PopeWatch: Tis a Puzzlement

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

PopeWatch was started because of lack of information about Pope Francis and the often confusing utterances he made.  It was hoped by PopeWatch that day to day examination of the acts and words of the Pope would lead to greater clarity about him.  Judging from Father Z, after more than a year and a half as Pope, Pope Francis is still confusing many Catholics:

There are times when I have listened to Pope Francis or have read what he has said, and I am left scratching my head.

I have stated here quite a few times that, sometimes, I have no idea what he is talking about or to whom he is addressing himself.

Apparently I’m not alone.

At Hell’s Bible there is an article about the USCCB meeting.  HERE

Francis Card. George of Chicago, a seriously smart guy, has the same questions.

“He says wonderful things,” Cardinal George said about Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?”
Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?”

If even Card. George is sometimes puzzled, I feel somewhat confirmed.

When I have asked Argentinians about Francis, I have been told that they often express themselves with hyperbole.  I don’t know how much stock to put in that generalization, but… hey….

Go here to read the comments which are intriguing, especially these two:

 

Francis is a Jesuit, meaning he says what he thinks a particular group of people want or need to hear at a particular moment in time in order to induct them gradually into the truth (as he sees and understands it), or at least in order to keep them from running away from the truth. Very often the demands of the groups he is speaking to are radically different, so he says radically different (even seemingly contradictory) things. Hence he can say, with all sincerity and without intentional dishonesty, to LCWR-style nuns that they should just ignore the CDF’s pronouncements, while insisting on absolute obedience from the FFI. Hence he can, in one speech, criticize “do-gooder” progressives while aggressively promoting both them personally and their agenda generally, and constantly sidelining their enemies and resolving judgments in their favor. Hence he can announce, in his list of suggestions for happiness in life, tell people to “stop being negative,” while in his daily Mass homilies issue forth a ceaseless stream of bile against his own flock (who are today gossips, yesterday neo-Pagans, the day before that Pelagians, and so on). He says what people want to hear so that they will love him personally, because this is what incarnating the Gospel means to him: loving particular persons, not bloodless abstractions.

In practice this means that Francis’ words are effectively meaningless: he uses them as weapons, not to relay concepts; hence you can learn nothing about the man by listening to him talk. You need to look at his actions instead, which as the saying goes speaks louder than words. What does Francis actually DO?

I would go a little farther even and say that you need to look at what Francis HAS DONE — because he is of course going to bring the model by which he governed Buenos Aires to the universal Church. His model in Buenos Aires was clearly to have a large, inclusive, nonjudgmental Church, in contrast to Benedict’s expectation of a smaller, purer Church. Hence he was perfectly happy to tolerate degenerate slum-priests shacking up with women (or worse) so long as they ministered to the poor. Hence he was perfectly willing to instruct them to disregard canon law and administer communion to people regardless of their state in life. Hence he insisted on these things even as his flock went into schism in horrifying numbers and vocations to the diocesan priesthood collapsed.

Francis is simply not that confusing of a Pope if you have eyes to see. He has said before that he is the first Pope who has the vision truly to implement Vatican II, and he says this because, having largely been formed during and after Vatican II, he is in thrall to the “spirit” of it. It’s not that he imagines that it is discontinuous with the past, it’s that he doesn’t care: to him, Vatican II inaugurated a whole new paradigm for thinking about and living the faith, and questions of “continuity” concern things which are alien to that paradigm.

That is the model he is working to bring to the universal Church, and which he will bring unless faithful Catholic laity get their heads out of their butts, remember that they are the faithful sons and daughters of the Church and not its slaves, and start speaking out, demanding that he and the bishops generally hold fast to the traditional doctrines of the Church and the disciplines that express and implement them. Who else will? Mark Shea?

And this comment:

Ignatius says:
13 November 2014 at 10:22 am
Pope Francis’ speaking style has been a riddle for us here in Buenos Aires for many years. It is definitevly NOT an “Argentinean thing”.

It is fair to say that, when he was our Archbishop, one never knew what he meant… perhaps he always wanted to be deliberately ambiguous. In some instances (homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.) he avoided speaking publicly about these pressing issues, leaving an impression that he wanted to “operate in the shadows”. Which he didn’t, at least succesfully.

Many people were left very disappointed with his approach. Bear in mind that his tenure as archbishop here was objectively speaking, a very bad period for a local church (very few vocations and a very bad seminary, tolerated heterodoxy, liturgical chaos, a “no” to everything even slightly traditional…). But I assume the cardinals who elected already him knew all this, didn’t they?

Im in Argentina tto and humbly we are talking about 2 different countries.No vocations? liturgical chaos?

If you look at it from a trad point of view, it is understandable you feel that way.

Abortion,, SSM ? ohhh , he spoke lots and lots about it and not only did he talk, remember his homilies? but he also acted how he could. I remember when the abortion caused by rape got approved here, he not only talked but he summoned pregnangt women, blessed their womb and themselves in front of all the TV crews. Lots of pics frpom those times. Did the same with washing the feet of babies and pregnant women.

As for the the way he thinks, expresses himself and talks, I agree with you:

” But I assume the cardinals who elected already him knew all this, didn’t they?”

 

 

More to explorer

Bat Capitalist

    News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   GOTHAM CITY—Billionaire Bruce Wayne has come under fire for the

October 14, 1947: Yeager Breaks the Sound Barrier

I was always afraid of dying.  Always.  It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and

Comrades Under the Black Uniforms

    News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:     ARLINGTON, VA—Last night, members of the militant anti-fascist group

30 Comments

  1. “It’s not that he imagines that it is discontinuous with the past, it’s that he doesn’t care: to him, Vatican II inaugurated a whole new paradigm for thinking about and living the faith, and questions of “continuity” concern things which are alien to that paradigm.”
    This is certainly not something that began with Vatican II. Thus, we have Cardinal Manning, “But perhaps it may be asked: If you reject history and antiquity, how can you know what was revealed before, as you say, history and antiquity existed? ‘I answer: The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation. I know what are revealed there not by retrospect, but by listening.”
    For Manning, to doubt this is implicitly to deny the perpetual office of the Holy Spirit.
    As to the “fact and content of the original revelation,” Bl John Henry Newman draws a vital distinction: “Theological dogmas are propositions expressive of the judgments, which the mind forms, or the impressions which it receives, of Revealed Truth. Revelation sets before it certain supernatural facts and actions, beings and principles; these make a certain impression or image upon it; and this impression spontaneously, or even necessarily, becomes the subject of reflection on the part of the mind itself, which proceeds to investigate it, and to draw it forth in successive and distinct sentences.” The facts are one thing; the ideas or notions or reflections they give rise to are another.

  2. Unlike Pope Alexander VI, Pope Francis appears to live a personally moral life. Equally unlike Pope Alexander VI, Pope Francis seems intent on changing Church doctrine at least incrementally by suggestion, innuendo and maneuvering. Who then would be worse? Pray that I am entirely wrong.

  3. The facts are one thing; the ideas or notions or reflections they give rise to are another.

    Ok. But if the same facts, unchanging, give rise to conflicting ideas, notions or reflections, can each idea, notion or reflection be correct? If the law of non-contradiction has not been abrogated, wouldn’t one or the other “idea, notion or reflection” be in error?

    The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.

    Sounds a bit more like the Islamic version of God – the latest sura is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the facts and contents of original revelation.

  4. c matt asks, “Ok. But if the same facts, unchanging, give rise to conflicting ideas, notions or reflections, can each idea, notion or reflection be correct? If the law of non-contradiction has not been abrogated, wouldn’t one or the other “idea, notion or reflection” be in error? ”

    Not necessarily, for our notions of things are never simply commensurate with
    the things themselves; they are aspects of them, more or less exact. Because at best they represent a thing incompletely, they may serve for it, it may stand for it, only to a certain point, in certain cases, but no further. After that point is reached, the notion and the thing part company; and then the notion, if still used as the representative of the thing, will work out conclusions, not inconsistent with itself, but with the thing, to which it no longer corresponds.

  5. There are non innocent contradictions however. All the talk about mercy and about speaking freely at the synod….and then followed by the public humiliation of Cardinal Burke in a ludicrous demotion …is the awful one. Scripture says “rise up at the hoary head”. Not observed by Francis in this matter. He militated against Cardinals speaking freely from the conservative side after that public career deep sixing. Time will tell if the Cardinals and Bishops everywhere ignore his manipulative signal or become the very courtier careerists he declaims against.

  6. “Not necessarily, for our notions of things are never simply commensurate with
    the things themselves; they are aspects of them, more or less exact. Because at best they represent a thing incompletely, they may serve for it, it may stand for it, only to a certain point, in certain cases, but no further.”

    Now is that Kant, Hegel or some other Enlightenment philosopher? I can’t remember. It certainly isn’t Aristotle or Aquinas. But we begin to get to the root of the problem.

  7. @Donald R. McClarey I have always thought that key to understand Pope Francis is to look into his past. You have said exactly the same thing:

    I would go a little farther even and say that you need to look at what Francis HAS DONE.

    Thank you!

    Any chance to write an authoritative and comprehensive article on Pope Francis especially for the years when he was Archbishop 1998-2013?

    Another key to the puzzle is his late confessor from whom he says he stole a crucifix. He speaks of the much “mercy” the confessor had. An understanding of this confessor may shed some additional light.

  8. Philip,

    “Now is that Kant, Hegel or some other Enlightenment philosopher? I can’t remember. It certainly isn’t Aristotle or Aquinas. But we begin to get to the root of the problem.”

    It is the blessed Henry Cardinal Newman, who said this of Kant and his contemporaries, “I do not think I am bound to read them . . . for notoriously they have come to no conclusion.” Newman, who insisted his points were not metaphysical, but practical philosophy can be historicized to be a lot of things (such as in dialogue with the British Empiricist tradition) but Kant, Hegel and German Idealism wasn’t one of them.

  9. Indeed. Of course the problem that Newman identified is that Kant and Hegel could never come to a conclusion because they denied metaphysics. An error or the Enlightenment in general.

    From what I’ve read, current German bishops, including Cardinal Kaspar, are much enthralled with Hegel. Thus, according to them, the ability to “evolve” a new understanding of marriage.

    No Metaphysics, no fixed natures. No fixed natures, no clear understanding of reality. No clear understanding of reality, the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.

  10. I used to think that Roger Mahony was the biggest mistake made by St. John Paul II. The biggest mistake he made was elevating Jorge Mario Bergoglio to an archbishop.

    Care for the poor and downtrodden has always been a part of the Church. St. John Paul II was not the most meticulous in observing liturgical rubrics but he had an orthodox mind.

    The Roman Pontiff has no use for traditional Catholicism. He sees it as the domain of the super wealthy (like those in Argentina who have theirs and care nothing for anyone else, or so he believes) and a part of Church life that was done away with at the Second Vatican Council.

    I don’t doubt he cares for the poor – those who are materially poor. I read where he wants to install showers for the homeless near the colonnades in the plaza near St. Peter’s. Is this really caring for the homeless? Or is it just making a show?

    Cardinals Burke and Pell know full well the spiritual poverty of the West. The Roman Pontiff could not care less. The Roman Pontiff listens to +Wuerl and +O’Malley and appoints +Cupich to run the Chicago Archdiocese. As if poor Cardinal George doesn’t have enough to suffer with having cancer.

    I read on Mr. Price’s blog that if you are happy with your bishop pray, pray, pray for his well being and that he stays put (in so many words). You do not want +O’Malley and +Wuerl picking your bishop for you because you could end up with another Bishop Ryan, Archbishop Weakland or Cardinal Mahony.

  11. Sad to say, but it is not hard to imagine the reason that St. Faustina suffered more than ever before on a particular day both interiorly and exteriorly. That day was December 17th 1936, the birth date of Pope Francis. She offered that day for priests.
    From the Diary of St. Faustina, #823.

  12. Phillip asks, “Now is that Kant, Hegel or some other Enlightenment philosopher?” Actually, it is from Bl John Henry Newman’s Grammar of Assent.
    Hmmmmm, well spotted! I would guess the principle influence on Newman are two Oxford philosophers, Ockham and Berkeley.
    Phillip – As for “fixed natures,” Newman observed that “All things in the exterior world are unit and individual, and are nothing else; but the mind not only contemplates those unit realities, as they exist, but has the gift, by an act of creation, of bringing before it abstractions and generalizations, which have no existence, no counterpart, out of it.” He insists that all common nouns (“Man is an animal,” “a line is length without breadth,” “to err is human, to forgive divine.”) stand for “what is abstract, general, and non-existing. He contrast these “notional” (abstract) propositions with “real” (concrete) propositions (“Philip was the father of Alexander,” “the earth goes round the sun,” “the Apostles first preached to the Jews.”)

  13. Ahh, then you miss this from Newman:

    “I do not think it unfair reasoning thus to take the apprehension for its object. The mind is ever stimulated in proportion to the cause stimulating it. Sights, for instance, sway us, as scents do not; whether this be owing to a greater power in the thing seen, or to a greater receptivity and expansiveness in the sense of seeing, is a superfluous question. The strong object would make the apprehension strong. Our sense of seeing is able to open to its object, as our sense of smell cannot open to its own. Its objects are able to awaken the mind, take possession of it, inspire it, act through it, {37} with an energy and variousness which is not found in the case of scents and their apprehension. Since we cannot draw the line between the object and the act, I am at liberty to say, as I have said, that, as is the thing apprehended, so is the apprehension.”

    Of course Newman was heavily influenced by the Idealism of the Enlightenment. The fact that Newman absorbed this before his conversion in 19th Century England is no surprise. This would include the works of Berkeley. Of course Berkeley denied that any thing exists apart from our knowing it. Such a position, even from an English Churchman, would not past muster in Catholic Theology. But as I have pointed out before, the canonization of a man does not canonize his theology nor his philosophy. But in presenting Berkeley as his inspiration, you prove my point that this quote, in isolation, is an exemplar of Enlightenment thinking.
    But while Newman, saint as he is, was influenced by the Enlightenment, the quote you present does not necessarily take the Enlightenment form of epistemology which you imply. Rather, from my citation, he clearly understands that objects inform the subject though the senses though perhaps to different degrees. Nonetheless, he understands such as the objects determining the subject.
    The abstractions that you refer to in his writings are not mere impressions that leave one uninformed, but rather an ability to determine the nature that is common to the “unit and fixed individual.” He understands that one can determine the nature of the individual thing while asserting that the nature of the individual thing is not something else real that exists elsewhere. This is classic Aristotelean epistemology and metaphysics which rejects Platonic forms as existing apart from the thing that really exists.
    To lay claim to Newman as an exemplar of the Enlightenment notion that one can never really know the nature of an object is to seriously error. Remember, he is the man who did seek out Thomists on his first visit to Rome.

  14. Phillip

    Two points

    1) In his History of the Arians, Bl John Henry Newman, speaking of his favourite notion of “economy” in theology says, “What are the phenomena of the external world, but a divine mode of conveying to the mind the realities of existence, individuality, and the influence of being on being, the best possible, though beguiling the imagination of most men with a harmless but unfounded belief in matter as distinct from the impressions on their senses? This at least is the opinion of some philosophers, and whether the particular theory be right or wrong, it serves as an illustration here of the great truth which we are considering.” That he shared this “opinion of some philosophers” can be illustrated throughout his writings

    As for natures, “Let units come first, and (so-called) universals second; let universals minister to units, not units be sacrificed to universals. John, Richard, and Robert are individual things, independent, incommunicable. We may find some kind of common measure between them, and we may give it the name of man, man as such, the typical man, the auto-anthropos… Each thing has its own nature and its own history. When the nature and the history of many things are similar, we say that they have the same nature; but there is no such thing as one and the same nature; they are each of them itself, not identical, but like. A law is not a fact, but a notion…” Ockham (and Hume) would have agreed.

  15. I believe it is the task of the Holy Father to protect and defend the objective Truths of our Faith. Instead, I sense that my spiritual life is being micro managed from Rome. Somewhat unnerving and a little weird. And yes, by their fruits you will know them speaks volumes. The question needs to be asked, “Was Jorge Bergoglio vetted?”

  16. The Russian Word “Glasnost” comes to mind in the case of Papa Bergoglio. It means “Publicity.”
    Whether performing an Exorcism on TV2000 or going over to a Confessional, the TV Cameras were in operation.
    It is almost as if this is a real life version of “The Truman Show”, a film with Jim Carrey.

  17. MPS,

    As Newman notes in a footnote to this section you reference:

    “I have assumed throughout this Section that all verbal argumentation is ultimately syllogistic; and in consequence that it ever requires universal propositions and comes short of concrete fact. A friend refers me to the dispute between Des Cartes and Gassendi, the latter maintaining against the former that “Cogito ergo sum” implies the universal “All who think exist.” I should deny this with Des Cartes; but I should say (as indeed he said), that his dictum was not an argument, but was the expression of a ratiocinative instinct, as I explain below under the head of “Natural Logic.”

    He is referencing in your quote logic, syllogism and inference (as opposed to deduction.) As a result, there is always some possibility of error as further data may be present. But this is no way denies universals as he admits in this footnote.

    But even more, the mere fact that he is using syllogism is an implicit admission of the validity of the law of non-contradiction which you seek to deny. For, if there is no such thing as non-contradiction, there is no reason to use syllogism either deductive or inductive.

  18. I believe Francis is a revolutionary. Recently, I had the
    misfortune of attending Mass celebrated by a Maryknoller
    priest (liberation theology). During his homily, the radical stated
    that the pre-Vatican II church was replaced by a new tolerant,
    inclusive and loving Catholic Church following Vatican II and
    that the archaic and notorious pre-Vatican II church had passed
    into history. Further, the radical priest, who earlier had recoiled
    in angry when confronted with the Image of Divine Mercy,
    expressed his contempt for Pope Benedict, by stating that Benedict
    was struck down by God for his pompous, theological arguments and
    for his taste in expensive clothes, so that God could give us the
    people’s pope, Pope Francis.

    I should imagine the radical’s view of the church is similar to Francis’,
    who intends to establish the new, modern church of Vatican II and who
    regards Benedict and his associates as reactionaries or counter-
    revolutionaries, who are to be purged from the church.

  19. Phillip,

    I think it could be said the metaphysician, logistician, theologian are three domains of linguistic activity. The distinguishing features among them are apparent in that the first concerns itself with reality and how we speak of it; the second about the multiple senses of our words and their relations; and the third is about God, our language about Him and how to manage describing his Being and our condition within the limits of our speech. I believe the blessed Cardinal was well aware of these domains and so spoke accordingly as a theologian, primarily. And as a theologian, any borrowing on his part from logic or metaphysics must be tempered or qualified because concerns between these disciplines differ as often as they converge . It is like how no one would bat an eye at a the mathematician who said that, logically, an empty set exists and to leave it at that. The same statement, in the hands of a metaphysician, must be highly qualified if his answer is to agree at all. Newman’s intent, as a theologian, is to marry intellection with what God has deemed revelatory. That revelation, as held within the Christian religion, has a long tradition of ratiocination but one just as long of what is found under the term mysticism. And the mystical experience is not always one that conforms to logical conventions. Like many Christian theologians before and after him, his is an attempt to incorporate and account for this mystical experience something as normal as what I guess can be described as mundane. This normality is part and parcel of the Christian experience. How the ‘law of non-contradiction’ (which I am not convinced is being called into question) fits into the scheme of things is, in my understanding of Newman, wisely left to other people to take into account. For him, the activity of the world must account for a Christian anthropology where God’s grace is the central instigator. To read too much else into him is to fail to listen to the simpler points he’s making.

  20. “How the ‘law of non-contradiction’ (which I am not convinced is being called into question) fits into the scheme of things is, in my understanding of Newman, wisely left to other people to take into account. For him, the activity of the world must account for a Christian anthropology where God’s grace is the central instigator. To read too much else into him is to fail to listen to the simpler points he’s making.”

    Hmmmm,

    You missed MPS’s 11/14 12:23 comment. He used a quote from “The Grammar of Assent” to deny non-contradiction.

    Theology of course has its own methods. Philosophy its own. Newman drunk deeply from the Enlightenment which would only be natural for a 19th Century Englishman. But this philosophy not only denied metaphysics but the ability to know God. Newman tried to save this in his work in the course of which, perhaps implicitly if not explicitly, he reaffirmed the possibility of metaphysics.

    Of course this may seem tangential for Theology. Except that it was important enough for John Paul II to reassert the need for metaphysics:

    http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti99/sacchi.htm

    Why in this matter? Because fixed natures that are knowable to us lead us by natural reason to know what marriage is, why it is important and why it is the foundation of society apart from Theological understandings. From this reality, one which MPS and I were discussing and why it is so important to us if not to others, is that this is the reason philosophy is important. It informs not just our natural understanding, but serves as a corrective and guide to Theology. Which is why Newman tried to reform his Enlightenment understanding as it led to much error in Theology.

    Here, the modern error of Cardinal Kaspar and the Enlightenment impact on his thought:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/synod-and-truth-understanding-in-depth.html

    I do not believe this discussion tangential, but vital.

  21. Phillip
    No one denies that Bl John Henry Newman was a nominalist and made no secret of it. Quite simply, he held that universals exist only within the mind and have no external or substantial reality.
    This also explains his empiricism, very much in the British tradition.
    His suspicion of logic (what could be more dismissive that his reference to “the expression of a ratiocinative instinct”) springs from his oft-repeated insistence that “inference starts with conditions, as starting with premisses, here are two reasons why, when employed upon matters of fact, it can only conclude probabilities: first, because its premisses are assumed, not proved; and secondly, because its conclusions are abstract, and not concrete.”
    As for “first principles,” he notes: “first principles, the recondite sources of all knowledge, as to which logic provides no common measure of minds,—which are accepted by some, rejected by others,—in which, and not in the syllogistic exhibitions, lies the whole problem of attaining to truth,—and which are called self-evident by their respective advocates because they are evident in no other way.”
    Hence his recourse to the “illative sense,” the faculty of the mind that enables us to grasp the “limit” to which evidence in concrete matters tends, much in the manner of the calculus in mathematics.
    Of course, he insists on the principle of non-contradiction, in its proper sphere: “It is true indeed that I deny
    the possibility of two straight lines enclosing a space, on the ground of its being inconceivable; but I do so because a straight line is a notion and nothing more, and not a thing, to which I may have attached a notion more or less unfaithful. I have defined a straight line in my own way at my own pleasure; the question is not one of facts at all, but of the consistency with each other of definitions and of their logical consequences.”

  22. MPS,
    Thanks for proving my point with Hmmmm.

    I think many would say that he was influenced by the Enlightenment and, after his conversion, came to attempt to bring that thought into agreement with the Faith. Something he could not do without reaching implicitly to fixed natures.

    But again, my point is, you cannot use him to deny the law of non-contadiction which he may have held as an Anglican but, which he clearly adhered to by his death.

  23. Phillip,

    While I agree that it is an important subject (and a fascinating conversation I hope continues,) I do not see eye to eye with you on a few things here. I don’t see the same significance that you do in regards to the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not a monolithic event. It’s philosophers worked in a totally different context from the medieval scholastic, at least the earlier moderns purposely so. To dismiss Newman because of his age is chronological snobbery. The majority of Newman’s influences. as pointed out by all three of us now, were either figures from before the Reinassance (the Church Fathers, certain mystics, Ockham,) or English institutions from before the Enlightenment (English Protestantism and Oxford University.) Otherwise, those like George Berkeley and Joseph Butler are hardly the faces of Enlightenment. If anything, I believe Newman is best read in being highly critical of his age and it’s rationalism. He held ‘right belief’ in very high regard; but what really bothered him was the inactivity that the the milieu brought. He very much believed the man with an active religion and inner life would be lead to, conform and regenerate with, the right beliefs. This seems to be a perennial hope in the life of the Church and more in line with the previous ages than the notoriously passive Protestantism or post-Reformation world. Even if one concedes a great temporal influence on his life, his was a life that is still within living memory and the problems of his time are a lot more similar to our than those of Henry of Ghent or Suarez.

    Second, in regards to the ‘law of non-contradiction’. There is no reason for us to acknowledge it as a steadfast rule either theologically or philosophically. It’s a very useful tool, but that may very well be the extent of what we can say about it. There is nothing to verify or falsify it. It’s been defined in very different ways by major philosophers from Plato to Kant, and there is no consensus on what we mean by LNC. And it may very well get in our way of the sovereignty of God. The real being vs. beings from reason distinctions may be more fruitful to hammer out.

  24. I agree it was not monolithic. In particular those who reject the American founding as an Enlightenment error. I am merely using shorthand. I also agree that Newman was influenced by many and cannot be claimed to be a single thing. We are not in disagreement

    I agree that Newman was critical of much that MPS asserts. Here for example, the clear assertion that Newman was not only not a nominalist, but was against it:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/08/the-prudence-of-john-henry-newman

    As for the tool of non-contradiction and relations of reason, of course they are a tool. Such is what Aquinas and Aristotle considered logic to be and not a method of knowledge itself. Nor, according to this individuals, would such be considered a limit on the sovereignty of God. But it is Sunday and I must go. So more on this conversation perhaps later.

Comments are closed.