Posted on 03/05/2005 7:15:51 AM PST by AAABEST
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, held from 1962 to 1965 at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, had as its objectives the renewal of the Catholic Church and to modernize its forms and institutions.1 Unfortunately, during and after the Council, the Zeitgeist – the German term for “spirit of the age” – was largely responsible for the decline in certain key aspects of the Catholic Church in the U.S. These aspects are the number of priests and religious, weekly church attendance by its members, and the state of Catholic marriage. The Zeitgeist also fostered the rise of dissident Catholic organizations and individuals who have often misrepresented the teachings of Vatican II in order to promote their own agendas.
Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis researched and compiled a number of statistics which he titled “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II,” published in 2003. Among his findings:2 While the number of priests in the U.S. more than doubled to 58,000 between 1930 and 1965, since then, that number has fallen to 45,000, and by 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left; the number of seminarians declined over 90 percent between 1965 and 2002; in 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns, but by 2002, that number had fallen to 75,000; a 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended Mass on Sundays, but a recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend; Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments rose from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.
One area of decline that can, and should, be explored more in detail is Catholic marriage. In the Church, marriage (matrimony) is considered one of the seven sacraments. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses' community of persons, which embraces their entire life: ‘so they are no longer two, but one flesh.’ They ‘are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.’ This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony…” (no. 1644).
This brings us to the issue of annulments. The term is usually used in reference to the sacrament of matrimony. Marriages can be declared invalid for a variety of reasons: lack of canonical form if one party is Catholic and thus required to be married in the presence of a priest, deacon or bishop; the existence of an undispensed impediment; the presence of psychological factors that render one or both parties incapable of knowing what they were doing or of assuming the fundamental responsibilities of marriage.3 Church officials, in the form of a tribunal, are required to investigate all aspects of a marriage and divorce before declaring that marriage null and void. Once an annulment is granted, the parties involved are free to marry in the Church.
One reason for the large increase in the number of annulments in the past three decades has to do with procedural changes in canon law. The main, reason, however, appears to be the fact that the divorce rate, from 1960 to 1991, increased 133 percent.4 The percentage of marriages currently ending in divorce is debatable, but it nonetheless is significant.
There are, of course, a number of reasons why a marriage might end in divorce. An oft-overlooked (and politically incorrect) reason is the widespread use of contraception, even among Catholic married couples. In a published lecture titled Contraception: Why Not?, Dr. Janet E. Smith, Chair of Life Issues at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Mich., discusses why the divorce rate doubled between 1965, when 25 percent of marriages ended in divorce, and 1975, when 50 percent of marriages ended in divorce.5 Smith cites the research of social scientist Robert Michael, who concluded "that as the contraceptive pill became more and more available, divorce became more and more popular."6 In fact, Michael attributed "45 percent of this increase [in divorce] to increased use of contraceptives."
There are three reasons for this, according to Michael. First, his statistical data showed "that those who use contraceptives have fewer children and have them later in marriage…those who have the first baby in the first two years of marriage and another baby in the next couple years of marriage, have a much longer lasting marriage than those who don't." Secondly, Michael found that "since contraceptives have arrived on the scene, there is much more adultery than there was before."
Observes Smith: "People have been tempted, for the history of mankind. It's easy enough to think about wanting to have an affair, but wanting a child out of wedlock is another story. But if most every woman is contracepting, then most every woman is available in a certain sense and there is no real reason to say no. Adultery is absolutely devastating to marriages."
The third explanation, says Dr. Smith, is "that women are financially more independent. They do have fewer children. They do go into the work place. And, again, when they have difficulties in the marriage, it's much [easier] to say, ‘Take a walk,’ than it is to work it out because they need their husband for one fewer reason than they did before."
Between 1960 and 1991, abortions increased 800 percent.7 The general consensus is that, subsequent to the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion-on-demand, there have been, and continues to be, well over 1,000,000 surgical abortions committed each year. The number of chemical abortions, caused by abortifacient birth control, is estimated to be 14,000,000 each year.8 Sadly, despite the Catholic Church’s clear teaching on abortion – that it is an intrinsically evil act – a 1996 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute has shown that Catholic women are more likely to procure abortions than Protestant women.9 In fact, Catholic women make up 31 percent of the population and account for 31 percent of the abortions.10 (An interesting side note: A major finding of the survey was that 57.5 percent of women aborting their children say they were using a contraceptive the month they became pregnant.)11
Also between 1960 and 1991, child abuse increased more than 500 percent.12 This, of course, has been a problem even in the Church, specifically in regard to sexual abuse by members of the clergy and religious, which has made national and world headlines in the last few years. A study commissioned in 2002 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), done in response to hundreds of sex-abuse accusations that were made in nearly every U.S. Catholic diocese, found that from 1950 to 2002, there were 10,667 cases of abuse.13 Interestingly, the study found that 81 percent of sex crimes committed against children by Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys.14
Such is an illustration of how the Cultural/Sexual Revolution influenced – perhaps “infected” would be a better term – a number of Church officials who seemingly let sexual deviants into the priesthood. Indeed, one could even say that deviancy was promoted at certain seminaries. Catholic author Michael S. Rose, in his 2002 book Goodbye! Good Men, quotes Father John Trigilio about an incident at the seminary in the 1980’s: 15
“‘We had the state police come in and arrest one of my classmates because he allegedly went to some 15-year-old kid’s house during the afternoon and took pictures of him in his underwear. The rest of us never found out how he knew this poor kid, but we were having an evening class when the trooper arrived with a warrant for his arrest, cuffed him, and took him right then and there in front of everybody. The next day in the local newspaper ran a full story on a Catholic seminarian charged with corruption of the morals of a minor and other things.’ Trigilio pointed out that up to the moment of that seminarian’s arrest, the suspect was getting excellent evaluations because he was ‘tolerant, flexible, and liberal-minded,’ i.e., he went along with the faculty on everything.
Other notable aspects of cultural decay between 1960 and 1991: the teen suicide rate increased 214 percent; cohabitation increased 279 percent; the percentage of single-parent families increased 214 percent; the juvenile violent crime rate increased 295 percent; the illegitimate birthrate increased 457 percent; and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increased 245 percent.16 In fact, today there are more than two dozen varieties of STDs, from pelvic inflammatory disease (which renders more than 100,000 American women infertile each year) to AIDS (which presently infects 42 million people worldwide and has already killed another 23 million).17
This brings us to the subject – or person, rather – of Alfred C. Kinsey. Kinsey (1894 – 1956) was the director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University.18 The degenerate zoologist, known in certain circles as the “father of the sexual revolution,” almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans.19 His books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female weakened the bonds of personal chastity and sexual restraint in the U.S.20 Kinsey was a man who attempted to use science to promote his disordered sexuality. An overview of an investigative report by WorldNetDaily.com, titled "Obsessed with Sex: How Kinsey's fraudulent science unleashed a catastrophic 'revolution' in America," states: 21 Kinsey, the ‘heroic scientist’ whose ‘research’ launched the sexual revolution and provides the ‘scientific’ basis for it to this very day, was a fraud. He relied on interviews with hundreds of prisoners and sexual psychopaths, while pretending he was surveying normal citizens. He threw out large amounts of data that didn't fit his predetermined conclusions. He encouraged his wife and fellow ‘scientists’ to engage in wild group sex, and filmed these sessions in his attic. Though Kinsey's widely publicized conclusions that Americans are amoral sexual animals were fraudulent, far worse was the indisputable fact that he encouraged criminal pedophiles to conduct horrifying, Dr. Mengele-like sexual experiments on hundreds of children. That's right, Kinsey relied on friendly child-molesters, whose identities he protected from the law, to sexually abuse literally hundreds of children, ranging from just a few months of age up to 15 years, to gather his ‘scientific data’ on child sexuality. Ultimately, the sixties culture did influence Catholics who were trying to find their way in the secular culture in regard to sexual morality, with sad consequences in the years to follow.22 To quote Catholic author and social critic E. Michael Jones:23 “The Catholic Left, otherwise known as dissent, is made up of the Catholics who sided with the Enlightenment during the Cultural Revolution of the `60s. Their issue is and was contraception.”
Indeed, in 1968, when Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae – which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral - a number of American Catholics, clergy and laity, reacted with public dissent. There had been speculation that the Pope would “reverse” the Church’s teaching, primarily because an advisory commission he formed to study the issue advised him to do so. But such was not the case, much to the dismay of the Church’s secular critics and the Catholic dissenters. It is currently estimated that 80 to 90 percent of Catholic couples use some form of contraception, in violation of Church teaching.
In the 1970s, Call to Action was formed. Call to Action is a group of purported Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teachings on issues pertaining to contraception, homosexuality, the male-only priesthood and other matters. These dissenters on the left speak of an endless array of stunted imitation “churches” such as AmChurch, HouseChurch, GreenChurch, FemChurch, NewChurch, WomenChurch, FutureChurch, FreeChurch, WeChurch and MeChurch – anything and everything but the authentic Roman Catholic Church.24 As they implement concepts such as “small faith communities” and “constitutions” at every level, the dissenters hope that the Church will be reduced from a single immovable rock to a disorganized heap of pebbles, each of which is completely different from every other.25
In conclusion, it is all too apparent that the decline in key aspects of the Catholic Church in the U.S. were due, directly and indirectly, to the zeitgeist: specifically, the Cultural/Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, which had its roots in the Enlightenment. Essentially, the corrupt clergy and laity in the Church have been infected, to varying degrees, by the very worst elements of society. Of course, this is no way absolves their misbehavior and, in some cases, outright criminal activity. If anything, they should know better. Everything considered, however, it makes more sense to blame the crisis in the Church on the widespread cultural and moral decay instead of on Vatican II itself.
Give him time. PM has has a healthy interest in these discussions and a commendable willingness to seek an understanding the deposit faith.
Despite his hardline skepticism, I don't think I've ever seen him completely reject any major tenant of the faith.
The Body of Christ has its own way of making "attachments". That's why we call it mystical.
I love their love of St. Paul, and I've learned a lot from them. Although having attended an Assembly of God Service with a dear co-worker sent me running back to the Mass and the Liturgy.
I also think that over the last decade Evangelicals have had some influence on Catholics, forcing us to hone our apologetics. Now, when I listen to EWTN radio I often hear the phrase "Jesus Christ, our Lord and personal Savior", that's an Evangelical phrase.
*** Give him time.***
You know AAABEST, I'm 3/4ths catholic. I would have been a catholic if I had been born in the first 15 centuries.
To me it's not about Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, it's about people really knowing God and really loving Christ. I think you can have a badly truncated theology and still overcome a lot if you really love Christ and love others for his sake. Ultimatley we will be judged not on what we were able to figure out but on how we treated those around us.
I know what Christ has done for me. I know how he radically changed my life (I was a very bad person) and how he continues to bear with me and forgive and help me - wretched sinner that I am. I want other to know that.
The whole Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox smacks of "I'm of Peter, I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos." (I know it's more complicated than that.) I come back to this...
"If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God."
A large part of what motivates me is the fact that there are multitudes in both Catholic and Protestant churches for whom Christianity is merely their "religion". The have never come to actually know God. I know a lot of people like that. The have religion and may even be very conservative but something is still missing from their lives. They don't have the spark of fire that comes from having encountered the risen Christ.
Much of my posting on FR is from the desire to probe people and encourage them to ask themselves if they really do know God. (Added to that is a good measure of my own nonsense and ignorance).
***Although having attended an Assembly of God Service with a dear co-worker sent me running back to the Mass and the Liturgy.***
Ha! I know the feeling! Some of those folks can get a little crazy.
***Now, when I listen to EWTN radio I often hear the phrase "Jesus Christ, our Lord and personal Savior", that's an Evangelical phrase.***
That's an excellent phrase to borrow.
Who cares that these artists were flawed or even fallen? God used them to create some of the most beautiful works in human history. They did the work of the Lord and brought glory to Him and our faith, despite their shortcomings or the churchmen who commissioned them or where they were trained.
You keep mentioning Rafael's "School of Athens", yet neglect his other masterpieces including the magnificent "Transfiguration" which was done on his deathbed. Do you suppose he just wanted to kiss some secular rear-end and glorify greek paganism as his last act on earth?
So what if certain techniques and ideas were in some way an extension of Greek civilization. Art, science, literature, medicine, language and the United States of America all are the result on what has come before it. Humanity is progessive.
Some of us use the internet as a form of ministry. I suppose that someone, somewhere could say that the internet was invented by the US military, thereby rendering our works invalid or immoral.
In your cynicism, you see "The Passion" as an extension of a filmaker smitten by violent themes, when in reality it was the result of a man who risked his fortune, credibility and career in a leap of faith. In doing so he did more to spread the Gospel in a three hour film than the all of the 186 bishops in the USCCB have done in their entire careers.
Just as you see darkness Mel, you see not the greatness of Rembrandt's work, but focus on his "62" self portraits. You say that his "art is noteworthy for the lack of Catholic iconography it contained". Is "The Archangel Leaving the Family of Tobias", "Susanna and the Elders" and "Tobit and Anna" Catholic enough for you? None of these stories exist in the Protestant bible, much less their theology. You'll probably tell me that Rembrandt, as a sellout ward of the continuum held his nose to paint them.
Of course our works as humans are marred with imperfection and sin. Caravaggio was a rogue who killend a man. Rembrandt lead a lavish life that lead to bankruptcy. Van Gogh was a manic depressive given to neurotic episodes. You and I are both sinners who seek the Lord's mercy. Does this make our works for Him futile and petty?
Lighten up friend. We can bring glory to our Lord and spread the Gospel despite our fallen nature.
As a small point of correction, Bellini lived before any of the artists we've discussed here.
There is a lot of historical information on this. Even after Rome's conversion, the Christian emperors were not able to abolish the games and spectacles. These had a powerful hold on all segments of society, including Christian. One source, admittedly sketchy, is a recent essay by Benny J. Peiser called, "Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Judaeo-Christian Basis of the Civilizing Process," which mentions the difficulty emperors faced in trying to immediately end the blood sports. Another is a longer work by another Englishman, H.W. Crocker III, Triumph, (Forum Press, 2001), an historical tracing of the Church from its infancy to the present.
Petronius Maximus,
I'm still trying to figure out what your main issue is. It seems to me that we are not communicating on the same wavelength. I'm going to make an attempt to build a bridge to understanding here.
You seem to be making these statements that we have not yet agreed on the language of. I can't stipulate to something that I don't know about. You are running onto issues without having sufficiently proved them as true.
Help me out here. Allow me to ask you respectfully for some answers.
On Augustine and Aquinas and the use of a philosophical system of thinking:
Do you think that Augustine and Aquinas are actually "anti-biblical" or "un-Christian" for utilizing pre-Christian models such as Plato and Aristotle and developing a theological understanding with that?
Or, do you have the same conclusion but think that Aquinas and Augustine are simply utilizing Greek Philosophy and not purifying it with Christian truth?
I'll post some more later but I think this should be done in fairly small bites.
Following on the previous questions:
You seem to be telling me that Faith and understanding are both gifts that are directly infused by God and that right reason cannot and actually should not be utilized in order to understand anything about faith. Is that correct?
If I've understood and you've used Scripture as a proof of your position we come to the next difficulty:
I wrote: "Along comes Aquinas. He's dealing with Muslims who don't have the Jewish tradition as the Jews knew it. So, he unravels this "latent" mystery by providing a model based on reason alone."
You wrote: "Never the less, Paul, who was much closer to living Greek philosophy than Aquinas, cut the knees out from under the Greeks in 1st Corinthians. There is no such thing as reason alone. Christianity is a revealed religion."
Now, multiple issues are involved in this statement.
Paul says Greek philosophy is irrelevant.
Therefore Aquinas is irrelevant.
1) Your premise is that Aquinas was using pure Greek philosophy. He was not. There is a reason it is called Thomism and not just that Aquinas was an "Aristotelian Philosopher". His treatise on the "Errors of the Greeks" should be proof enough of that.
So you would really need to supply a new response to that statement.
After that you state that:
1) There is no such thing as reason alone.
In the statement, 2+2=4, what is the intrinsic theological significance?
2) Christianity is a revealed religion.
Agreed. But that in itself begs certain questions. How do you prove that? What is the truth behind it? Why is it true and not just your opinion?
If we stipulate that Christianity is revealed, does that mean that nothing can be reasoned towards that revelation? If God's existence can be proved by reason in a flawless argument, is that somehow at variance with revelation?
Now we move onto the passage you've referred to. I've included the notes from the Douay Rheims translation.
12 Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. 15 But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.
Notes: 14 "The sensual man"... The sensual man is either he who is taken up with sensual pleasures, with carnal and worldly affections; or he who measureth divine mysteries by natural reason, sense, and human wisdom only. Now such a man has little or no notion of the things of God. Whereas the spiritual man is he who, in the mysteries of religion, takes not human sense for his guide: but submits his judgment to the decisions of the church, which he is commanded to hear and obey. For Christ hath promised to remain to the end of the world with his church, and to direct her in all things by the Spirit of truth.
(Sorry for taking so long to get back - work related!)
***You seem to be telling me that Faith and understanding are both gifts that are directly infused by God and that right reason cannot and actually should not be utilized in order to understand anything about faith. Is that correct?***
No, why then would the Scriptures record God saying, "Come now, and let us REASON together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
But the Bible is also clear that reason (specifically Greek philosophy - 1st Cor. 1), apart from revelation, led men to darkness. (Might this be due to the fact that man's "reason" is also tainted by sin and selfishness?)
***Your premise is that Aquinas was using pure Greek philosophy.****
I know Aquinas isn't unmixed Greek philosophy. My statement is more along the lines of this:
(A = Hebrew/Christian revelation, B = Greek philosophy, C= Thomism)
Paul says B is not required to understand A.
Aquinas mixes B with A and gets C, then his followers claim that C is required to fully understand A.
Clearly Aquinas and/or his followers were wrong (but you seem to give him equal or greater weight than Paul.)
***After that you state that: There is no such thing as reason alone.***
The context was, "There is no such thing as reason alone (as a path for coming to the knowledge of the true God.)
***In the statement, 2+2=4, what is the intrinsic theological significance? ***
Good example! How could Euclid logically have arrived at 1+1+1 = 1!
***Agreed. But that in itself begs certain questions. How do you prove that? What is the truth behind it? Why is it true and not just your opinion?***
How can you "prove" that you mother or wife or daughter love you to the satisfaction of a scientist? Such things are unaddressable to one locked to tightly in an Aristotelian box. Ultimately it is an issue of faith.
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." - Heb 11
and
"Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." - Rom 8
*** If God's existence can be proved by reason in a flawless argument, is that somehow at variance with revelation?***
I respectfully submit that such "reason in a flawless argument" does not exist. Furthermore I believe it is God's will that it not exist because such a thing would ultimately interfere with the free will of man. Do you ever ask yourself why it is that God hides himself??? Why has He not chosen to provide us with airtight proof of His existence??? If He wants men to believe in Him and to be saved, why does He not appear in all His glory in the heavens and command men to repent, believe and be baptized?
One of the greatest mysteries, to me, is that the God of the Bible LOVES faith! Faith like Abraham had when he followed God, not even knowing where he was going. He loves it! And a faith that has been tried and assailed by the winds of doubt and fear is more precious to Him than the fine gold.
Faith, "proved by reason in a flawless argument" would take all those doubts and fears away, wouldn't it?
To paraphrase (and take slightly out of context) Paul...
"Now (faith) that is (fully intellectually understood or evidentially proven) is not (faith). For who hopes for what he sees?"
P.S. The last part of Note 14 of the Douay Rheims is pure rubbish! Worship of the Church and not of God.
Petronius,
Forgive me for saying this but since you decided to misrepresent my beliefs and call it rubbish, I don't feel so bad.
What you describe as "rubbish" is simply your opinion.
You simply do not have the authority to place your opinion over the interpretation from the DRV that I posted. The emphasis in the DRV was on a word that you ignored in the context. (Due to your fallen nature, it is your fault, not the Scriptures) "How can I know unless someone teach me?" :)
Considering you remove verses from context and have to paraphrase to make them fit. I would say that your exegesis is about as objective as a Rorschach test.
While I realize Paul did the same thing, you are not Paul and are not under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
I have not stated that Aquinas is necessary. Please don't misrepresent my position. I'm stating that Aquinas is helpful towards understanding mysteries more deeply. You cannot know everything about Gods mysteries, but that doesn't mean you cannot know something about them.
Finally, Aquinas already did reason God's existence in his Five ways. Disprove them and get back to me.
Here are St. Thomas' Five Ways for you that prove the existence of God. I'll next post Thomas' thought on the Trinity and Reason.
THE FIRST AND MORE MANIFEST WAY is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
THE SECOND WAY is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
THE THIRD WAY is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
THE FOURTH WAY is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
THE FIFTH WAY is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
I've thought about this and since you keep describing St. Thomas as locked in an Aristotelian box. (obviously told to you by someone and not arrived at on your own knowledge)
I think it best that St. Thomas explain his positions best to you. That way, you can be sure of what you are actually engaging. We can do away with the myths you've been fed.
Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?
Objection 1. It would seem that the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason. For philosophers came to the knowledge of God not otherwise than by natural reason. Now we find that they said many things about the trinity of persons, for Aristotle says (De Coelo et Mundo i, 2): "Through this number"--namely, three--"we bring ourselves to acknowledge the greatness of one God, surpassing all things created." And Augustine says (Confess. vii, 9): "I have read in their works, not in so many words, but enforced by many and various reasons, that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and so on; in which passage the distinction of persons is laid down. We read, moreover, in a gloss on Rm. 1 and Ex. 8 that the magicians of Pharaoh failed in the third sign--that is, as regards knowledge of a third person--i.e. of the Holy Ghost --and thus it is clear that they knew at least two persons. Likewise Trismegistus says: "The monad begot a monad, and reflected upon itself its own heat." By which words the generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost seem to be indicated. Therefore knowledge of the divine persons can be obtained by natural reason.
Objection 2. Further, Richard St. Victor says (De Trin. i, 4): "I believe without doubt that probable and even necessary arguments can be found for any explanation of the truth." So even to prove the Trinity some have brought forward a reason from the infinite goodness of God, who communicates Himself infinitely in the procession of the divine persons; while some are moved by the consideration that "no good thing can be joyfully possessed without partnership." Augustine proceeds (De Trin. x, 4; x, 11,12) to prove the trinity of persons by the procession of the word and of love in our own mind; and we have followed him in this (27, 1 and 3). Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.
Objection 3. Further, it seems to be superfluous to teach what cannot be known by natural reason. But it ought not to be said that the divine tradition of the Trinity is superfluous. Therefore the trinity of persons can be known by natural reason.
On the contrary, Hilary says (De Trin. i), "Let no man think to reach the sacred mystery of generation by his own mind." And Ambrose says (De Fide ii, 5), "It is impossible to know the secret of generation. The mind fails, the voice is silent." But the trinity of the divine persons is distinguished by origin of generation and procession (30, 2). Since, therefore, man cannot know, and with his understanding grasp that for which no necessary reason can be given, it follows that the trinity of persons cannot be known by reason.
I answer that, It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason. For, as above explained (12, 4, 12), man cannot obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason except from creatures. Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things, and we have cited this fundamental principle in treating of God as above (12, 12). Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the persons. Therefore, by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the trinity of persons by natural reason, derogates from faith in two ways.
Firstly, as regards the dignity of faith itself, which consists in its being concerned with invisible things, that exceed human reason; wherefore the Apostle says that "faith is of things that appear not" (Heb. 11:1), and the same Apostle says also, "We speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery which is hidden" (1 Cor. 2:6,7).
Secondly, as regards the utility of drawing others to the faith. For when anyone in the endeavor to prove the faith brings forward reasons which are not cogent, he falls under the ridicule of the unbelievers: since they suppose that we stand upon such reasons, and that we believe on such grounds.
Therefore, we must not attempt to prove what is of faith, except by authority alone, to those who receive the authority; while as regards others it suffices to prove that what faith teaches is not impossible. Hence it is said by Dionysius (Div. Nom. ii): "Whoever wholly resists the word, is far off from our philosophy; whereas if he regards the truth of the word"--i.e. "the sacred word, we too follow this rule."
Reply to Objection 1. The philosophers did not know the mystery of the trinity of the divine persons by its proper attributes, such as paternity, filiation, and procession, according to the Apostle's words, "We speak the wisdom of God which none of the princes of the world"--i.e. the philosophers--"knew" (1 Cor. 2:6). Nevertheless, they knew some of the essential attributes appropriated to the persons, as power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness to the Holy Ghost; as will later on appear. So, when Aristotle said, "By this number," etc., we must not take it as if he affirmed a threefold number in God, but that he wished to say that the ancients used the threefold number in their sacrifices and prayers on account of some perfection residing in the number three. In the Platonic books also we find, "In the beginning was the word," not as meaning the Person begotten in God, but as meaning the ideal type whereby God made all things, and which is appropriated to the Son. And although they knew these were appropriated to the three persons, yet they are said to have failed in the third sign--that is, in the knowledge of the third person, because they deviated from the goodness appropriated to the Holy Ghost, in that knowing God "they did not glorify Him as God" (Rm. 1); or, because the Platonists asserted the existence of one Primal Being whom they also declared to be the father of the universe, they consequently maintained the existence of another substance beneath him, which they called "mind" or the "paternal intellect," containing the idea of all things, as Macrobius relates (Som. Scip. iv). They did not, however, assert the existence of a third separate substance which might correspond to the Holy Ghost. So also we do not assert that the Father and the Son differ in substance, which was the error of Origen and Arius, who in this followed the Platonists. When Trismegistus says, "Monad begot monad," etc., this does not refer to the generation of the Son, or to the procession of the Holy Ghost, but to the production of the world. For one God produced one world by reason of His love for Himself.
Reply to Objection 2. Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: firstly, for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results, as in astrology the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them. In the first way, we can prove that God is one; and the like. In the second way, reasons avail to prove the Trinity; as, when assumed to be true, such reasons confirm it. We must not, however, think that the trinity of persons is adequately proved by such reasons. This becomes evident when we consider each point; for the infinite goodness of God is manifested also in creation, because to produce from nothing is an act of infinite power. For if God communicates Himself by His infinite goodness, it is not necessary that an infinite effect should proceed from God: but that according to its own mode and capacity it should receive the divine goodness. Likewise, when it is said that joyous possession of good requires partnership, this holds in the case of one not having perfect goodness: hence it needs to share some other's good, in order to have the goodness of complete happiness. Nor is the image in our mind an adequate proof in the case of God, forasmuch as the intellect is not in God and ourselves univocally. Hence, Augustine says (Tract. xxvii. in Joan.) that by faith we arrive at knowledge, and not conversely.
Reply to Objection 3. There are two reason why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation. The fact of saying that God made all things by His Word excludes the error of those who say that God produced things by necessity. When we say that in Him there is a procession of love, we show that God produced creatures not because He needed them, nor because of any other extrinsic reason, but on account of the love of His own goodness. So Moses, when he had said, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," subjoined, "God said, Let there be light," to manifest the divine Word; and then said, "God saw the light that it was good," to show proof of the divine love. The same is also found in the other works of creation. In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the Incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Ghost.
You asked: "Do you ever ask yourself why it is that God hides himself??? Why has He not chosen to provide us with airtight proof of His existence??? If He wants men to believe in Him and to be saved, why does He not appear in all His glory in the heavens and command men to repent, believe and be baptized?"
This is actually turning out to be good. All of the questions you are asking me were addressed by Aquinas 8 centuries ago.
Whether Christ's birth should have been made known to all?
Objection 1. It would seem that Christ's birth should have been made known to all. Because fulfilment should correspond to promise. Now, the promise of Christ's coming is thus expressed (Ps. 49:3): "God shall come manifestly. But He came by His birth in the flesh." Therefore it seems that His birth should have been made known to the whole world.
Objection 2. Further, it is written (1 Tim. 1:15): "Christ came into this world to save sinners." But this is not effected save in as far as the grace of Christ is made known to them; according to Titus 2:11,12: "The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men, instructing us, that denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world." Therefore it seems that Christ's birth should have been made known to all.
Objection 3. Further, God is most especially inclined to mercy; according to Ps. 144:9: "His tender mercies are over all His works." But in His second coming, when He will "judge justices" (Ps. 70:3), He will come before the eyes of all; according to Mt. 24:27: "As lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." Much more, therefore, should His first coming, when He was born into the world according to the flesh, have been made known to all.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 45:15): "Thou art a hidden God, the Holy [Vulg.: 'the God] of Israel, the Saviour." And, again (Is. 43:3): "His look was, as it were, hidden and despised."
I answer that, It was unfitting that Christ's birth should be made known to all men without distinction. First, because this would have been a hindrance to the redemption of man, which was accomplished by means of the Cross; for, as it is written (1 Cor. 2:8): "If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory."
Secondly, because this would have lessened the merit of faith, which He came to offer men as the way to righteousness. according to Rm. 3:22: "The justice of God by faith of Jesus Christ." For if, when Christ was born, His birth had been made known to all by evident signs, the very nature of faith would have been destroyed, since it is "the evidence of things that appear not," as stated, Heb. 11:1.
Thirdly, because thus the reality of His human nature would have come into doubt. Whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volusianum cxxxvii): "If He had not passed through the different stages of age from babyhood to youth, had neither eaten nor slept, would He not have strengthened an erroneous opinion, and made it impossible for us to believe that He had become true man? And while He is doing all things wondrously, would He have taken away that which He accomplished in mercy?"
Reply to Objection 1. According to the gloss, the words quoted must be understood of Christ's coming as judge.
Reply to Objection 2. All men were to be instructed unto salvation, concerning the grace of God our Saviour, not at the very time of His birth, but afterwards, in due time, after He had "wrought salvation in the midst of the earth" (Ps. 73:12). Wherefore after His Passion and Resurrection, He said to His disciples (Mt. 28:19): "Going . . . teach ye all nations."
Reply to Objection 3. For judgment to be passed, the authority of the judge needs to be known: and for this reason it behooves that the coming of Christ unto judgment should be manifest. But His first coming was unto the salvation of all, which is by faith that is of things not seen. And therefore it was fitting that His first coming should be hidden.
***Forgive me for saying this but since you decided to misrepresent my beliefs and call it rubbish, I don't feel so bad***
I'm sorry if you feel I've misrepresented your beliefs. I hope you are reading inay personal animosity in my posts because there isn none. - and as to the rubbish statement, it's no reflection on you, just a statement of fact (no, just kidding!).
***You simply do not have the authority to place your opinion over the interpretation from the DRV that I posted.***
So the DR with all it's attendant notes is the end-all, be-all translations and should never be disagreed with??? Is that what your saying??? (And folks think the KJV people are bad!). Seriously, I've found rubbish in Protestant Biblical notes also.
***Considering you remove verses from context and have to paraphrase to make them fit. I would say that your exegesis is about as objective as a Rorschach test. ***
You may not have appreciated my feeble attempt at humor, but you also failed to address my interpretaion of the text or provide a credible alternative.
***I have not stated that Aquinas is necessary. Please don't misrepresent my position. ***
You said...
"Actually, those sayings are not the ones that require unwrapping. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood. His flesh being real meat and blood real drink and being wine and bread. That does require an Aquinas to explain."
If something is required then it is necessary. Or as I said,
"C is required to fully understand A".
****I'll post some more later but I think this should be done in fairly small bites. ****
Hey, what happen to this plan of action??? You're fingers must be aching after those posts. :)
***Here are St. Thomas' Five Ways for you that prove the existence of God.***
Allow me to post from one of your own Roman Catholic theologians and apologists...
"Not all the arguments (Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God - includion Aquinas' 5 Ways) are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case."
- Peter Kreeft
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
And that's just my point. These arguments, as convincing as they are, can in the end only make a "very strong case" and not a "proved by reason in a flawless argument."
P.S. I've used many of these arguments in conversation with others - I do appreciate their value.
On the five ways:
So you are saying you do appreciate the value of Aquinas' argument even though you think he is in an Aristotelian box? If si, what is that value? If something has value, to remove it then, is a loss. To add it is a gain.
That is what I've been saying all along. Paul says one thing. People ask what it means, Aquinas argues by reason what it means. His argument deepens the understanding of others, corrects error, and does what St. Ambrose said, "We are creatures with faith, that seek to understand our faith."
Peter Kreeft is a Roman Catholic who does Apologetics. St. Thomas is the Theologian of the Catholic Church.
Kreeft by the way does say, "We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, ****demonstrate the existence**** of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes"
***So you are saying you do appreciate the value of Aquinas' argument even though you think he is in an Aristotelian box?***
Yes, of course. I particularly appreciate his ideas regarding "analogy of being".
I can appreciate his ideas, even use them, but to say that without him parts of the scripture are not understandable is, to my mind, an unscriptual exaltation of man.
*** If si, what is that value? If something has value, to remove it then, is a loss. To add it is a gain. ***
Loss and gain is different from "required" and "necessity".
***...demonstrate the existence**** of a being that has some of the properties only God can have***
Which is a far cry from the existence God of the Bible "proved by reason in a flawless argument."
I don't understand your term, "God of the Bible" my understanding is the Bible is of God.
***I don't understand your term, "God of the Bible" my understanding is the Bible is of God.***
"God of the Bible" as opposed to, say, the god of the Deists.
God, as revealed in Holy Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.