What an excellent reason to repudiate Vatican II! Fortunately, Benedict seems to have totally repudiated the notion that the Mohammedan and Christian Gods are the same in his Regensburg address.
Putting aside claims of "channeling" (not by you) and leaving aside the problems (not yours) of mistaking attributes for the whole:
I quite like the point that somebody once made (I probably once knew of at least one of those somebodies, once) that to accurately know God, one would have to be that God (or an equivalent). Given that under orthodox Jewish - Christian - Islamic - theology, there can be only one (God, and even assumng it's not a MacLeod) doesn't that raise question's about one or both of the source and accuracy of Benedict's knowledge as to the true identity of God?
Or about his paternity, if we assume both that B's not channelling and that he is correct?
Or, more to the point, since by definition under at least Christian theology as this non-Christian understands it, the God is onmnipotent and its mind surpasses understanding of mere mortals, there's at least the possibility that the God has a face that it has hidden from Benedictus.
Oops, that's a Strawbs song, not a Pope. This is what comes from listening to the remixed version of Kooper-Stills version of Donovan's "Season of the Witch" - no horns - at 6:30 in the morning.
DC
David, regarding the transcendent nature of God, I think the proper way to understand this is to see it as a limitation on our ability to compass and fully comprehend God. God's transcendence does not prevent us from knowing discrete truths about Him, but rather comprehending both His entire self and the entirety of any attribute.
To give an example, if we were unable to accurately know things about God, we would be unable to say that he is transcendent; at the same time his transcendence means that we cannot compass a precise and entire understanding of God's transcendence.
sorry, should have proof-read:
"does not prevent us from knowing discrete truths... but rather prevents us from comprehending..."
Well, paragraph 16 is actually rather thin. It says that Muslims claim spiritual lineage from Abraham and "along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind." This strikes me as the lowest common denominator ecumenicalism that was popular in the middle of the last century (indeed, the mainline Protestant Churches still spout this sort of nonsense).
In that sense, Benedict hasn't repudiated this sort of thinking. He has, however, introduced a difference of emphasis that cuts against this soppy One-Worldism in his discussion of reason (ie. Christian God's nature is inherently reasonable, Muslim God's isn't). Those trite similarities remain (both religions believe that their Gods are one, merciful, and judge mankind) but the substance of those Gods has been differentiated.
Gabriel:
I'm going to assume that by transcedent, you mean beyond the understanding of us mere mortals (or Martians.)
I might be wrong but I think that, on the whole, you've just said what I said - don't mistake the attribute for the whole; you can't know this "transcendent" entity unless you are this entity, or an equivalent - albeit you were more eloquent.
As to this - "To give an example, if we were unable to accurately know things about God, we would be unable to say that he is transcendent" - the 2nd statement does not necessarily follow from the first. It may not follow logically at all.
A statement about transcedence is not a logical proposition, it is a statement of faith.
Apart from that, if the being is transcedent - beyond our understanding - we don't have any way of knowing that our assumptions about the relationship of the attributes to the whole are accurate; because, with respect, we are in the position of the 9 blind men and the elephant.
Or the Norse & Loki.
There seem to be two issues here. The first is whether it's possible to achieve any real knowledge about God without having recourse to faith. The position of the Catholic Church is that we are able to come to a knowledge of God's existence, and some of his attributes, without the help of revelation. Such a belief presumes that God is ultimately intelligible, even if he is only intelligible to us in a very imperfect way.
That was the point Pope Benedict made in his Regensburg address last September: God is the Word, the Logos; his very nature is reasonable. Thus for Catholics God's transcendence is not such that we cannot talk about him at all. By virtue of our own rational nature, there are some things which we can know about God.
The second issue is the problem of the “source and accuracy of Benedict's knowledge as to the true identity of God.” Since what we can know about God by means of reason alone will obviously be very limited, we depend on faith to know who God is. Catholics believe that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. If this is true, then we are in a position to know a great deal about God, notwithstanding his transcendence. On this view, God, who knows himself, has chosen to reveal himself to us, who would otherwise be incapable of knowing him.
The JPs and Benedict danced/are dancing with the devil. VII is an apostasy and JPII and Bendict are anti-Christs. The pre-VII Catholic Church believed that the Son of God is God. Deny Jesus to your fellow man and Jesus' denies you. Muslims, Jews, Animists and Budhists do not believe Jesus is God despite the half-truths preached by JPII. The Allah is God meme is just another thrust by the atheistic Trotskyite one-worlders whose hatred of the traditions of the Christian West knows no bounds.
"Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
The assumption that there's some aspect of this transcendent entity that the entity has made understandable to us mere mortals is by defintion a statement of faith that's neither provable nor disprovable. Otherwise, you have to assume the entity has some limits, which is contrary to the assumption of transcedence.
"By virtue of our own rational nature, there are some things which we can know about God." A better way to put it would be that the entity permits you to assume you know, and act on the assumption that your assumptions are accurate assumptions, because you've no basis to decide pro or con, so you prefer to decide pro.
"On this view, God, who knows himself, has chosen to reveal himself to us, who would otherwise be incapable of knowing him." But, all you can do is accept, on faith, that that what you're being shown is a true aspect.
"Have I ever lied to you" is meaningless when the hearing entity is unable to independently ascertain the truth.
I'd quote the conclusion of Humpty Dumpty's summary of Logos, or deconstruction, but I expect you already know it.
If I'm not mistaken, Desmond Jones is quoting the Athenasian creed.
Aquinas says that (prior to the beatific vision which can only come after death) all our knowledge of God is actually just knowledge of God's effects. Some of those effects are natural, and are available to the unassisted reason. Some are operations of grace, and are only available to reason as guided by revelation. (As I understand it, in the Catholic tradition, "faith" is not an irrational means of knowledge, but a virtue of steadfastness.)
But it seems to me (as a lapsed Anglican) that there is a tension between what Aquinas says and some of the claims in Dominus Iesus. If we can only see "through a glass darkly", then our knowledge just is relative.
As a lapsed member of the original, ancestral, version of the monotheistic Western faith - note surname - I get to be the proverbial outsider to the Christian & Islamic tensions.
(Yeah, I know that that outsider status means that my ancestors needed to, forgot to, and sometimes weren't able to, duck often enough, but we don't have to go there.)
One thing about that religion is that, at least since the death of the last High Priest - and leaving aside some of the more orthodox (i.e. extreme variations)- nobody formally claims to be THE mouthpiece from on high. It's hard to take anyone making those claims too seriously, especially when the Christians can point out it only took their Messiah 3 days to get back from wherever he was. (My guess is that he'd have been back earlier but, being Jewish, he stopped to eat.)
Besides, Christianity may assert Logos, and that in the begining was the Word, but we are the people of the Book. And we all know what books are made of. (If one believes in that sort of stuff, of course.)
I prefer to believe in Martians ... well, unless I'm in court, and that's a different issue.
Interesting discussion.
Okay, Aquinas defines faith as thinking with assent – where the assent is to some intellectual object which does not in itself compel assent, through the intervention of the will. The act of faith is voluntary. Nevertheless, he also thinks that faith produces certainty. He makes a distinction between certainty of adherence and certainty of understanding. One can firmly adhere to a doctrine such as the Trinity without having any full understanding of what it means for God to be a trinity. That we are looking “through a glass darkly” does not prevent us from forming true propositions about what has been revealed.
Aquinas further says that faith is necessary for salvation, and that “it belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff to draw up a symbol of faith,” i.e. a creed. So I guess I don’t see how, from Aquinas’ perspective, what is known by faith is relative, or how his position conflicts with Dominus Iessus.
Dave: On your first paragraph -
>> ... "That we are looking “through a glass darkly” does not prevent us from forming true propositions about what has been revealed."
I take it you mean true meaning valid in the procedural sense and in the sense that propositions may have both procedural and substantive validity, or may have only procedural validity.
For example, it's very easy to construt a valid syllogism which is nonsensical.
(P) Everything made out of green cheese is a cow.
(P) The moon is made out of green cheese.
(C) The moon is a cow.
Proposotions about deities should at least have procedural validity. An argument could be made that they don't need - indeed can't have - sustantive validity on any basis adequately understable by the "client" entity if the "server" entity transcends the client. If one needs substantive validity, one doesn't have faith.
(If there's an irreverant, non- religiously-observant computer-geek reading along, there's an idea for tongue-in-cheek book. Comparing religion to a WAN based on think client architecture. I'm sure it'll sell at least 3 copies, so long as the writer still has two parents and a significant other.)
As to the second paragraph: Aquinas may well have said that "faith is necessary for salvation" and even if he didn't it's a fair guess that he might have, and would have believed that. However, one either believes the proposition on faith or one doesn't. Or, one can be cynical and hedge one bets in the mode of Pascal before he recanted. I suspect, though, that that Pascal's wager is a bet that even Landbroke wouldn't take.
Dave,
I realize that it is a mistake to address such questions off the top of one's head in comment boxes.
I have trouble understanding the concept of a belief that is an act of will. I find that I can't just will myself to believe things (as I sometimes can will myself to stop procrastinating on the Internet and get something done.) At least if I am conscious of willing to believe, I thereby don't actually believe.
Following Pascal, we might deliberately try to act in a way that will manipulate our own psychology into believing certain things. Or we could will ourselves to be more open to new information, re-examining our biases or what not. But belief just can't be a matter of will.
The Church has always let people firmly adhere to the creeds without understanding them. Which is fair enough since they only make sense in the context of historical disputes against various heresies, and the ordinary believer can't be expected to be a doctrinal historian. Someone who can understand the creeds in this sense possesses interesting information, but doesn't really seem to be closer to knowledge of God.
“I realize that it is a mistake to address such questions off the top of one's head in comment boxes.”
Agreed. In my experience, such matters are best discussed over beers in a pub.
Okay, I don’t think belief could ever be solely an act of the will. This was the Pelagian view: that acts of the will alone suffice for Christian faith. But that position won’t cut it, as you recognize. There needs to be some cause of the will’s adherence which would prevent faith from being mere wishful thinking.
The missing element here, it seems to me, is grace. As Pope Benedict has put it, faith is the result of a personal encounter with Christ. Now what form that encounter will take differs for each person, and the workings of divine grace are obviously not susceptible to rational analysis. But it makes a big difference if one understands one’s act of the will as cooperation with the activity of God (and thus not as originating in oneself). In that case, I think that one can be conscious of willing to believe, and actually believe, because the ultimate source of the act of faith is taken to be God moving us inwardly by grace.
When Aquinas talks about understanding, he is talking about knowledge which is complete or perfect. So in that sense not even a doctrinal historian possesses understanding of the mysteries of faith. The knowledge got by faith is always incomplete. Our assent to it, however, is understood to have a supernatural cause. Aquinas says that charity is “the form of faith”; it is by experiencing the love of God, and by loving him in return, that we believe.
Commenting by HaloScan
