All Beliefs Cannot Be Equal

All Beliefs Cannot Be Equal:

The Principle of Non-Contradiction
-------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

No one can ever conceive that one and the same thing can both be and not be.   - Aristotle

At first glance, it may seem arrogant and intolerant to claim that Catholicism is the one true faith, and therefore better than its rivals and its imitators. Such an objection draws its plausibility from a false ideal of equality prevalent in contemporary society. Fortunately, there is a logical and straightforward way to demonstrate that religions cannot be equal: for it can be shown that they contradict one another on many points. For example, if Islam denies the Trinity and Christianity affirms the Trinity, they cannot both be right. If Hinduism and Buddhism maintain that we are repeatedly reborn and live successive lives on earth, but Christianity teaches that we live only once, at least one of the beliefs must be false. Protestantism holds that the Bible is the sole source of divine Revelation and requires no magisterial interpretation, but only private or personal interpretation. Catholicism, on the other hand, holds that divine truth is revealed both by Scripture and by sacred Tradition, and that the Magisterium (from the Latin magister [teacher], i.e., the teaching authority of the Pope together with the bishops in union with him, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit) is the authentic interpreter of divine Revelation. The Catholic view of Biblical Revelation contradicts the Protestant view, so at least one must be wrong. The inequality of religions comes from the fact that with pairs of such contraries, both cannot be right. If a religion is objectively right on a given point, it is superior on that point. If both views are wrong, a third view asserting the truth is superior.

This fundamental inequality of beliefs is based on a first principle of reality and thought called the principle of non-contradiction: nothing can both be and not be under the same aspect at the same time. Because of the principle of non-contradiction, it is simply impossible for all beliefs to be right, and therefore equal, at the same time. It is, of course, axiomatic that truth is superior to falsehood.

Some, however, have denied the principle of non-contradiction in theory. They maintain that it is "narrow" to state something is false because it contradicts something else known to be true. They say that reality and thought are richer if we embrace "opposites"- that is contraries - as equally true. Such a thing, however, is not possible. Such impossibility is apparent in the very nature of the notions that contradict one another. With contradictory notions, exactly one must be true and one must be false. When we assert as truth that "there is a Trinity," we are necessarily asserting that the contrary "there is not a Trinity" is false.

In paradoxes opposites can be asserted, however, in a manner that does not violate the principle of non-contradiction. It is precisely these non-contradictory opposites that give us richness in reality and thought. It does not involve the direct opposition of being to non-being for a given thing at a given time. For example, let us consider the concept of the fully mature and realized man, who is both tough and docile. He shows toughness in that he is immovable in defending absolute principles, but is docile in that he is totally receptive to accepting a truth that he does not already know. He is tough and docile under different aspects, so that even though he embraces opposites, there is no contradiction. Reality readily encompasses innumerable such divergences.

Let us return to the principle of non-contradiction. Even those who deny it in theory appeal to it in practice. To advance any argument- whether true or false - the principle of non-contradiction must be used. To provide information in a given thesis, statements must be made in that thesis that exclude those which contradict them. The ideal of complete tolerance, where all beliefs are equally accepted, is impossible in practice. Even extreme liberalism, which attempts to preach such tolerance, is rabidly intolerant toward those systems which do not agree with their liberalism. Christianity is the prime example. It is precisely Christianity's claims of exclusive truth that caused Christians to be persecuted during the Roman Empire, an empire that prided itself upon being "tolerant" and "open to all beliefs." The effect of the underlying principle of non-contradiction working in the minds of the Roman officials was to outlaw Christianity on the basis that it did not accept the Empire's multitudinous gods.

Catholicism, then, is not narrow, but infinitely broad. It is capable of incorporating all that is true, good, and beautiful. The very term "catholic" means "universal." Catholicism is the only religion that is capable of this incorporation. The Catholic Church accepts all that is true about other religions and other systems. Any perception of narrowness arises because Catholicism must of necessity reject what contradicts truth, goodness, and beauty. Following upon the principle of non-contradiction, it must reject the not-true, the not-good, and the not-beautiful-that is, the false, the evil, and the ugly. This is precisely where the Church's condemnations and "thou-shalt-nots" are directed.

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Intellect Resides in the Soul

The Intellect Resides in the Soul,

Not the Material Brain

--------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

 

 

Intellection does not take place in the brain but in that part of man which is spirit, which is his soul. Although Intellection does not take place in the brain, the brain is needed for intellection. How does this work?

 

First of all, the philosophers have concluded that the human intellect is two-fold. There exists the *agent* intellect and the *possible* intellect (teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas). The agent intellect utilizes forms given by the senses to abstract concepts. For example, a number of forms of individual cats, as given by the senses, are presented to the agent intellect. From these individual forms of cat, the agent intellect abstracts the concept of a cat, which is "catness." This concept of a cat is then presented to the possible intellect. The possible intellect is that which consciously grasps or apprehends that concept of a cat in conscious understanding. The possible intellect, then, is that which consciously understands concepts in general.

 

Now the brain is the organ that interfaces with the soul, that feeds the agent intellect (which is within the soul) with the sense impressions that it needs for abstraction. These sense impression either come from the senses directly, or from the imagination. A damaged or chemically imbalanced brain would present erroneous sense impressions to the agent intellect, thus impairing intellection. In brain damage or mental illness, the intellect itself has not malfunctioned, but it is being fed with erroneous information leading the intellect to come to erroneous conclusions.

 

 

Upon death, when the soul separates from the body, the brain is no longer operative in feeding the intellect with the sense impressions with which it uses to think. God, takes over that function and feeds the intellect directly. As a result, the intellect at death, for the first time, comes to its full potential. At that time, we will see reality immediately and directly, rather than through the murky and inefficient medium of the brain. We will see the inner essence of reality - that inner essence that we have never seen in this life.

 

Upon death, we will see our whole lives and each of our willed acts at once. We will see them in the light of God's truth as good or evil as God sees them. For some acts that we have deemed to be good in our lives, God may show them to us as evil. Other acts that we have deemed as of no importance, God may show them as very good. Upon death, we will see ourselves completely and comprehensively, and we will see our exact nature as actor within the world that we have lived. The nature of our role in the world will be seen precisely.

 

There will be no shadow of error in our knowledge after death, for an infallible God will be feeding the possible intellect directly without distortion. Intellection will not take place through the process of abstraction. With no sense images being given to the soul, the agent intellect will be inoperative, since it is the agent intellect that abstracts from sense images.

 

This situation will last until the resurrection of the body, where then our intellection will consist of both abstraction (at a much higher level than which occurred in our mortal life) and knowledge directly infused by God.

 

After death and at the General Resurrection, we will have knowledge infinitely beyond what we had in this earthly life.

 

 

----

----

----

 

Resolving Evil in Eternity

Resolving Evil in Eternity

-------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

 

 

Someone against the doctrine of divine providence states:

 

"God is not purifying a child who was burned, a soldier who was dismembered, a woman who was raped. God is with them all as God was with Jesus on the cross but we are human and we get sick or get injured."

 

God is omnipotent. He can do all things. If God is all powerful, He can prevent any or all of these things from happening. Since they do in fact happen, we must conclude that God permits them. As St. Augustine said, "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."(Enchiridion xi). Many evils which are possible, God in fact prevents. He strictly sets the bounds of evil in this world (and in an individual person's life) as the shore sets the bounds of the sea. If God did not have absolute control of what evils occur, St. Paul's passage could not be realized. "He will not let you be tested beyond your strength. Along with the test he will give you a way out of it so that you may be able to endure it." (1 Cor. 10:13) and "We know that God makes all things work together for the good of those who love God and are called according to His decree." (Rom. 8:28) 

 

 

Someone objects:

 

"God does not torture us [or allow it to be done] for some greater good. If God did, God is no God at all."

 

 

That assumes that God is on the same level as us, as simply a creature who flows through time as we do, perceiving good and evil as we do. God, however, is in eternity - that is, He is outside of time, seeing all time at once. His entire life is in an immobile *now,* without past or future. All is present to Him. That gives Him a radically different and higher perspective that we have little notion of now.

 

It is within this perspective of eternity that evil is resolved. In eternity, evil is transcended and transfigured, so the evil He allows in time, becomes part of the good within eternity.

 

An analogy my help to explain this. Life on earth is good and evil. It is a mixture of light and shadow. On earth, as we travel through time in this life, we experience good and evil in succession. We experience joy and pain in succession. We experience light and darkness in succession. But in the eternal perspective in heaven, we will experience this all at once. This is how God sees our lives, and how we will see them in heaven. It is like a Rembrandt painting which is beautiful because it has striking contrasts of light and dark. But we must see the whole painting at once to appreciate that. An individual region of darkness is a pure absence. It is a pure negation. And if some being who was traveling across the painting (analogous to our journey through life) happened to be situated over a region of darkness, it would probably experience suffering due to the negative nature of that region. It is only after that creature had "died" and could see the whole painting at once, will those regions of darkness which caused pain previously, be a source of joy.

 

 

We can provide some practical examples. An ancient and venerable artifact may be weathered and worn by time. That state of being weathered and worn is an ontological evil because it takes away from the integrity of its being. But given the context of its antiquity and its "enduring" through time, that state of being weathered and worn actually adds to its beauty and charm. That beauty and charm is only there because we, in some way, understand the entire temporal duration of the artifact.

 

When a person grows older, certain distortions occur on the face because the body due to age, can no longer maintain its proper form. This is an ontological evil because it is the absence of ideal form. However, it contributes to the good on another level because it may denote wisdom that the person has acquired by living a long life. So this ontological evil contributes to the good, actually adding charm and beauty on the spiritual level. This is possible by only taking into account the person's life "all at once," with the necessary phases of youth, middle age, and old age.

 

Consider the example of St. Therese. The tuberculosis she suffered near the end of her life which ended her life was an evil in itself. But considering her life as a whole, her sainthood would have been less beautiful without it.

 

Finally, Christ's passion was evil in itself, but God's plan overall has much more goodness and beauty with it included.

 

Only in eternity will evil be resolved in this way, and what caused the greatest pain on earth, will be the occasion for the greatest joy in heaven. In a sense, we will bring our wounds to heaven, but they will be glorious and not painful.

 

 

----

----

----

 

Scholastic Metaphysics and Phenomenology

Scholastic Metaphysics and Phenomenology

are Complementary

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

-------------------

by Jim J. McCrea

 

 

** Phenomenology has been called fundamental philosophy. It studies the contents of the consciousness of the investigator. It can be considered fundamental philosophy, for to know anything about reality it must first be in our consciousness. Although traditional phenomenology started as being subjectivist, it can be adapted to Catholic realism. This is because it can be understood that the content of our consciousness includes the elements of objective reality **

 

 

 

Scholastic metaphysics and phenomenology can complement one another. Scholasticism is like the skeleton. It is required to give our knowledge form and structure. The abstract statements of scholastic philosophy are needed, but they are not enough. Scholastic metaphysics is too coarse a sieve to capture all of reality. There are many subtle and singular features of reality that are hard pressed to be put into abstract formulae. That is where phenomenology would come in. Phenomenology puts the "flesh" on the skeleton.

 

To understand man for example, we would need to start with basic notions such as him being defined as a rational animal. Theologically he is also defined as made in the image and likeness of God. We start with those and other abstract statements about man. However, phenomenology, through what the observer experiences, fills in the details - thus putting flesh on the skeleton. With a phenomenological method (adapted to Catholic realism) man is viewed from many many different angles - giving what the philosopher subject experiences from many many different view-points. It is like understanding the full three dimensionality of something by encircling it, and taking photographs at every conceivable angle. Thus a much fuller concept of man is built up (still retaining the basic scholastic understanding as a foundation). This concept is so rich that it exceeds our conceptual formulae, and is only communicated to another mind by relating all the snapshots it has received from every angle, and relating them in a great number of statements.

 

But it is still a singular concept of man that is known and communicated. A definition of man is thus communicated, but this definition may occupy many paragraphs or even pages. This is the case because of the limitations of human language on earth.

 

 

----

----

----

 

My Three Day Apostasy

My Three Day Apostasy

----- -----   ----- -----

 

 

by Jim J. McCrea

 

 

There is an incident in my own life that might explain why I am so adamant about defending Catholic Church teaching to the letter.

 

In 1987 I was aware of the great controversy surrounding the contraception issue and the fact that most Catholics rejected Church teaching on that point.

 

At that point, a thought dawned on me that perhaps the Church was wrong on that teaching and should soften and compromise. I then said to myself that the Church should change Her teaching on this and allow contraception for married couples. They should do this to catch up to modern thinking (I was illicitly positing public pressure as some sort of Magisterium which is highly illogical when you think of it. Truth is still truth even if 100% of the people reject it).

 

What happened after that was that I asked: "What if Christ never founded a Church?" "He didn't." I said "He just founded Christianity in general."

 

Then I said: "What if Jesus is not God?" "No He isn't. There is no proof that He is" (which is actually wrong).

 

Then I said: "There is no proof that God is a Trinity so I can't accept that"

 

Then I declared: "God does not exist because the laws of nature explain everything"

 

What happened was that I completely lost the Faith and fell into a state of complete apostasy.

 

For three days my mind was in a murky darkness justifying all that the secular world holds in opposition to Christianity. I was not thinking according to reason, but according to my passions. This is because the supernatural light of faith that comes from God was completely withdrawn from me. 

 

But on the third day, I felt myself being sucked into a black hole. An ultimate despair and disintegration was taking  hold of me.

 

I then cried out: "Jesus help me! I believe!"

 

Instantly I was rescued. My mind then had restored the clear light in which the truth could be seen and in which peace abides.

 

 

The point is, that all started when I denied Catholic Church teaching on a single point which was Her doctrine on the forbiddance of contraception. Everything else quickly fell like dominoes. What was played out in me is the principle that if one rejects one point of Church teaching, one rejects them all, and hence rejects God. This is because If one rejects even one point, one is saying that God is not to be believed or that the Catholic Church does not have a commission from God to teach the truth. You just have to cut the little rope holding the boat to the dock and it will drift away.

 

The teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception is the "fuse link" in the Catholic Christian structure. If that blows, everything else goes. It is a testing point that God has given us to determine whether we will obey Him or not. Rationalizations that contraception should be allowed to avoid this that and the other evil in personal lives and society are just that - rationalizations. They are temptations from the evil one. These rationalizations are not based on true logic but a form of pseudo-logic. They always have fallacies concealed within them. For example, it is argued that contraception should be allowed because overpopulation is a problem and overpopulation leads to poverty, misery, violence, injustice etc. That is a false argument because those problems are not caused by many people living close together, as such, but by evil in the human heart that wishes to be unjust to one's neighbor. People living close together may indeed manifest that more. But if man did not have an unjust heart to begin with, large numbers of people living together would not be a problem.  The contraceptive mentality feeds such evil in the human heart because the acceptance of contraception is a *reification* error turning a person into a thing that can be manipulated for personal pleasure (as many people now see their spouses). So the introduction of contraception to a poor and highly populated society will increase and not decrease its problems.

 

Contraception leads to every other moral evil in life. It has been documented that the acceptance of contraception in our society has led to the general breakdown of our society. Contraception leads to promiscuity, then abortion, then homosexuality, and then euthanasia. This is because it all starts with the principle that the other is to be used and not loved. Overpopulation arguments are based upon the fallacy that God can create life but that he cannot provide for it. That demonstrates a lack of faith and trust and a reliance on our human reason *alone.* (human reason, which is unaided and tries to stand alone, leads us right into the brambles and the rationalization of every injustice against our neighbor - such as legalized abortion. Human reason can only be used rightly if submitted to God and His law) For those who trust God, God provides beyond all our calculations. He provides miraculously when all seems hopeless and He dashes the best laid plans to pieces outside His will.

 

 

Besides, a married couple is not obliged to have as many Children as possible. Natural family planning is allowed to space children where needed. Natural family planning is resisted and falsely argued against because it means that one must submit oneself to a law higher than oneself. It is a matter of human pride trying to be God. The justification of artificial birth control against NFP is a statement that one is one's own God, completely in charge of one's own destiny, and that the true God is not to be bowed to.

 

The serpent said to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden that if they ate the forbidden fruit, they shall be like gods knowing (determining) good and evil. This is what many people follow today and what the false prophets of today teach others to do. That leads to misery in this life and eternal death hereafter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------- --------- ---------

 

-

 

The One Purpose of Creation

The One Purpose of Creation
------------------------------------




---------------------
By Jim J. McCrea


It is believed by many that humanity constantly evolves to higher and higher levels.

There is, however, one type of progress that humanity makes: its progress in understanding the accidents and relations of physical reality. That makes continuous progress in the physical sciences and technology possible.

But, as opposed to the thinking of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers, there is no law causing mankind to steadily progress in wisdom and in the spiritual or moral order. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: " The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven." (par. 677)

Each individual and each society in every age must choose anew whether to follow the law of Jesus Christ or the law of sin.

Human history does not exist for the purpose of progress.

There is one purpose and one purpose only for human history - that is to make saints.

In a sense, the only work of Jesus Christ in the universe is that of making saints. The beauty of nature and of art, the goodness of culture, philosophy and science, all exist for the sole purpose of making people, who inhabit this world, perfect in grace and perfectly happy with God in the next life.

As the Catholic writer Leon Bloy said: "there is one tragedy in life: not to be a saint."

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Metaphysics of Chance

The Metaphysics of Chance

----------------------------

 

 

 

------------------- 

By Jim J. McCrea

 

 

Within the rational order of reality, things or events have their own proper ability to cause other things or events. The universe has innumerable causal chains, in which within a given chain one thing causes another which causes another and so on. This understanding of causality makes human reason and science possible. It may be argued by materialists that if this is so, it would leave no room for the action of God in the universe since everything in the universe acts according to natural causality. However, if we look at the nature of *chance,* this is not so.

 

Consider three causal chains: A, B, and C; in which A1 causes A2 which causes A3 etc.; in which B1 causes B2 which causes B3 etc.; and in which C1 causes C2 which causes C3 etc.

 

However, the causal chains may *intersect.* The intersection of causal chains happens all the time in the universe. Although each term in a causal series is caused by the one preceding, the intersection of different causal chains themselves do not come under natural causality. It is not a natural cause that determines their meeting. It is a purely fortuitous event. As this does not come under natural causality, it leaves an opening for the First Cause of All, God, to determine their meeting. As a result it is possible for God to be continually intervening in the natural world while leaving natural causality intact and not continually resorting to miracles.

 

The 20th century Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, gives an example here of the intersection of three causal chains and the fact that their intersection is not the result of a cause in this universe and which has no ontological unity.

 

 

Maritain says:

 

"Chance, a fortuitous event, presupposes the mutual interference of independent lines of causation. Chance, and this is the basis of the ancients' notion of it, is the result of an irreducible pluralism, the plurality of the causal series which meet at a given moment. It is not the fact that it cannot be foreseen that constitutes chance. A fortuitous event can be foreseen, if its constituent factors are sufficiently simple. But it  is a fortuitous event notwithstanding, since it is a mere encounter.

You may remember Aristotle's example. Is it true to say that a man is killed by brigands because he has eaten too salt viands? What is the link here between cause and effect? He has eaten too salt viands, becomes thirsty, and goes out to a spring. Behind the spring brigands are in hiding who profit by the opportunity to murder him. There is a chain of causes and effects. Is the entire chain necessary? To understand the conception of chance which is far more difficult than is often supposed, we shall examine this instance of it. There are here three series of causes. One extends from the salt food to the thirst. It is normal and in the natural order of things that salt food should cause thirst, the thirst excite the desire to drink, and the desire lead to the action. In another series there is a preliminary condition that there should be no water in the house. Moreover, there must be a spring near. And its existence in the vicinity must  itself have a cause, namely the presence in a particular locality of underground water which in turn depends upon an entire series of geological facts. There is a third series of causes which accounts for the presence of the brigands at that particular place. Their presence there depends, for example, on their having hidden in the woods from the pursuit of the police, and this is itself the result of previous crimes they have committed. Thus three independent causal chains meet, and the man's death is the result of their meeting. Each of the causes here operative continues or would have continued to act in its own line. The brigands would have continued their career of robbery, the spring its causal action, erosion of the earth's surface, evaporation, and had the victim not met his death, the drink he had taken would have produced a particular physiological effect upon his organism.

 

Every event in each series of causes has therefore its cause within the series. But the encounter between an event of one series, for example, the presence of the brigands and events of the other two, the existence of the spring and the desire to drink has not as such any cause in the entire universe. That is to say there is no nature, no natural agent predetermined by its structure to this encounter of the three events, nor any created intelligence that designed it.

The illustrative diagram makes clear the irreducible multiplicity in which chance consists. Each of three causal lines diverges from the rest as we trace the series backwards, so that the farther back we go in each series, the more remote are we from the possibility of finding a cause pre-determined to the meeting of the three series and accounting for it.

That is to say the encounter of the three causal lines at a given moment is indeed a contingent fact but not a contingent being. This is the difficult and important point to grasp in the theory of chance. The encounter has no being, save in thought. Certainly it exists. But it is not an essence. It is a pure coincidence, and possesses no ontological unity requiring to render its existence intelligible an active structure preordained to it. It is neither a genuine being, nor a genuine unity and therefore does not possess a genuine cause, in the ontological sense which I have explained."

 

 

From "A Preface to Metaphysics: Seventh Lecture"

 

Jacques Maritain was one of the foremost Catholic philosophers of the 20th century.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Addendum: 

 

One asks: cannot chance be predicted mathematically, and what is the significance of that?

 

To understand the theory of chance, we must distinguish what is necessary from what is accidental.

 

The fact that a second billiard ball picks up the momentum that a first loses upon collision with it, is essential. However, the numbers that the billiard balls have (e.g. speed, direction, and position) are accidental (non necessary). It is these numbers that determine whether the balls collide or not.

 

With this in mind, all real beings have what is known as *Poincare resonances.* A Poincare resonance is a point in a thing where its equations divide be zero. As a result, the behavior of it is undetermined. It is set "free" at that point. God as prime mover then can decide what its trajectory it, and adjust its numbers while respecting the physical laws of the thing (while not resorting to miracle). With such adjustments on things, God can decide whether causal lines intersect or not.

 

 

----

----

----

 

Why Catholicism is the Truth

Why Catholicism is the Truth
------------------------------

 

-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea


How do we know which religion is the true one? Is there any way to arbitrate the various truth claims of the different religions of the world to determine which one is the truth? Most people would automatically say that such a thing cannot be done - that the religion that one chooses is personal - that the one chosen by oneself, is merely that which helps one best in life.

The thesis here, is that an objective philosophical method exists to determine which is the true Faith. When that method is employed, the true religion turns out to be Catholic Christianity. What is this method, and how do we employ it to reach such a conclusion?


All religions and philosophical systems can be classified as to whether they adhere to *univocity,* *equivocity,* or the *analogy of being.* Only the analogy of being is the truth and is that to which Catholic Christianity subscribes fully. Any other religion or philosophical system is in error to the degree that it follows either univocity or equivocity. For example, Hinduism follows univocity and Islam follows equivocity. These are two errors on both sides of the analogy of being.

To explain this, univocity is the principle of an exaggerated oneness between things. In Hinduism, that follows univocity, everything is manifestations of one type of "stuff" which is Brahman. Everything is collapsed into one. As a result, God and creation are one. This position is also known as *monism.*

Equivocity, on the other hand, maintains that all things in existence are unique individuals with nothing in common. Equivocity is the principle of exaggerated separation of all things from one another. The position that physical objects are unique, with nothing in common, is known as *nominalism.* For example, with nominalism, two chairs are unique individuals with nothing in common. The only thing that they have in common is the name we give them - "chair." Nominalism is the metaphysical basis of equivocity. With equivocity, God is completely transcendent to creation in a way that He has nothing in common with creation and the mind of man cannot reach Him with his understanding. Between God and creation is an unbridgeable gap. Islam subscribes to this in that God reveals primarily His will. If we obey Him, we receive eternal paradise. If we disobey Him, we receive eternal hell-fire - no questions asked. We can have no internalized knowledge of God and He does not enter into a relationship with us. In Islam, God is completely distant. Classical Protestantism also follows equivocity in that God only reveals Himself through Scripture alone and Faith alone. We cannot reason to God or have an internalized knowledge of Him (as Catholicism claims we can).


The analogy of being, on which Catholic Christianity is based, steers between univocity and equivocity. Things are neither collapsed into one, nor are they radically unique. Things have difference and sameness between them at the same time. This is the core principle of the analogy of being and is the core of what constitutes the good, the true, and the beautiful. For example, with the analogy of being, two cats are distinct individuals, but have a common reality "catness" as their essence between them. Essences are the fundamental units of intelligibility that indicate to the human intellect what type of thing that a thing is. All things in existence, although they have their distinct individualities (or *subsistences* technically speaking) are connected to each other through different levels of commonality (e.g. all animals are connected through the generic essence "animalness" which is an objectively real principle that connects all animals).

With the analogy of being, God is both *transcendent* and *immanent.* The transcendence of God means that He is totally other - that He exists in a unique individuality (in three individuals because He is a Trinity) and that none of His being is confused or melded with creation. The immanence of God, on the other hand, means that He is infinitely close to creation as conserver of its existence and as prime move of it. Furthermore, God has a commonality with creation because creation has some similarity to God. Creation mirrors God. If we can see that creation is good and beautiful we have some understanding of the goodness and beauty of God who created it. As well, we can enter into a personal relationship with God so that God can become our Father. In this, there is no remoteness with God. We are one family with God. But at the same time, we and God are not all mushed together. The Father is a distinct individual from His children, even though they live under one roof. That seems to be the only sane way to go.

Ontologically, all things, if they are to have integrity and goodness, must adhere to the analogy of being. This means that their component elements must have the right balance of sameness and difference between them. The essence of evil is the violation of this. Evil is not one thing opposed to goodness, but two things on both sides of goodness. Evil occurs when something falls into either an equivocal or a univocal disorder - when the component parts are either mushed together or unduly separated. To give a general example, pedophilia or bestiality would be wrong (on a basic level) because there is too much of a difference between the sexual partners. That is an equivocal disorder. Homosexuality is wrong for the opposite reason. There is too much of a sameness between the sexual partners because they are of the same sex. Proper conjugal union between husband and wife is right because it follows the analogy of being in that there is a proper balance between sameness and difference. A lustful embrace is wrong because it is a univocal disorder in that one is attempting to absorb the other into oneself.

Could Hinduism be nothing but cosmic lust? Could Islam be nothing but cosmic dictatorship in which an alien God arbitrarily imposes His will on man? (note that when a society subscribes to Islam, people are generally dictatorial in their relationships with each other - politically and in the family. A people behaves in the manner that they conceive their God).


The core principle of the analogy of being is that the different things within the sphere of reality have sameness and difference at the same time with respect to each other. The essence of the true, good, and beautiful is conformity to the analogy of being. In fact, a thing in its integrity must conform to the analogy of being in how its component parts relate to each other. Its component parts must have the right balance of sameness and difference with respect to each other for it to conform to goodness. For example, the organs in a proper healthy human body have a biological similarity and complementarity with respect to each other, while at the same time having their proper distinctiveness.

Everything true in the Catholic Faith conforms to the analogy of being on the supernatural level (which is the supernatural analogy of being). The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass does this. In the Mass is sameness and difference at the same time. The Mass is one and the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Calvary, but the Mass and Calvary are physically two different actions. In the Eucharist is sameness and difference at the same time. The Eucharist is one and the same Jesus Christ, but is both our food and Jesus Christ at the same time. The Eucharist is one and the same as Jesus Christ, but has the accidents or appearances of bread and not the accidents or appearances of Jesus Christ as He exists in glory.


Jesus Christ is the supreme expression of the analogy of being (as expressed by Hans Urs von Balthasar). Jesus has sameness and difference at the same time. He is one divine person - the Word or the second person of the Trinity - but has two natures - a human and a divine. He is creature and creator in one divine person. He is the bridge between heaven and earth, rendering them both the same and different at the same time.

The Trinity is the supreme expression of the analogy of being in an absolute and primary sense. Within the Trinity is sameness and difference at the same time. There is sameness because the Trinity is one being or one God. At the same time, there is difference because the Trinity is three distinct persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the analogy of being that has existed from all eternity before all worlds. The Trinity is the archetype and the prime cause of the analogy of being in anything else.


The analogy of being in creation is nothing but a pattern of the analogy of being that exists in the Trinity. A woman's face would be beautiful only because the component features of her face follows the analogy of being with all the features of her face having the right balance of sameness and difference at the same time (according to a logic that is a mystery to us). Similarly, a sunset is only beautiful because the component elements of cloud, light, and color all have a proper balance of sameness and difference, conforming to the analogy of being.

The proper balance of sameness and difference in whatever is good, true, and beautiful is a copy of the proper balance of sameness and difference which is the Trinity. A certain invariable "logic" determines how the pattern of the Trinity maps onto creation in the analogy of being. But this logic is a mystery since it involves an infinite process that escapes any rationalization of man through a finite system of logical deduction. We cannot determine *a priori* how sameness and difference must mix to render something in accordance with the analogy of being. But the astute observer can recognize it when he sees it. The creative impulse of man (that goes beyond logic) can produce it (such as in art literature, music. These are good and rightly pleasing if their component parts have the right balance of sameness and difference at the same time).

The analogy of being is the secret of existence. It is *the* philosophical oracle. Evil is any deviation from the analogy of being on either side, falling into either univocity or equivocity. With univocity, the difference component is not respected in that things are made too similar in being "mushed" together. With equivocity, the sameness component is not respected in things being made unduly alike from one another or in things being unduly separated from one another. Any ugliness, unnaturalness, or unintelligibility occurs because the analogy of being is being violated with a deviation into either univocity or equivocity (often an evil thing or situation is a complex mix of univocity and equivocity). For example, in aesthetics, something "clashes" when an equivocal disorder is present. Something is "dull" when a univocal disorder is present. And something is "coordinated" when the analogy of being is followed. Anything inappropriate has violated the analogy of being (however else we may analyze it). Univocity and Equivocity are the dipolar secret names for evil. Remember, the devil has two horns.

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Profundity of Catholicism

The Profundity of Catholicism

-------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

 

 

People of the world have a false conception of Catholicism.

They think of it as dry old dogmas which are not connected to real life and as arbitrary moral rules that stand in the way of true freedom. The mainstream media presents the Catholic Church this way.

However, there is an infinite distance between the caricature and the reality.

In reality, Catholicism expresses the deepest dynamism and nature of life and reality. It is the perfect expression of the true, the good, and the beautiful.

The world that is in opposition to it is an expression of extreme ugliness. Take the example of the modern "progressive" immodestly dressed woman or girl. Here, both modesty and femininity have been departed from. We have a specter of round fleshy bodies with faces as hard and sharp as nails. The modern world is imbalanced one way or the other, while avoiding the mean where the true good is found - where Jesus Christ is found.

Many are of the impression that Catholicism is for stupid people. This misconception is held also by many evangelical Protestants with their often too-bright and too-much-on-the-surface joy.

However, as far as truth goes, nothing is deeper or more profound than the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

It says in the "Imitation of Christ"




"The more a man is united within himself, and interiorly simple, the more and higher things doth he understand without labor; because he receiveth the light of understanding from above."

 

(Bk. I, Ch. 3)




The more pure a person is, the subtler, profounder, and higher realities he is able to grasp with his mind.

In heaven, as we ascend through the nine choirs of angels, which are the nine grades of being in heaven, the knowledge there becomes subtler, deeper, and more profound.

But as it becomes subtler, deeper, and more profound, it also becomes simpler, easier, more obvious, and more intelligible - and there is an increasing delectability in that knowledge.

There exists infinite potential grades of depth and profundity of knowledge (outside of what has actually been created) going higher and higher, leading right to the abode of the Blessed Trinity. In the abode of the Trinity there is both infinite profundity and infinite simplicity. Only God is capable of understanding all truth, absolutely simply and comprehensively. The rest of us can be given more or less a share of that.

But it is all important to point out that our love must grow in proportion to the truth that we have; for the knowledge that we have is there only for the sake of our expressions of love or agape.

Catholicism has all truth and all love contained within it, which is incarnated in Jesus Christ. It is our life's journey to unpack that more and more.

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Priority of the Objectively Important

The Priority of the Objectively Important

Over the Subjectively Satisfying

---------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-------------------

By Jim J. McCrea

 

 

Often an argument is put forth that if God were all good He would want His creatures to be perfectly happy, and if He were all powerful He would be able to do what He wanted; because there is suffering in the world and a lack of perfect happiness, God is either not all powerful, not all good, or both.

 

That reasoning seems logical; however, it is predicated upon an idea of God that is radically impoverished.

 

The assumption is, that an all loving and all good God would desire to give us *subjective* goods - such as pleasure, happiness, joy, peace, and fulfillment, and that is it - that a good God would merely wish to facilitate the *subjectively satisfying* for us.

 

However, God wills us to abide in *objective* goodness - that is, to adhere to the *objectively important* (what is important in itself). The objectively important in its fullness and perfection is true love. The true definition of love is willing the good of the other for the sake of the other and not for what one can get out of it - that is, to will things such as reverence, truth, justice, faithfulness, charity, kindness, and mercy towards other persons; and to give honor, glory, and satisfaction for sins to God. The first and second commandments are to love God and to love neighbor as oneself (Matt. 22:34-40).

 

 

That is the problem. Since we do not properly will the objective good, or what is good in itself before any personal advantage can be gained - because there is selfishness in all of us to varying degrees - suffering exists in the world.

 

Even suffering due to things beyond our control and due to factors that may appear to be nobody's fault, such as disease, natural disaster, and accident are due to disharmonies within ourselves, with each other, with the physical world, and with God. Those disharmonies are due to Original Sin (both the original sin of Lucifer and the original sin of Adam).

 

All humans have what is known as "concupiscence," which is a tendency to sin within us which was inherited from our First Parents, because of their Fall in the Garden, and which is exacerbated by our personal sins.

 

 

Many of the problems that we have today in society, stem from the fact that with many people the subjectively satisfying is sought while the objectively important is ignored. For example, many marriages break down because one of the spouses is not "happy" or is "no longer in love." He or she forgets that love is primarily a decision to will the good of the other and is not primarily a feeling (that is not to say that there are not legitimate reasons to separate from a spouse, such as a situation of abuse. This refers to those who selfishly base their decision on a calculus of "happiness," thus trampling underfoot their sacred obligations).

 

Today we live in a culture of death because much law, court decision, public policy, and popular culture facilitate the subjectively satisfying while ignoring the objectively important. In Western society, many "rights" are based on that. In the sexual sphere this is done by the social acceptance of pre-marital sex, the legal sale of contraceptives, legal abortion, homosexual "marriage," legal pornography, and no-fault divorce (in the past Western society shunned or outlawed those things for the greater good). In the economic sphere this is done by employers extracting the benefit of work from employees but not giving them a just wage in return, workers taking a salary and not putting in an honest day's work, and in dealers who work the financial or stock markets so that they reap a profit but do not produce any real value in return.

 

A Culture of Life and a Civilization of Love would be a true Christian society. It would disallow the above evils and promote the true good of the human person, and put in place legal and societal structures based upon true justice. That would bring true peace, tranquility, happiness, and prosperity to society. Such a civilization would facilitate the objectively important through law and social custom.

 

 

With the individual life, it is a principle that the subjectively satisfying must never be sought for its own sake, but that it must only be the consequent of the objectively important.

 

For example, sexual pleasure is the proper consequent of the objective goods of the union of spouses in one flesh and the begetting of children. The pleasure of eating is the proper consequent of the objective good of nutrition. That is why things such as artificial contraception and fornication are wrong, and why vomiting just for the pleasure of eating more food is wrong. For then, subjective pleasure is being extracted while discarding the objective good it should be based upon.

 

Even recreation and entertainment are not to be sought as a mere means to pleasure, but should be engaged in so that one can be refreshed and better do one's duty in life. For the perfect man or woman, that is the strict rule by which recreation and entertainment are governed. For him or her, the objectively important is the sole rule of action and the subjectively satisfying takes care of itself.

 

 

Sometimes it is asked that if heaven is perfect happiness, then why do we not wish to die now so as to enjoy that happiness now; or if heaven's happiness is the point of existing, why are we not allowed to kill ourselves so that we can get there immediately.

 

The answer to that is that the purpose of this life is to build within us and perfect within us an orientation towards the objectively important . Only when that process is completed, which is done in the time that God allots us on earth, can we enjoy perfect and eternally stable happiness in heaven (reward is to be the expectation and not the motive for our actions).

 

Heaven is not God spoon feeding us happiness, but the happiness of heaven flows from the objectively important which is first. This orientation to the objectively important is to be constructed in our time on earth. The objectively important in its perfection, in heaven, is the perfect love of God, the angels, and the blessed, without a shadow of self-interest. Only with this perfectly pure disinterested love in heaven can we enjoy a happiness which is perfectly pure and eternal.

 

The paradox is, when there is still self interest in our motivations, happiness for us cannot be perfectly pure and eternally stable, but contains within it some dissatisfaction and the seeds of its dissolution. That is why in this life, where we are imperfect, the dark night of the soul usually follows a period of emotional prosperity. God uses the suffering that comes out of that imperfection to further purify us. Enjoying perfect and eternally stable happiness in heaven is the reason why Jesus said that we must be made perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48).

 

Jesus said that, not to burden us with an impossible ideal, but because of His perfect love for us. We must trust that He can provide what is beyond our own power to give ourselves. That is embodied in the theological virtue of hope.

 

 

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

The Logic of the Trinity

The Logic of the Trinity
------------------------





-------------------
By Jim J. McCrea


The Trinity is a mystery. Yet it is intelligible. It is an intelligible mystery.

With the Trinity, three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit exist as one God.

We cannot derive that fact by reason. It must be revealed by God for us to know that.

No finite intelligence can derive the truth of the Trinity. In fact, it had to have been revealed to the highest of the seraphim for them to know that.

However, given its revelation, we can come to an understanding of how it is logical and intelligible that God is a Trinity. For God is Pure and Absolute Intelligibility, and the revelation of His inner structure sheds light on our mind so that we can, in part, penetrate its logic.

There exists an underlying and necessary logic as to why God exists and why He is the way He is. He is not like a god, for example, in Hinduism, which is contrived and which can be logically an infinite number of ways other than it is.

The persons of the Trinity are defined by their relationships: The Father generates the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Now it can be understood logically why this is so and what constitutes them, given their revelation, in the light of the theological virtue of faith and the gift of the Holy Spirit of wisdom.

Considering God as God, all things in existence require a first cause which explains them, which itself is not caused.

This cause being absolutely first, would have no limits whatsoever, and would have all possible positive attributes to an infinite degree. This is because being the Absolute First it would be subject to nothing, therefore, nothing limits it. God's name is simply "I Am" (Exodus 3:14) which is not "I Am such and such" which contains a qualifier which is a limitation. God's infinity is one way of defining God, for when we say "God" we must give a definition for that term. This fact of God's existence and infinity can be derived by reason alone, as God's existence is most intelligible and natural for the human intellect to hold. Atheism is an unnatural aberration.

Considering God as a Trinity, when it is revealed that the Father, who is God, generates a term who is equal to Him and who is also God, it can be demonstrated that it is eminently logical that this is so.

God, having all possible positive attributes is Infinite Life and contains all that life can possibly possess.

Now it is a property of life to be generative and fruitful. God who is Infinite Life would be necessarily infinitely generative and fruitful. Infinite Life's act of generating would be as necessary and as infinite as its other attributes, and that which is generated by it would necessarily be also infinite, which is the definition of God. Thus with the Father begetting His Son, God comes from God.

The Son is known as the Word of the Father because He is the Father's one infinite thought which contains all truth (John 1:1).

Now truth must have some content and the highest truth that exists, is that of love. Therefore the truth that the Son is, is the infinite love of Himself and the Father. Conversely, the essence of the Father, being the greatest thing possible, is His love for Himself and for the Son.

It is logical that this love is not sterile, for it is only fitting for the Infinite that this love be fruitful in another person, who is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father proceeding from them as a distinct person, as this procession is according to a single principle. It is a single principle because in the Father/Son love relationship there is an absolute unity of interest, as a division of interest (which would be the logical result of the procession of two Holy Spirits) is contrary to the Supreme Perfection which is God.

The Holy Spirit, unlike the Son, it not generated, but proceeds by elicitation. The Father and the Son's love for each other elicit the Holy Spirit from each other (as theologians say, passively). And, like the Father and the Son, this term of procession of the Holy Spirit would be infinite, who also is God.

Although each person of the Trinity, each being God, has all possible positive attributes, the theologians maintain that the Son proceeds *specifically* from intellectual generation of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds *specifically* from the mutual love between the Father and the Son.

Why is this so?

This is so because of the *forms* of the two processions.

When we consider God as God, apart from the persons, He is that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived. As a result, He must be all good things together.

When we consider the Father generating the Son, we see that it is a that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived generating a that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived (infinite A generating infinite B). Now the highest form of generating is a thinker generating a thought. Therefore, God generating God is specifically an infinite thinker generating an infinite thought.

With the Holy Spirit, that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived proceeds from two persons, each which is that-which-a-greater-cannot-be-conceived (infinite C proceeding from infinite A and infinite B). Now the highest possible form of such mutuality between two beings is the sharing of love. Therefore, God proceeding from God and God is specifically infinite love being shared between two infinite persons.

However, it is a principle that God is absolutely simple, in that all of His attributes are identical to each other - His love, His intellect, His knowledge, His power, His beauty, etc. are all one and the same as each other. God must be absolutely simple because if He were not, and He were composed of distinct components, His parts and the principle of their composition would be in some manner prior to Him, contradicting His absolute primacy (this fact of God's simplicity can be derived from reason).

As a result, when the Son proceeds from the Father by intellectual generation and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by mutual love, the persons of the Trinity do not have different natures or essences whereby the Father is specifically thinker, the Son is specifically thought, and the Holy Spirit is specifically love. Because of the divine simplicity, the Father is thought and love as well as thinker; the Son is thinker and love as well as thought; and the Holy Spirit it thinker and thought as well as love. As a result, all three persons are thinker, thought, and love.

With this, there is an identity of essence with the three persons. Each is infinite, therefore, one does not lack what the others have or possess what the others do not. As a result, in themselves, there is a complete identity between the persons. They are distinguished only by their *relations of origin.* The only difference between the Father and the Son is in the fact that the Father generates the Son, and the only difference between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is in the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The differences between the persons are those of relation and not those of being, therefore, they are one being. That is why they are one God.

This analysis of the Trinity is exceedingly complex for the discursive reason, but the idea analyzed is exceedingly simple in itself. It is the necessary logic of infinite B proceeding from infinite A, and infinite C proceeding from infinite A and infinite B. Picture a triangle with vertices A, B, and C, with two arrows going out of A, one arrow going into and one arrow going out of B, and two arrows going into C. That is the diagram of God who is both infinite and absolutely simple.

However, no matter how clear and intelligible an explanation of the Trinity that can be given, and no matter how clearly we can understand it, it is still a mystery to us. This is because the intelligibility of God is infinite and we have only a finite grasp.

God in Himself is infinitely more clear, simple, understandable, and natural than the idea or vision of any finite intellect that grasps Him.

He who is the core of all reality, is eminently logical, but infinitely more so than a finite mind can understand.


** End-note 1 - It may be asked if God as God is infinite life, why does not the Son and the Holy Spirit generate a son, as they are both God? The answer to this is that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished by their relations of origin. What defines the Father within the Trinity is the fact that He generates the Son. What defines the Son is that He is in the relation of being generated. And the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit because He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Generation in God belongs to God as generating, which is precisely the Father, which is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit.

** End-note 2 - If God is Pure Being, it may be asked that if that implies all attributes, why does He not also contain the attributes of evil? The answer to this is that evil is not another attribute along with good, but is the absence of good (precisely the absence of good where it is due). Thus the pairs good/evil, truth/falsehood, beauty/ugliness, love/hatred are contradictories. A contradictory cannot exist in the same thing in the same respect at the same time. As a result, if God is infinite good, that would exclude all evil. If God is Being, then He would have good as opposed to evil, as good is being and evil is non-being.





----
----
----

The Transcendental Properties of Being

The Transcendental Properties of Being

----------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

-------------------

by Jim J. McCrea

 

 

Philosophers have pointed out that being or that-which-exists has universal characteristics. These are known as the transcendental properties of being.

 

Classically, four have been identified - these are *unity,* *truth,* *goodness,* and *beauty.*

 

 

Unity means that all true beings have a oneness to them. A given thing is one thing. For example, many parts go into constituting one automobile. However, if the automobile is made multiple by disassembling it, an automobile no longer exists. A heap of automobile parts is not an automobile. It is only their proper assembly into a unity that makes it an automobile.

 

The truth of things is their intelligibility. When we look around us and observe clouds, houses, people etc. we understand what we are seeing as meaningful and intelligible. We do not merely register a meaningless pattern of sensations.

 

Goodness means that all proper beings fulfill a need or a desire in another - for example the mother hen is for her chicks, the rain is for the earth, and male is for female. All true beings have this service dimension (in a moment I will get to what happens when something doesn't have this).

 

Beauty is that which pleases when seen (as is the definition of St. Thomas Aquinas). Everything is beautiful in the measure it has being. Beauty has: (1) Integrity, which means that everything that is supposed to pertain to a given being is present; (2) Proportion, which means that all of its components are related to each other in a right and harmonious way; and (3) Clarity, in which it is meaningful and intelligible (and which can also mean that it has brightness of color).

 

 

The transcendentals are convertible with each other. This means that they are simply different names for the same reality - being. Although they refer to the one reality of being, they differ as concepts. The Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, said that many concepts are required for the one reality of being because being is too rich to be captured by a single concept.

 

It is noteworthy that the universe has this qualitative structure of the transcendental properties of being. One would expect a purely random (but existing) universe to be a gray even gas all at the same temperature.

 

 

Now what about the opposite of the transcendentals? What about what is *divided,* what is *unintelligible,* what is *evil,* and what is *ugly?*

 

When these opposites exist, they exist because of a *lack* of being in a thing. They are not beings in themselves. They exist not because of any lack, but because of a lack of what is *due.* For example, lack of wings to fly in a man is not an evil because wings to fly are not due to a man according to his nature. But lack of sight is a physical evil because it is due.

 

Similarly, something divided, something unintelligible, and something ugly denote a lack of what is due in a thing - it is the *not* unified, the *not* intelligible, and the *not* beautiful.

 

As mentioned, all true beings are good and are of service to other beings. An example of how that is subverted is with a cancer tumor. It does not serve the physical body but turns against it. A cancer tumor is not a being but is an aggregate of beings - it is a group of individual cells growing wildly and independently. With this condition of being an aggregate, there is a lack of unity. It is ugly, which means that it lacks beauty. And being disorded, it lacks intelligibility.

 

 

Now finite unity, truth, goodness, and beauty must have a standard by which they are compared, to be measured by. This would be Unity Itself, Truth Itself, Goodness Itself, and Beauty Itself, which would necessarily be the maximum possible which is infinite. This infinite unity, truth, goodness, and beauty we call God, who is Being Itself (not being in a limited mode as are finite things). Thus God's name is "I Am" (Exodus 3:14). He is not "I am such and such" denoting a qualifier which would be a limitation.

 

The absence of the transcendentals - that is, division, unintelligibility, evil, and ugliness - since they are parasites in being, which is a lack of something that is due, do not have an absolute standard which is the greatest of themselves. No infinite and absolute division, unintelligibility, evil, and ugliness exist, but are referred to and measured according to the positive transcendentals, defined as a lack of them. 

 

Infinite goodness in God means that God is love (1 John 4:8), and will completely fulfill all our longings for perfect and absolute love in heaven. Infinite truth in God means that He is Pure and Absolute Intelligibility - He is the ultimate "logic" of reality which will completely quench our thirst to know the ultimate reason for things. Infinite beauty means that the vision of His essence will give infinite pleasure to the soul. Infinite unity means that there is absolutely no division in God to the extent that there is no distinction of parts. All His attributes are identical to each other and to His very being. His love is one and the same as His omnipotence, and His omnipotence is the same thing as His intellect and knowledge, and all of that is His very self. With that absolute unity or simplicity, God is infinitely pure, rendering infinite joy for completely purified souls in heaven. The absolute purity of God is expressed by the statement: Nothing exists in God but what is identically God.

 

God will give us all that in heaven forever provided that we are faithful to Him.

 

 

Now God created us solely so that we can abide eternally and with full consciousness in that Infinitely Ravishing Reality which is Himself, which will give us infinite happiness forever. God has done this simply because of His love for us.

 

That is why Jesus came to earth to die on the Cross for our sins. It is the reason why He founded the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

It is up to us, in this life, to accept or refuse that offer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----

----

----

 

Answering the Atheists

Answering the Atheists

-----------------------

 

 

 

-------------------

by Jim J. McCrea

 

 

 

Belief in God is the only rational position.

 

God is not like an orbiting teapot or the flying spaghetti monster which, if they exist, are finite contingent beings which would require empirical observation to verify their existence.

 

Rather, the existence of God is arrived at by deductive reasoning based on first principles.

 

 

First of all, we observe a physical universe that exists and exists in a particular way.

 

Now it is logically possible for the universe to not exist or to exist in a way other than it does (and this is true for any given thing in the universe). This is what is meant by its contingency.

 

Contingent being, then, requires the existence of a being that is non-contingent or necessary to explain it - that cannot not exist and which must exist in the manner that it does - that being is called God. God is not meant to explain a gap in our knowledge of the physical universe or explain *a particular* contingent being (as does the physical sciences), but contingent being in general. Thus knowledge of God is derived from metaphysics rather than physics.

 

Logically, such a necessary being - God - must be both infinite and absolutely simple. His absolute simplicity means that He has no parts whatsoever and there is a complete identity between all His attributes and His very being (so logically He would not be one of a pantheon of mythic gods which are finite and composite, which answers the skeptic's question of how we know that our God is the true God).

 

God is the cause of anything else that exists or can possibly exist, therefore is necessarily and logically prior to anything actual or possible. Therefore, He is subject to nothing (either actually or potentially), so therefore has no limitations, establishing His infinity. God must be absolutely simple, for if He were not, both His parts and their composition would be in some manner prior to Himself, thus contradicting His absolute primacy.

 

 

God must be "He" and not "it" because God must be personal. If He were impersonal, then man having a personal nature would rank above God, which is absurd. For the personal is always greater than the impersonal. An impersonal absolute is a contradiction in terms.

 

In fact, God's Revelation (His telling us) shows us that He is three divine persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - in one God, which is the primary mystery of the Catholic Christian Faith.

 

The second revealed truth to the Trinity is that of the Incarnation - that God the Son - the Word - assumed a human nature and lived among us as a man in history, saving us from our sins and ignorances by His Life, Sufferings, Death on the Cross, and Resurrection in Glory, so that we can enjoy eternal and perfect happiness with Him in heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

----

----

----