648735576152350702017-01-24T10:48:53.484-08:002017-01-24T10:48:53.484-08:00Dianelos,
FYI, you don't sound like someone w...Dianelos,<br /><br />FYI, you don't sound like someone whose mind isn't unsound.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65700334405502965302017-01-24T07:22:21.075-08:002017-01-24T07:22:21.075-08:00[continues from above]
I imagine that my explanat...[continues from above]<br /><br />I imagine that my explanation above will fail to convince many of those who hold that marriage is indissoluble, on literalist scriptural grounds and on Church authority. Since I have called reality as my witness, I wonder what they may say to counter it. One possibility is that they will use the concept of “marriage” in a different way than how it's normally used (by me here, but also by the folk in the street; defending a thesis by changing the meaning of words has a long pedigree in philosophy). They may claim that “marriage” properly understood is not a visible thing in the real world, but is an invisible bond between two souls which is created at the sacrament of marriage and persists until the physical body of one of the two souls dies. And persists even when the two souls have not the slightest sense that it is there connecting them. <br /><br />I concede that this defense is logically possible and does save the text, but I wish to say the following about it: 1) It strikes me as ridiculously ad-hoc. 2) I find it unlikely that God would create the world in a way that something as important as marriage would be invisible both by the senses and by the spirit. 3) The defense has absurd implications. For example, if somebody has sexual relations with another person while that invisible bond of marriage is there then she is committing the sin of adultery; but if she commits the same act one hour after the original spouse died (even if unbeknownst to her) then she is not committing a sin anymore. 4) I find it a pity that people should find it expedient to teach such ideas only in order to save the reasonableness of a single verse of scripture, perhaps fearing that if a single verse were to be accepted as erroneous then Christianity would come tumbling down. Or perhaps fearing that their faith in Christianity would come tumbling down. In my judgment the insistence that God crafted the perfect scripture is not one that glorifies God. On the contrary it trivializes God, for it makes a mere text into a measure of God. And drives us to spend much effort trying to imagine how the world could be in order for all of scripture to be coherent. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88584995213641516352017-01-24T07:19:57.834-08:002017-01-24T07:19:57.834-08:00[continues from above]
Still, this answer of mine...[continues from above]<br /><br />Still, this answer of mine does not really disprove the main argument for the indissolubility of marriage, namely that if a divorcee having sexual relations with a new partner is committing adultery then, necessarily, the original marriage is still intact. I agree that it doesn't disprove the main argument, which to me is one more reason for trying to recognize the spirit of the text, and not the sense of every bit of scripture as if it were inerrant. But I can imagine what might have happened which produced the erroneous text: So here is Christ giving the Sermon on the Mount and, knowing how great a blessing marriage is, trying to impress on His listeners how important it is to fight for the unity of one's marriage. He was teaching against the rather easy divorce that was practiced and sanctioned by the religious authorities of His time. Now we don't know exactly the words He used in Aramaic. Perhaps Christ said that those who divorce their spouse (normally husbands asked for divorce) and then marry or have sex with another person, betray the bond of their original marriage, betray the trust of their spouse the day they married, betray God's sanctification of that marriage. And it is possible that the concept of “betrayal” in Aramaic was understood by some as “infidelity” and much later was translated into Greek as “adultery”. Thus giving rise to a huge misunderstanding by a church bent to take things literally, which attitude in turn produced a stern and uncharitable stance by the church towards people who did sin when they failed to save their marriage, which in turn produced much misery and put obstacles in sinners' path to repentance. For people look up to the church as a model of the Kingdom and to the priest as a model of Christ, and if the priest behaves in a stern and uncharitable manner to the weakest of the flock then they are apt to misunderstand both Christ and Kingdom. <br /><br />That in the production of the gospels such misunderstandings and mistranslations took place strikes me as rather plausible. At that time Greek was the language of a few educated people and Aramaic was the language of the people. One advantage that Paul had was that he was bilingual, but Paul was not present at the Sermon on the Mount. I think it is unlikely that any of the other Apostles spoke Greek, and even if (as was the custom) many of Christ's sayings in Aramaic were memorized and probably exactly preserved, it is also probable that those who wrote the Greek text of the gospels would sometimes commit errors of understanding and of translation. Especially, as in this particular case, the error does produce what prima facie appears to be a reasonable meaning. Christ in the Sermon of the Mount said many an extreme thing against the lax moral norms of His time; and here it appeared he was saying one more. Now I am only offering a speculative hypothesis, but at least one that is plausible and explains how a text that leads to beliefs that contradict reality would find its place in the gospels. <br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5283950464745372732017-01-24T07:13:36.344-08:002017-01-24T07:13:36.344-08:00[continues from above]
I think the reason goes ba...[continues from above]<br /><br />I think the reason goes back to biblical literalism, and specifically what we find Christ in the gospels say about marriage, divorce and adultery. So at the Sermon on the Mount we find Christ say this (Matthew 5:32): <i>But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery</i> (other translations instead of “unchastity” use “infidelity” or “adultery” or “sexual misconduct”; the respective verse in Luke does not include any exception at all). So, I take it, the argument in favor of the indissolubility of marriage is as follows: <i>If people after divorcing have sexual relations with another person then they are committing adultery – that's what Christ says. Adultery makes sense only within the context of marriage. Therefore even after divorcing, one's marriage is still objectively there. What Christ says entails that one who receives the sacrament of marriage remains married no matter what (or at least as long as the original spouse lives).</i> This comports well with Mark 10:9 <i>“What God has joined together let no one separate”</i><br /><br />Now the Orthodox Church uses the exception clause to make its practice of allowing divorce and remarriage fit with the text, but I wish to ignore that clause. Why do I think that marriage is in fact dissoluble? Because that's how reality is: The union of marriage is a marvelous thing, but we all know of cases where a couple who received the sacrament of marriage failed to realize that marvelous thing, and that's that. It is simply evident that the lifelong union that marriage is about sometimes fails to follow the respective sacrament. Now when one's understanding (whatever its source) contradicts reality then it would be absurd to say “there must be something wrong with reality”, the reasonable thing to say “there must be something wrong with my understanding”. So what could be wrong with the argument above? Before suggesting some ideas I'd like to notice that little rides on answering this question. When a thought leads to a belief that contradicts reality, then that belief is false even if one can't find anything wrong with the thought. <br /><br />I think the general error in the argument above is to interpret Christ's words as referring to what exists (to metaphysics) and not to what should exist (to morality). Almost all of Christ's teaching in the gospels, and especially so in the Sermon on the Mount, is moral teaching. It's not about how things are, but about how things should be – and what we should do to make it so. Christ speaks of the Kingdom of perfection, not of this world. Nobody disagrees that divorcing and thus destroying one's marriage is a grave sin which damages one's soul and produces much suffering in the world. Nobody disagrees that that our marriage should be indissoluble and that we should do our utmost to make it so. (Tony above describes a case he personally knew where a marriage was saved after many years of separation; I have witnessed a similar case myself, a case where the person who in the end managed to save his marriage did things that I judged at the time to be embarrassing and diminishing – but after years of effort he succeeded and the last I knew the two are still happily married.) <br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55033928835049374082017-01-24T07:12:06.526-08:002017-01-24T07:12:06.526-08:00@ Anonymous 1:44 PM: ”But this is not the Catholic...@ Anonymous 1:44 PM: <i>”But this is not the Catholic understanding of marriage. The Catholic understanding is that a marriage is not dissolved in this way. You'd have to refute that based on Scripture, tradition, and reason before you can make the claim you do.”</i><br /><br />@ Vand83: <i>”If you want to make your case, start with arguing that a sacramental marriage can be "dissolved"”</i><br /><br />Fine. So let me first describe what I understand a sacrament is:<br /><br />God's creation works on two levels: By general providence, which is the natural order of all that is created. And then by special providence, which is God's direct participation within creation. According to Christian understanding the incarnation life and suffering of the second hypostasis of God in Jesus of Nazareth is the epitome of God's special providence. Christ is still present among us in spirit (and in the sacrament of the Eucharist is even present in physical form). We are also told of the presence of the so-called Spirit of Truth (or “Comforter”), who in my understanding is the Holy Spirit, the third hypostasis of God. I trust so far we are in general agreement. <br /><br />Now we don't know, can't know, and needn't know, the true extent of God's special action in creation. But we do know enough to recognize the reality of the sacraments. Sacraments are events in which Christ touches the soul of a person. Sacraments are therefore supernatural events – some call them “mysteries”. The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments, the Orthodox Church recognizes these seven plus perhaps some more – I understand the church as a whole is considered a sacrament too. Protestants are more sternly Biblical and recognize I think only two. In fact we can't know how many sacraments there are; Christ is not one to be put in boxes to be counted, and there may be many other sacraments we have no idea about. What is certain is that in the church Christ Himself gives the sacrament, the church only administers them. The agreement here is that when the church administers a sacrament Christ is always there to give it; on the other hand it's not like Christ is limited by the church in giving sacraments :- ) The Churches display the all-too-human tendency to try and protect their prerogatives; still I think there is some agreement for example that the sacrament of baptism is sometimes given by Christ without a Church administering it. <br /><br />Now marriage is a special sacrament in that Christ touches two souls at once and thus calls them into union. There is much I could say about how marvelous the sacrament of marriage is, but let me stick to my point: Christ touches the soul, He does not impose Himself on it. Christ offers the water for the soul to drink. So sacraments are about the offering a divine gift – I understand the concept used here is “grace” - but the gift must be taken and realized by us imperfect beings. So, not surprisingly, we often (all too often) fail. Couples who receive the sacrament of marriage often fail to realize the end of the sacrament which is the union in marriage. Or for example consider the sacrament of baptism. The end of this sacrament is the inclusion of a person into the body of Christ – the church. But again very often baptized persons drift away and even sometimes may turn against the church. It's not the sacrament that fails, it's them. Yet we don't speak of the “indissolubility of baptism” or “once baptized always a member of the church”. But many do speak of the “indissolubility of marriage” or “once married always married” (at least until death). So why do many think that marriage is indissoluble? The answer can't be that marriage is a sacrament, for baptism too is a sacrament. <br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51998343524937529872017-01-24T07:04:55.447-08:002017-01-24T07:04:55.447-08:00@ Vand83: ”You've completely rejected marriage...@ Vand83: <i>”You've completely rejected marriage as a sacrament.”</i><br /><br />Not at all. There is the sacrament of marriage, and there is marriage. Like there is water, and there is the drinking of water. I did not say that the sacrament of marriage can be dissolved, I said that some couples who received that sacrament fail to produce a life-long union of marriage. As as is evident in the world the life-long union of marriage sometimes fails to follow the sacrament; couples break apart and their marriage is not just damaged but irreparably destroyed. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.com