Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!
#41
(03-21-2016, 04:34 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(03-21-2016, 04:27 PM)J Michael Wrote:
(03-21-2016, 02:39 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: I did understand it and my objection remains. This is still voluntarism.

Maybe you could explain what you mean by "voluntarism" and why you think it is negative. :)

Its a fairly common philosophical term that puts the will above the intellect. And why should I explain it when you can read a lecture by none other than BXVI, here.

And I'm still not getting why you'd think "because God said to" isn't good enough reason to do something. Abraham even went through the motions of killing his own son because God told him to (though I believe, because of how those verses read, that Abraham knew God would not allow it in the end, the event being meant to pre-figure God's gift to us of His Son). But as to the will and intellect, I'm more Ultra-Realist, thinking that the will precedes the intellect. See http://charlescoulombe.blogspot.com/2011...m-faq.html

Reply
#42
While I'd not call myself an ultra-realist I do have sympathies for (neo)platonism (you might have caught me quoting Plotinus and whatnot in that other women's thread). I don't see, though, the connection between it and voluntarism. Voluntarism is generally associated with the other extreme.

Also, I believe there's a bit of misunderstanding in the text you linked. Its not about how much information one has but about the good being presented to the will. The person who apostatizes rejects with the will the good that is presented to her intellect while the person who converts converts in response to a good. I don't see how the intellect «chooses» something. Isn't that the will ?

Anyway, without being overly apocalyptic I not only see that in voluntarism there's an irreducible irrationality in reality («it is so because God wanted») and contrary to traditional Church theology (in the strict sense of the work, cf. the lecture I linked above) but eventually nihilistic.
Reply
#43
(03-21-2016, 07:24 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Anyway, without being overly apocalyptic I not only see that in voluntarism there's an irreducible irrationality in reality («it is so because God wanted») and contrary to traditional Church theology (in the strict sense of the work, cf. the lecture I linked above) but eventually nihilistic.

? God's Will should take precedence over everything. How is the statement "it is so because God wanted" incorrect? It's through the positive and passive use of His Divine Will that everything that happens, happens.

"Voluntarism" refers to the human will, which we're to subject to His Will. I maintain that God's commanding us to do something is absolutely reason enough, in itself, to do it. We know that whatever He Wills is for the Good, that He can't contradict His own Goodness, etc. Given all that, how is the saying that "God's commanding us to do something is reason enough to do it" at all wrong or conducive to nihilism? How is that at all some assertion that the human will takes precedence in general and doesn't need to submit to God's Will (it seems to me to be the precise opposite of that sort of idea)? How can submitting oneself to God's Will be "voluntarism" or an example of "nihilism"?
 
Reply
#44
In the lecture I linked above (the Regensburg lecture) touches the issue of irrationality of reality in voluntarism (which undeniably is a theological position and not just assertions about humans). This is really a very well developed theme in philosophy.

And again, its conducive to nihilism because if there's no good presented to the will and in a sense prior to the choosing then the only thing to determine the good of the choice is the choice itself. Again, read the links.

Finally, of course you betray that you don't really take voluntarism seriously because you say that one must first trust God--one must know God, that He is the summum bonum, merciful, who wills only according to His nature, who can «neither deceive nor be deceived», etc. Yes, given that we take our crosses.

Reply
#45
(03-21-2016, 08:51 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: In the lecture I linked above (the Regensburg lecture) touches the issue of irrationality of reality in voluntarism (which undeniably is a theological position and not just assertions about humans). This is really a very well developed theme in philosophy.

And again, its conducive to nihilism because if there's no good presented to the will and in a sense prior to the choosing then the only thing to determine the good of the choice is the choice itself. Again, read the links.

Finally, of course you betray that you don't really take voluntarism seriously because you say that one must first trust God--one must know God, that He is the summum bonum, merciful, who wills only according to His nature, who can «neither deceive nor be deceived», etc. Yes, given that we take our crosses.

I'm referring to the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a capricious god who can will evil, etc. I wrote,  new emphasis in bold, "We know that whatever He Wills is for the Good, that He can't contradict His own Goodness, etc. Given all that, how is the saying that 'God's commanding us to do something is reason enough to do it' at all wrong or conducive to nihilism? " My capitalizing of the personal pronouns means I'm referring to the One True God, not a god whose capricious will can positively condone evil.

The above is the exact opposite of the "voluntarism" Pope Benedict XVI spoke about in the Regensberg speech -- referring to an idea of a god who can will evil, contradict himself, can contradict his nature, etc. -- i.e., the Muslim god.

Question: If the Most Holy Trinity, the God of Abraham and Isaac, told you to do something, don't you think that that'd be reason enough to do it? Or would you think, "No, I wouldn't necessarily do it. I'd have to think about it or else I'd be a voluntarist"? My answer to that question is an obvious YES. And that's all I've been saying.
Reply
#46
(03-21-2016, 11:40 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-21-2016, 08:51 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: In the lecture I linked above (the Regensburg lecture) touches the issue of irrationality of reality in voluntarism (which undeniably is a theological position and not just assertions about humans). This is really a very well developed theme in philosophy.

And again, its conducive to nihilism because if there's no good presented to the will and in a sense prior to the choosing then the only thing to determine the good of the choice is the choice itself. Again, read the links.

Finally, of course you betray that you don't really take voluntarism seriously because you say that one must first trust God--one must know God, that He is the summum bonum, merciful, who wills only according to His nature, who can «neither deceive nor be deceived», etc. Yes, given that we take our crosses.

I'm referring to the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a capricious god who can will evil, etc. I wrote,  new emphasis in bold, "We know that whatever He Wills is for the Good, that He can't contradict His own Goodness, etc. Given all that, how is the saying that 'God's commanding us to do something is reason enough to do it' at all wrong or conducive to nihilism? " My capitalizing of the personal pronouns means I'm referring to the One True God, not a god whose capricious will can positively condone evil.

The above is the exact opposite of the "voluntarism" Pope Benedict XVI spoke about in the Regensberg speech -- referring to an idea of a god who can will evil, contradict himself, can contradict his nature, etc. -- i.e., the Muslim god.

Question: If the Most Holy Trinity, the God of Abraham and Isaac, told you to do something, don't you think that that'd be reason enough to do it? Or would you think, "No, I wouldn't necessarily do it. I'd have to think about it or else I'd be a voluntarist"? My answer to that question is an obvious YES. And that's all I've been saying.

The pope does not restrict his criticism to the muslim deity. Notice he mentions how voluntarism crept into Catholicism through Scotus and Ockham.

Still, there seems to be a confusion here : its one thing for me to obey some mystery out of trust in God, because I came to know God, to some extent, as St. Paul says, « For which cause I also suffer these things: but I am not ashamed. For I know whom I have believed. » Its another thing to say it doesn't matter why He commands, « whether it's for the puprpose of saving souls or winning a game of Tiddly-winks. » Of course it matters, precisely because God is not arbitrary. And in the case of spreading the Gospel we know exactly why do it.

You said you were held on to voluntarism earlier. Now you say you first have a notion of God (I mean, not only the good was presented to you but you even know the history of the deity with us and that He is Trinity !). uWhy don't you admit you were wrong earlier ?




Anyway, my reason for bringing back this rather boring and, in the end, futile discussion with Vox is not to really respond to her anything, but the recent news of the feet washing stuff brings new things to light :

Apparently, keeping up with our traditional yearly liturgical abuse and scandal in the most sacred time of the year, pope will wash the feet of 12 people, but the majority of non-Catholics--all refugees including three muslims and one hindu.

Now, following the pope's own interpretation of the rite, this action is supposedly to be done with « the people of God ». I can only think of three conclusions :
1. Pope is liturgically affirming universalism/indifferentism;
2. Pope is using the liturgy to make some political point--sacrilege;
3. Nothing means anything at all.
Reply
#47
(03-24-2016, 12:50 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Anyway, my reason for bringing back this rather boring and, in the end, futile discussion with Vox is not to really respond to her anything, but the recent news of the feet washing stuff brings new things to light :

Apparently, keeping up with our traditional yearly liturgical abuse and scandal in the most sacred time of the year, pope will wash the feet of 12 people, but the majority of non-Catholics--all refugees including three muslims and one hindu.

Now, following the pope's own interpretation of the rite, this action is supposedly to be done with « the people of God ». I can only think of three conclusions :
1. Pope is liturgically affirming universalism/indifferentism;
2. Pope is using the liturgy to make some political point--sacrilege;
3. Nothing means anything at all.

So...have you tweeted him yet? :)
Reply
#48
I was surprised to see that three Orthodox will take part in this ritual. My understanding is that their participation more than likely could result in their excommunication from the Orthodox Church.

I wish the pope wouldn't abuse the liturgy, but it's the Novus Ordo: what're you gonna do about it? My family and I will be at the local SSPX Mass tonight.
Reply
#49
(03-24-2016, 02:32 PM)ermy_law Wrote: I was surprised to see that three Orthodox will take part in this ritual. My understanding is that their participation more than likely could result in their excommunication from the Orthodox Church.

I wish the pope wouldn't abuse the liturgy, but it's the Novus Ordo: what're you gonna do about it? My family and I will be at the local SSPX Mass tonight.
I wish my SSPX chapel was offering Holy Week Masses. Sadly, the priest serves 4 parishes in 3 states, and simply can't make it. God Bless him.
Reply
#50
(03-24-2016, 12:50 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: Anyway, my reason for bringing back this rather boring and, in the end, futile discussion with Vox is not to really respond to her anything, but the recent news of the feet washing stuff brings new things to light :

Apparently, keeping up with our traditional yearly liturgical abuse and scandal in the most sacred time of the year, pope will wash the feet of 12 people, but the majority of non-Catholics--all refugees including three muslims and one hindu.

Now, following the pope's own interpretation of the rite, this action is supposedly to be done with « the people of God ». I can only think of three conclusions :
1. Pope is liturgically affirming universalism/indifferentism;
2. Pope is using the liturgy to make some political point--sacrilege;
3. Nothing means anything at all.

The new rubrics were inconsistent in my opinion. If the meaning of the rite is the institution of the priesthood, then 12 clergy (or 12 Catholic men if need be) makes sense.  If the meaning is about loving and serving your neighbor, then it doesn't matter who the people are (men, women, Catholic, pagan, etc.) or what the number is.

And yet, the new rubric went kind of half way--it opens it up to any of the baptized (at least that's what the language technically says), but keeps the number as 12.  That isn't really consistent with either interpretation.

What the Pope is doing is consistent with the second interpretation, but likely violating what his own inconsistent rubric says--not that anyone expected any different....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)