I apologize to both of you for being uncharitable, both in my treatment of your arguments, and in the tone I have employed. Obviously I am passionate about these issues, and tend to get fired up when I see people defending what I perceive to be schismatic or heretical beliefs, but that is no excuse for the rude, dismissive, and generally unloving tone I have employed with you both. I am sorry.
From the first article, of the first question, of the first part of the Summa Theologiae:
"knowledge can be concerned only with being, for nothing can be known, save what is true"
We have discussed before this notion of "true gnosis" and "false gnosis", but in reality there can only be gnosis. If the belief is not true, it cannot be known - thus it is only a false belief. Belief, of course, is full assent of the intellect without doubt (if there is doubt, it is just opinion). Obviously we are all at a point of belief with respect to our positions, which is why you have both made statements suggesting that this conversation stop, since it seems we are getting nowhere.
I blame myself for this. Yes, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. There is no doubt in my mind on this point. But as a result of this, I have been approaching these arguments with insufficient charity, and even an irrational attitude. Chiro has tried to bring this back to reason, and rightly so - where beliefs differ, reason is the only recourse to resolving such conflict (barring grace, of course). While argument alone does not determine gnosis, it can contribute to the path that leads one to it. Back when I was debating with about Orthodoxy, he often frustrated me by making statements like "I just know", and with certainty. Fine, he had belief - but in the context of a debate on the differences of his faith and mine, that was insufficient. But I have begun to do the same thing in this debate, which has caused the two of you - at least so I judge - to treat me and respond to me similarly; which is to say, there are many arguments I have also made that I feel were not treated or interpreted in a charitable spirit, but rather were dismissed because my interpretations contradict the beliefs you two hold. Again, I blame myself, as I did this first, and I am sorry.
None of what I've just said changes the fact that I do believe in what I believe in, and that I do believe getting these issues right is important for our salvation - for our ability to attain union with God. I fear that if these points are not properly addressed, we may live our lives with the temptation to pride, to personal judgment, and with a lack of sufficient humility, which could ultimately close grace out of our lives when we need it most.
So, I understand if the two of you are not willing to pretend that your beliefs aren't true, because I am not willing to do that either. I believe what I believe, without doubt, because I believe they are true. However, even if we all hold firm to our beliefs, honest debate on these issues remains possible, if we have recourse to reason, which is what Chiro was trying to return my attention to.
These debates take up time; I know that as well as you do. It is Lent (for me anyway; I guess the Orthodox Lent may start later). There are certain things I have given up this season, and I considered making Poal one of them. I did decide to give up other social media, but I didn't give up Poal (or at least, Poal message notifications) because this conversation was ongoing, and I didn't want to leave at what might have been a critical juncture. Clearly, it seems, I should have.
I have quite a long list of points both of you have made that I believe I have adequate responses to. Some of the essence of my responses are contained in what I have already written, but I can elaborate and ground these more satisfactorily such that they will no longer appear fallacious or circular.
So if the two of you are willing, not to set aside your beliefs, but to argue in what I would call a Thomistic fashion - by not being afraid to present as charitably as possible the strongest arguments against our positions, and draw both on tradition and reason to answer them as best we can - in order to in the spirit of charity and truth try to come to a better understanding of each others' positions, at the very least, if not come to a fuller picture of the Truth on these issues - then I will better structure my arguments and we can continue as we were. Maybe I will post my arguments after Lent ends. Or if you think I've made these exchanges distasteful enough through my folly, that's fine too; just let me know.
Well, it takes a big man to admit that; God forgives, so do I. And I’d be lying if I said I’d never done the same thing, which in part explains my reluctance - borne of experience - to debate these issues of millennial magnitude. A few dudes on POAL almost certainly aren’t going to clear this up, where the greatest Saints and minds of the last thousand years have failed.
I believe the Lord Jesus Christ, in His Infinite Wisdom, knows exactly what’s going on, and why. After having been through enough of these fruitless battles, by now I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to:
1) faithfully preserve the specific Tradition we’ve received, without compromise, and 2) don’t get in fights about any of it with other Christians. 3) be open to the possibility that one’s own mind may change in light of new evidence, which had not been considered; but never expect this of others.
Nobody here got in any of what I’d call “fights”, so I think we’re good. One thing I’d learned which I hadn’t understood was the Latin understanding of the Magisterium. As an Orthodox Christian, it had not occurred to me there was a name for the “good thing” that the Papacy conferred upon her subjects. It hadn’t occurred to me; but I can certainly see the value, and I can admit it was something that pre-Schism Orthodox Christians both East and West basically took for granted. I gained that insight from these debates, and probably wouldn’t have otherwise.
So does that mean I’m ready to start praying the Rosary at a FSSP Mass ? Not so fast. Acknowledging the Traditional understanding of the Magisterium doesn’t suddenly negate the Thousand Years of Divergent Tradition we’re up against.
The pre-Schism Roman Saints are our Saints, too, and they were working and writing within the paradigm that real for them - that is, a living, breathing, Christian Empire at the top of the world. They had an Ecumene. We do not. That changes everything. Would they recognize the post-Schism, late medieval updates to the Roman System as Orthodox? That’s extremely debatable, and almost all Orthodox think they would not.
And this isn’t because we’re schismatic assholes; it’s because we simply cannot believe that our Apostolic Community was completely wrong this whole time - centuries, even - and that God really intends for us to just surrender to this power-hungry globalist corporate super-state.
Consider our perspective, which is more likely;
A) all the other Ancient Patriarchates, and the hundreds of Bishoprics established by them for hundreds of years, were totally full of shit, and they conspired to break free from Latin control in a massive schism, or B) Rome decided that, to expand its power and influence, it pieced together from whatever it could within the Tradition, a sort of unprecedented “super-Bishopric” to rule them all, and proceeded to do so by whatever means possible.
The choice, to us, is incredibly obvious. Rome clearly made it up, to gain power.
I’m not saying this to be a jerk, or to make you doubt your beliefs or whatever. I’ve been happy enough to leave well-enough alone. But please understand, you don’t have a chance at this. By all means, explain your position. But please don’t get bent out of shape that we’re not buying it.
I’m not saying this to be a jerk, or to make you doubt your beliefs or whatever. I’ve been happy enough to leave well-enough alone. But please understand, you don’t have a chance at this. By all means, explain your position. But please don’t get bent out of shape that we’re not buying it.
Haha. I'm cracking up.
King, did you read the part about 'charity'? :)
The idea is that to be charitable in a debate, you must allow an opponent's argument to get off the ground by relinquishing your actual beliefs and adopting theirs as true, for the time being only and for the sake of walking out all of the logical entailments of their beliefs. You're basically saying, "Yeah, alright. Let's take that as true and think about what it would mean."
King walks in like: "Nah, not fuckin buyin it." Hahaha.
Wait, what did I do ? I didn’t know about this sense of the word “charity”. I was thinking it meant basically agape.
So does that mean I’m ready to start praying the Rosary at a FSSP Mass ? Not so fast. Acknowledging the Traditional understanding of the Magisterium doesn’t suddenly negate the Thousand Years of Divergent Tradition we’re up against.
This is something I've been thinking about. If it is God's will that the two halves of His Church (and in a way this is the case that we constitute halves of a kind, unlike the case with heretics) be united at the end of time, how could this be done? To outright tell one side they've been wrong for a thousand years or more would be such a challenge to man's pride that I wonder if many would even convert. Even if our Blessed Mother appeared to us all to assure us of this, providing another Miracle of the Sun or somesuch to convince us, if the "erring side" remains prideful, what good would it do?
I think an appeal would almost have to acknowledge man's pride to be successful - even if it is a Divine warning or appeal, given that man's pride is great enough. By this I mean, a "diffusive tactic" might have to be used, where the wrongs of both sides are pointed out in order to bring about unity.
Obviously different examples will appeal to us differently. I might imagine such an appeal condemning the East for rejecting the principle of the supreme teaching authority of Peter's successor, while condemning the West for exploiting this teaching authority through non-magisterial acts, including the move toward statehood possession, inordinate conflict with states, etc.
I'm not trying to say that both sides are equally in schism. Whatever the nature of the division, and whatever the true beliefs of each side may be, it is almost certainly, if not necessarily, the case that one side's separation is based on a rejection of some part of the Church's essence (from my perspective I would suggest this is the nature of the hierarchy itself), whereas the other pertains to things accidental to Her nature (like the proper relation with non-Church entities).
Whatever the exact details, I am trying to suggest that it is not a case of one side being completely right and the other completely wrong, but that there is a difference of kind, not mere degree, with respect to what each side gets wrong.
And we might disagree until the cows come home on which side is guilty of the greater (essential) error, but at least by acknowledging the presence of correctness and error on both sides, pride might be sidestepped and reunion might be possible, if ever a time comes when things are made clear to all.
Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying the Orthodox as-a-whole have actually lost a Traditional understanding of the Magisterium. All I can say is I didn’t receive it - it’s not a thing we ever really talked about. It may in fact be current among other sets of people in the Orthodox Church, and if it is it’s probably in the context of Bishops.
I’m unconvinced the way it’s being understood by the Latin Communion is necessarily correct. I know the Orthodox are well-aware of the Teaching Authority of the Church, because it’s obvious not everything that calls itself “Orthodox” is authoritative. So how is an Orthodox supposed to gauge whether a teaching is authoritative? In whom does the Magisterium lie within Orthodoxy?
Now I knew the answer to this before I knew the word “Magisterium*, but I wouldn’t have known this-is-that. The question-and-answer; in whom resides the Magisterium of the Orthodox Church? In God’s Holy Saints. That is, people with “Saint” before their name, whose teachings are concordant with Saint-Everybody Else.
But if you need a flesh-and-blood human in which to place Magisterium, in is in the hands of a right-believing Bishop, to-be-determined by the concordance of their teachings with those of the Saints. By extension, this authority extends from the Bishop, to the Priests, in that teaching ministry is also expected of Priests - again though, only if their teaching is in concordance with the Saints.
The Teaching of the Saints is the Holy Tradition. Notice, this includes the first Thousand Years of right-believing Popes, so it’s not like we don’t have them.
I didn’t really understand before that this was called a “Magisterium”, and I’m sure you don’t agree with it, since you’re convinced the Papacy is that. But there’s clearly some standard by which a Pope is judged as heretical-or-not by the Catholic Community. So it looks like the Latin understanding and the Orthodox understanding are probably fairly close.
You pointed out the Moscow-Constantinople Split as being evidence of “jurisdictional chaos” between Orthodox Churches. But basically any Orthodox will tell you those sorts of events happen all the time, and have essentially zero effect on the Magisterium (as I’ve understood it) of the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy is not threatened at all by the bad behavior of these obviously-heretical bishops. “Everybody knows” they’re heretics. Nothing they say or publish has any weight with the Orthodox, in matters of ultimate Faith.
To Latin eyes, that probably looks and sounds bonkers. But it makes sense, if the only people we trust are Saints - and that being the consensus of the Saints, rather than every single opinion of every single Saint.
There's no need to apologize, Peace. I'm serious. If I'm honest, I have not been offended at any point in this conversation, but there may be a reason for that which will be important to talk about. But to begin, and forgetting the nature of our current debate topic, I owe you a great deal of credit. Truly, I owe it to you that I have found my way back to Christianity, and this is not merely lip service. I was there while you took on both myself and ARM for a couple of months, and then as I backed off, you continued to field him as he dug in. I've been debating issues of philosophy and religion with people online for years. I've never seen a Christian remain as committed, patient, and unwavering as you did for the better part of a year, let alone against one of the sharper and more highly educated atheists either of us has ever met.
Most Christians who would be willing to commit the time lack the knowledge and acumen. Those who have the latter typically wouldn't put in the time. So yours was an example that had a major impact on me. No matter how 'heated' any of our discussions has been - or could still be - that fact doesn't change. Concerning this debate over Catholicism, there's no doubt it is important, nor is it to be dismissed as a prissy debate over abstract theological particulars. Yet at the end of the day, even if it were the case that I never hanged my hat in the Catholic Church, I know you'd be just fine as a Catholic.
I recall one of the exits on the highway of our debate with ARM had to do with the nature of faith, and how ultimately all belief (and therefore all knowledge, by extension) rests on faith. It occurred to me earlier today, as I was hammering on your recursion to belief in Rome's authority, to question what the alternative could be? Is there any belief system that doesn't ultimately come to rest there? Don't they all become circular at some point? One of the things I strive to do, as a basic philosophical method, is to always ask whether whatever 'test' I'm applying to one person's belief/argument/claim could also apply to my own. It's an interesting thing to consider. If I had been really hammering on one of King's theological stipulations, could I eventually force him into that same loop back to "I have faith in this, and that's all I can say."
But this leads me into another point I want to make about my particular situation in this debate. I grew up in a mostly secular environment. I discovered Christianity early in high school, within a Protestant context. It was a Church of God, and back then the concept of theology never really registered to me. I mostly went because of a girl. Later, I fell away from the church and actually found myself first fascinated with pagan tradition and later the occult. By the time I began my talks with yourself and ARM, I'd actually become authentically atheist. I stress that I was a legitimate atheist, because I don't truly think most atheists know what it is like to actually be atheist. They think they do, but they don't. Frankly, I'm not even convinced ARM is legitimately atheistic, as in believes in nothing. When you look for the devil, find it, and come out the other side still not believing anything, you've got nothing to look for anymore. Real atheism isn't this cocky thing we find so many times online, people with an inclination to argue. It's nothing. It's despondent and hopeless. It's powerless.
I'm saying this because it situates me uniquely in this debate, in a way that isn't shared by yourself and King, and this is important. Your faiths are both stronger. You have invested faith in and committed yourselves to an actual communion within the world. I haven't done that.
You asked in your comment if I am willing to be charitable, and all I can say is I am the most charitable person you'll ever find. The rub is: it's because I'm never afraid to treat what I think as wrong, truly because I've never been afraid to give up on anything I believe. We've discussed things related to this before, and the frustrations my Christian friend has had with me. I can bounce back and forth between being these different things, and holding these different beliefs, because in some sense I have this weakness of being a chameleon.
It has its tradeoffs. On the one hand, it can be useful when we are reasoning about things. It can give me some flexibility in debates. On the other hand, what am I risking? I've got no skin in the game. Nothing to lose if I treat every belief like it's cheap to exchange. So I've been in a different predicament than either of you, and I must acknowledge that my desire to know truth combined with what I've said above can cause me to be like 'water on rock', since I am so fluid and unattached to anything, I can seep in as I look for cracks. Again, I acknowledge this can be useful, but is ultimately a piss poor place to be.
Of course this has all begun to change, but some of those tendencies are still there with me. At the moment, I find myself on a bit of an island. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm arguing for a protestant view here, not at all. In truth, I don't know where I should be, and I'm wondering if I'm not just another Kierkegaard. What a bunch of existentialist tripe!
Do know that if I am critical, it is because I care. I want to find a place to be. If I express a concern, it's not about arguing for the sake of arguing. If I offer an argument that seems a little pointed, or sarcastic, or whatever, it's probably because my frustration is authentic, and not directed at you personally, but at God and the world because I just wish it could be easier to know the Truth.
Sorry for the diary entry.
Thanks for sharing.
because I just wish it could be easier to know the Truth.
In a sense I say Amen. In another sense, I feel if it were easy to have this knowledge by human power, it wouldn't be worth knowing, or at least nowhere as worth knowing.
This harkens back to the very first part of the Summa I quoted from earlier. In that article, Thomas shows that not just philosophy is sufficient, snd for a number of reasons. First, because there are Divinr things that reason alone can never discover - like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the natures of the angels, etc. - and do we require Divine revelation to know these things, by faith. And, of course like we've been saying, faith can grant one knowledge, gnosis - as long as it is faith in something true. Which, if it comes from God, it is.
But there are others reasons for having theology / for God revealing things to us, with respect to those things that can be known by human reason. Like that God exists, for instance. But only those with rigorous intellectual dispositions will come to know and understand something like the cosmological arguments; and furthermore, even intelligent people who become familiar with them will simply dismiss them if they haven't been trained in logic and epistemology or first principles; it is usually ignorance of one of these sciences that leads internet atheists to shrug off the cosmological arguments. So the point is that it takes a lot of time and commitment to come to this knowledge, and this is a path that most, due to lack of ability or opportunity or interest, will never tread. So to have this same truth about God's existence revealed, and to and people in its acceptance by grace, is a tremendous act of mercy. And so on. Just some thoughts.
I guess my point is that there is a way that Truth can be known easily - but it has to be by grace, not reason (alone). That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about these things - we should! - but unless we also surrender to God's grace, we're gonna have a bad time.
I was inspired by the appeal to charity, in part because the paradigm of that method in discourse is truly the Socratic one. I thought, let's attempt this as it concerns the crux of the issue - Popery - and see if it can't cut like a knife to the epistemic heart of the debate. This must begin with laying out an assumption.
Now, I won't literally ask questions, ala Socrates. Not only do I think it is patronizing (once we're dealing with conversation partners who are aware of themselves), but it's tremendously difficult to do in the context of an online message board. So I might phrase statements as questions to imply the method, but I'm interested truly in walking out the logic and getting your feedback.
PRESUPPOSITIONS
(a) Truth exists. God exists. To know Truth is to know God.
(b) Following from (a), God compels man to know the Truth, i.e. there are many things which man may (or may not) know which he is not compelled toward: but what constitutes Truth is that which God compels us to know, and is by definition salvific. Stated another way, the definition of Truth is that which we must believe, such that we can be delivered. Therefore Truth, at minimum, is the least set of beliefs necessary to salvation.
(c) The Roman Catholic Communion (RCC) says that the statement, "Christ commissioned the holy office of Pope unto Peter and his successors as the ordained vicar of Him on earth until the end of days", is Truth.
(d) To fail to know the Truth is to fail to know God, and therefore to not be saved. Someone who is not saved spends eternity in Hell.
COROLLARIES
"One must, at the time of death, hold the belief that the material office of Pope is holy and supreme on earth, in order to enter Heaven."
"To fail to know this fact (of the Pope), which is True, is to fail to know God."
From the above, the following must be true:
A teenage girl living in the undeveloped world, and coming from a primitive pagan background, has no knowledge of any other traditions, let alone much of her own. She knows nothing of monotheism, of sin and repentance, or salvation.
One day, a Methodist mission group comes to her village and introduces her group to Christianity. These missionaries successfully transmit what they consider to be the fundamental core of Christian doctrine, consisting in knowledge of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the fallen nature of mankind, the requirement of repentance, faith, and prayer, the nature of virtue and vice, goodness and evil, and finally that unerring faith in the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary combined with authentic humility before Him will ensure that a person defeats death.
The little girl is reluctant at first, but on the third day she falls to her knees and confesses faith in Christ, crying tears of joy at having realized the magnitude of God's sacrifices through his Son. She asks for her sins to be forgiven and for Christ to enter her heart and soul that she might be saved from her sinful nature. She is baptized in water on this day, and we think that she commits to a life of prayer and imitation of the Christ nature.
Suppose that a week from the mission group's arrival, a cluster of savages attacks the village and the little girl is killed.
For not having implicitly or explicitly held the beliefs of RCC, the little girl has gone to Hell and is punished eternally in the pit.
If this is not the case, then one or more of the presuppositions stated above cannot be true.
Further, if it is not the case, then what follows is that belief in the papal axiom of the RCC is not compelled for us to know, and by necessity must then constitute an uncompelled belief, i.e. one which is not necessary to be held in order to be saved, for we have said that what God compels man to know is strictly Truth as the minimum set of beliefs necessary for soul salvation.
(post is archived)