Way One Analyzed Logically

This post may be out of the blue for a few people out there, but I thought I'd share it anyways. It's not too often you come across an analytic understanding of Aquinas' first 'proof' of God's existence...and a good one at that. Below the analytic thomist explains:

Defending Aquinas's First Way: "Whatever is Moved is Moved by Another"

Let's define what I will call the notion of change per se. Intuitively, something changes something else per se if it is the most immediate and proper cause of the change. For instance, my hand pushes a stick which pushes a ball. Here is a somewhat more formal definition of changing per se, which we will call (PS):

(PS) x is changing per se something y with respect to feature P just in case (i) x is changing y with respect to feature P, (ii) x's action taken alone is sufficient for changing y with respect to P, and (iii) the action of any proper part of x taken alone is not sufficient for changing y with respect to P. [def.]

This definition can be made somewhat more precise, but the concept should be clear. The idea behind what I've called change per se is that whatever changes something else per se is the thing that changes y in the most immediate sense and a sense more proper than other things. So, for instance, take the following objects: Me, my hand, my hand's atoms, and a stick. When my hand changes the location of the stick, I can be said to change the location of the stick; however, I cannot be said to change its location per se, since, arguably, if somehow my hand persisted in its motion without the rest of my body, it would still be sufficient for the stick's changing with respect to its location (contra iii). On the other hand, arguably, my hand, or at least some part of it, changes the stick's location per se, since clearly it can be said to be changing the stick's location, thus satisfying (i), it arguably satisfies (ii) for the reasons stated, and it satisfies (iii) since if you removed most of the hand but left a few of the atoms in motion it would not be able to bring about the stick's change of location. Now maybe you will disagree with my example and say that given my definition the hand does not change the stick's location per se, but it should be enough to at least illustrate what I'm trying to get at.

(EXT) x is an object external to y just in case x is not y and x is not a part of y.

Now we need the following premises. I will translate them into symbols, and from my translations it should be clear which formulas correspond to which English phrases.

(1) For all x, if x is changed with respect to P by something y then there is some actual thing z which is changing x with respect to P.

Translation 1: ∀x[∃yCxy→∃z(Az∧Cxz)]

(2) For all x and y, if y is actual and x is changed per se with respect to P by y, then y is either an object external to x or y is a proper part of x.

Translation: 2: ∀x∀y[(Ay∧Dxy)→(Eyx∨Pyx)]

(3) For all x, if x is changed with respect to P by something actual y, then there is a z which is actual and changing x per se with respect to P.

Translation 3: ∀x[∃y(Ay∧Cxy)→∃z(Az∧Dxz)]

(4) For all x and y, if y is changing x per se with respect to P, then y is changing x with respect to P

Translation 4: ∀x∀y(Dxy→Cxy)

(5) For all x and y, if x is external to y, then x is not identical to y.

Translation 5: ∀x∀y(Exy→x≠y)

(6) For all x and y, if x is a proper part of y, then x is not identical to y.

Translation 6: ∀x∀y(Pxy→x≠y)

Now, given all the above premises 1-6 we can prove:

(7) For all x, if x is changed with respect to P by some y, then x is changed by some non-identical z.

Translation 7: ∀x(∃yC(xy)→∃z(D(xz)∧x≠z))

I won't explain the proof here; instead, for anyone who doubts me, I have attached a formal proof below. From 7 and 4 of course it follows that whatever is changed with respect to P is changed by some non-identical z: That is to say, whatever is changed is changed by another. I'll leave the relatively simple proof to the reader.

Proof of 7:

For those looking to understand the symbolism if you haven't taken a serious logic class, you can start here. 

However, you don't need to understand the symbols to understand the post. This is not just because the meanings of the expressions are given before each (and you can make up identities to make them make sense, for example x=a dog, y= a cat etc, and then apply them to motion in general) but also because the whole idea can be written in a paragraph summary. (but far less succinctly than a logical sentence) My comments are in blue and emphasis in bold. Aquinas' first proof for God states the following:

[The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion [Some debate that, but they can go walk in front of a bus...]. Now whatever is in motion [x] is put in motion by another[y], for nothing can be in motion except if it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion [everything is goal directed, moving towards a certain end state]; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. [There is always an instigator which makes the potential actualized.] Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. [Wood doesn't become hot by itself.] Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot [it can be potentially hotter, but not potentially hot]; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.[An ongoing chain of motion, but not like dominos as we are talking about act and potency...this is an atemporal causal relationship] But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. [In the Aristotelian view, the motion of objects is a single event, which I will speak about below.] Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.]

The distinction between cause and effect in the modern and classical viewpoints is something which needs to be clarified, as it has not even been done by the preceding article. Unlike the classical view (the view according to which the above was written) the modern view sees cause and effect not one “necessary” event given the nature of those beings that are involved (Aquinas) but rather are coincidental conjunction because of temporal (immediate) relation. (¹⁵ Rosenberg, Alexander. The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. Print. 34. “In our experience, things can only happen in one direction: a match can’t go from being put out to being lit to being struck. But at the basement level of reality, the opposite of any sequence of events can and does happen. Given the present state of the universe, the  basic laws of physics can’t determine in which temporal direction we are headed.”) On this view,  the best way to study reality is to fragment event and identify the most temporally successive but immediate element as cause to some effect. 

This means finding the cause per se, as spoken of above. As a result of the modern world looking to a mechanical explanation of things as sufficient for explanation, the concept of causes outside of the merely mechanical fell to the side. These were (and are) the formal and final causes which are no longer even understood to apply to the above text from Aquinas, as he intended them. Because of this most people when they read the above, the see it as a situation where the last domino fell and so therefore another domino must have hit the penultimate and another before that one and so on back, these people miss the most powerful aspect of this 'proof' and ridicule it as "too simplistic" or dependent on a belief that infinite regress is not possible. However, this is a purely mechanical account of causation, as mentioned. As EA Burt says in his History of Modern Science:

First, the real world in which man lives is no longer regarded as a world of substances possessed of as many ultimate qualities as can be experienced in them, but has become a world of atoms (now electrons), equipped with none but mathematical characteristics and moving according to laws fully statable in mathematical form. Second, explanations in terms of forms and final causes of events, both in this world and in the less independent realm of mind, have been definitely set aside in favor of explanations in terms of their simplest elements, the latter related temporally as efficient causes, and being mechanically treatable motions of bodies wherever it is possible to so regard them. In connexion with this aspect of the change, God ceased to be regarded as a Supreme Final Cause, and, where still believed in, became the First Efficient Cause of the world.

However, to acknowledge that bodies greater than the parts which make them up exist (a human is different than atoms) means that there is a potential in a human being that is not in any combination of atoms. Actually...to even ascribe an identity to an atom is to admit of formal and final causality, as I have harped on before. 

The point of this post is make sure that the first proof of Aquinas' is not read in with a mere 'modern' understanding. Unfortunately the analysis above stops at infinite regress (7) but it makes it does very clearly lay out the idea of a cause per se, which not all effects are the results of. It is a very logical presentation of proof one, but could use a bit more Aristotle. 

Sound Familiar to Anyone? Pope Francis vs. Pope Benedict.

“Solving the pastoral problems that present themselves in your dioceses must never limit itself to organizational questions, however important these may be. This [approach] risks placing an emphasis on seeking efficiency through a sort of 'bureaucratization of pastoral care,' focused on structures, organizations and programs, ones which can become 'self-referential,' at the exclusive use of the members of those structures. These would have scarce impact on the life of Christians who are distanced from regular practice [of the faith]. Instead, evangelization requires starting from the encounter with the Lord, within a dialogue rooted in prayer, which then concentrates on the witness of giving itself toward the end of helping the people of our time to recognize and discover anew the signs of the presence of God.”

–Pope Benedict XVI

Ad Limina Address to the Bishops of Western France

Castel Gandolfo

21 September 2012

Existential peripheries anyone?

Many people and the media continue to set pope Francis against Pope Benedict. The title of the picture to the right was "Good guy Pope Francis" on the popular secular site, Imgur. So Benedict was the bad guy? Again its hard to expect people so far from the customs of Catholicism to understand the significance of points 1-7 on the right. Most prefer to interpret to exclaim "look at the difference in humility!" To assume that Pope Benedict was interested in fame or applause based on what he was wearing or what surrounded him is a bit of a leap, but not too far of one for those who do not understand what it is intended to communicate. He sought to teach us the importance of honoring what transcends us (not us, but Christ and the institution he founded). As C.S. Lewis said:

"Above all, you must be rid of the hideous idea, fruit of a widespread inferiority complex, that pomp, on the proper occasions, has any connexion with vanity or self-conceit. A celebrant approaching the altar, a princess led out by a king to dance a minuet, a general officer on a ceremonial parade, a major-domo preceding the boar’s head at a Christmas feast — all these wear unusual clothes and move with calculated dignity. This does not mean that they are vain, but that they are obedient; they are obeying the hoc age which presides over every solemnity. The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender’s inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual." C. S. Lewis, A Preface to Paradise Lost

Francis' emphasis is poverty and not wasting is not opposed to gold and pomp in principle, but rather he is using the removal of it surrounding him as an opportunity to teach a principle, an action which can be misinterpreted. This is because all of Christ's teachings have been present since the Church was born, they have simply received different emphasis at different times. One pope may focus on teaching ways in which we could honor God and his work more and another time a pope may teach about the importance of humility in doing so. It is "both/and." Pope Francis does not have to do Pope Benedict's work all over again, he can put his effort into making progress in other areas (teaching humility) as the below interview points out. 

The Vatican Insider had an interview with a bishop in France that is right on the money: 

Towards the Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on liturgy that will take place in Rome June 25-28

ALESSANDRO SPECIALEROME

Liturgy was one of the main concerns of Pope Benedict’s pontificate. But with the election of Francis the priorities have clearly changed, shifting the focus of the Church from its internal concerns to the world and especially those many who live at its “periphery.”

Yet, the Bishop of Fréjus-Toulon, Dominique Rey, wants to reassure those Catholics who think that the moment for “liturgical renewal” – a shorthand definition for a return to a more solemn style of celebration hopefully ushered in by Benedict’s legalization of the pre-Second Vatican Council Latin Mass – is now over.

“Instead of anxiously wondering what Pope Francis personally thinks about every liturgical detail, we would do better to get on with the work we ourselves have to do,” he said in a recent interview with Vatican Insider.

Bishop Rey is the main organizer of Sacra Liturgia 2013, a major international conference on liturgy that will take place in Rome June 25-28, bringing together a wide range of renowned scholars and churchmen, including Cardinals Ranjith and Burke and monsignor Guido Marini, the papal master of ceremonies.

Bishop Rey, what do you hope to achieve with this conference?

Sacra Liturgia 2013 will promote and continue the liturgical renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council, and emphasise the fundamental role of the liturgy in Christian life. I hope that it will show that the liturgy is the “source and summit” of all the Church’s activity, especially of the New Evangelisation.

I hope that the Conference will underline this and support better formation in and celebration of the liturgy in the future. That is why I have invited prominent cardinals, bishops and liturgical scholars to share their expertise with us. And of course we will celebrate the liturgy in both forms―both have riches to give us―because before we talk about the liturgy, we need to be liturgical ourselves!

Pope Francis has been criticized for his distinctly different liturgical style from Pope Benedict. Is this criticism fair? What do you respond to these critics?

Many bishops and priests have different ‘styles’ but all of us who are called to be ordained ministers of the Church promise to celebrate the Church’s liturgy as it has been handed on to us. Pope Benedict showed us this, as did Blessed John Paul II and so too today does Pope Francis. The Holy Father is a different person to his predecessor: we should not expect him to be identical to Pope Benedict. But Pope Francis celebrates the liturgy of the Church, as handed down to us, with dignity and beauty. I thought that the Mass and procession for the feast of Corpus Christi yesterday evening was very beautiful and an excellent example for us all. I have concelebrated at his morning Mass: that too was beautiful and correct.

With so many problems ailing the Church today in its relation with the world (lack of vocations, the sex abuse scandal, financial troubles, decline in the number of believers in the West...) does it make sense to focus on a very intra-Church issue such as liturgy?

All of these are very important questions and we need to address them seriously and systematically. But if I do not have the proper relationship with Christ, if that is not where I begin―just like Pope Francis begins his day with 7.00am Mass―then I do not have the correct foundation in my Christian life to deal with the issues and problems facing me and facing the Church today. The quality of my Christian life and my ability to carry out my mission in the world are based on my relationship with Christ, which is begun liturgically in Baptism and strengthened and nourished by the other sacraments and liturgical rites. We have to have good foundations if we are going to build!

Do you think the path of liturgical renewal set out by Pope Benedict can continue under Francis? How?

The Sacred Liturgy was one of the great themes of Pope Benedict’s pontificate, and he did much to teach us about the ars celebrandi and to allow the riches of the old liturgy once again to be available freely. We owe him a lot, and in some ways our conference will be a tribute to his work.

Pope Francis does not have to do Pope Benedict’s work all over again. He can put his energies into making progress in other areas.

It’s important, too, that we realize that each Pope doesn’t have to do everything himself or repeat every document of his predecessors. Liturgical renewal is our task, in the dioceses and the parishes and even in the family. Instead of anxiously wondering what Pope Francis personally thinks about every liturgical detail, we would do better to get on with the work we ourselves have to do.

With the Ordinariates, Summorum Pontificum, a renewed role for Oriental Churches etc. the fact that the Roman rite is only a part of the Church's liturgical diversity is more and more evident. What do you think of this evolution?

We’ve had liturgical plurality throughout the Church’s history. Perhaps we have been a bit too fixed on vernacular modern liturgy in recent decades and need to remember that our unity in faith in Jesus Christ allows for different forms of liturgical expression. The riches of these traditions are real and valuable to us today, just as modern developments such as the wider use of the vernacular are.

We don’t need to have “liturgy wars”. What we need is to be properly formed and able to encounter Christ in the Church’s liturgy correctly celebrated so that we can witness to Jesus Christ and his truth in the Church and world of the twenty-first century. I hope that Sacra Liturgia 2013 will contribute to that. 

Evolution of Science in 200 Words

The word science has a different meaning today than it did 100, 500 and 2500 years ago where in each

case an alternative meaning for the word has become primary.

1. The greeks found philosophy circa 500 BC using the word ἐπιστήμη/episteme (Greek) defined:
1. Knowledge. (any justified true belief).  
1. (1) logically includes the body of empirically verified knowledge and a separate definition is not needed. 
2. The Renaissance adds a secondary meaning in academia circa 1500 BC) defining scientia (Latin) as:
1. Knowledge. (any justified true belief).
2. The body of empirically verified knowledge. 
3. Today the effort and focus is on gaining useful knowledge (called τέχνη in ancient Greece) and we understand science to mean: 
1. The body of empirically verified knowledge. 
2. Reason itself is being proposed as a synonym to science (Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science)

Today, knowledge in general (the concept of any justified true belief) is an uncommon concept relegated to philosophy, a subject that used to be synonymous with science but is now no longer required at any level of education, whereas modern empirical science training begins in 2nd grade. "Any justified true belief" that is not verified empirically is usually concentrated in a lobe of the brain.

Sounds like a word hijacking to me. The same is currently happening with the word 'reason'. For this 'reason', on this blog I will use the terms "classical science" to describe knowledge in general and "empirical method of science" to describe what most of us know as 'science'.

Do you think Aquinas means empirical science above?

Now you ask why is this important? It is important because it is simply not true that all knowledge comes through one formulation or another of "the empirical method of science". Those that claim it does contradict themselves because they have not come to that insight by the very means they propose.

Take Wikipedia's word for it, if you believe in that consensus way of doing things:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably.^[4] By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.^[5] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.

Francis' First Comments About The Extraordinary Form

It can easily be argued that the teaching theme of Pope Benedict's pontificate was the importance of the liturgy as a transcendental act rather than making it a merely human invention through liturgical "abuse". Man does not own the liturgy to do what he wishes with it because it is an act of a community, not divided by city or diocese but of the whole community of the people of God. I highly recommend picking up a copy of "The Spirit of the Liturgy", one of his books that I believe will be cited even beyond the wonderful Jesus of Nazareth series. The liturgy should help man transcend himself.

That said, a 'pinging' of Francis' views was bound to happen sometime soon. Though there is no radical departure from any of Benedict's disciplines or even intentions coming coming soon, there certainly is a shift however slight that is undeniable. 

A few days ago, Pope Francis met with the Italian Bishops conference. Among more important topics at the meeting, the bishop of Conversano and Monopoli, Domenico Padovano (Italy's most vocal opponent of Benedict's move in 2007), decided to make it the priority of their diocese to use the allocated time to complain to Francis about how traditionalists are creating division in the diocese. Sando Magister reports:

There were also indiscretions regarding the liturgy.

The Archbishop of Bari, Francesco Cacucci, started it, declaring to Vatican Radio that Pope Francis had exhorted the bishops to "live the relationship with the liturgy with simplicity and without superstructures".

Then, it was the turn of the bishop of Conversano and Monopoli, Domenico Padovano, who told his own clergy that the bishops of Apulia had complained to the Pope about the work of division created within the Church by the defenders of the Mass in the ancient rite.

And how did the Pope answer him?

According to what was mentioned by Bishop Padovano, Francis exhorted him to be careful with the extremisms of certain Traditionalist groups, but also to treasure tradition and allow it to live in the Church along with innovation. [Mutual enrichment. However, saying the traditional mass should be able to live alongside the

Mass of Paul VI (or the Novus Ordo) is far different than saying it should live alongside innovation and 'superstructure free' Mass. Perhaps he is referring to the fact that the Novus ordo allows for some degree of adaption for each culture?]

In order to better explain this last point, the Pope would have brought up his own example:

"See? They say that my Master of papal ceremonies [Guido Marini] is of a Traditionalist mold; and many, after my election, have asked me to remove him from his position and replace him. I have answered no, precisely because I myself may treasure his traditional formation, and at the same time he might take advantage of my more emancipated formation." [Yep. Mutual enrichment.]

If the words are authentic, they are instructive about the liturgical spirit and the style of celebration of the current pope.

But in what sense the bishops of Apulia have interpreted them is not certain.

Another one of them, that of Cerignola and Ascoli Satriano, Felice di Molfetta, a former president of the Liturgical Committee of the CEI [Italian Episcopal Conference], in a message to his diocese wrote among other things:

"I did not fail to rejoice with the pope for the style of celebration that he has taken up, a style inspired by the 'noble simplicity' determined by the Council, showing particular attention to the subject, about which he has not failed to give his considerations of a great theological-pastoral profile, shared by all fellow brothers who were present.
...

"Pope Francis, in light of certain phenomena of the recent past, regarding which not a few drifts have taken place, exhorted us bishops, referring also to some concrete examples, to live the relationship with the liturgical action, as work of God, as true believers, beyond every ceremonial triumphalism, acknowledging fully that the 'noble simplicity'of which the Council speaks [not necessarily of what

happened] is not sloppiness, but Beauty, beauty with a capital 'B'."

But to enroll Pope Francis among the ranks of the Progressives also in the liturgical field is at the very least far-fetched. It does not mean, in particular, that he is hostile to the liberalization of the mass in the ancient rite, decided by Benedict XVI with the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" of 2007. 

Frankly, the impression I get is that the struggle between liturgical liberals and liturgical traditionalists is something which just isn't that important to him because it is an example of the Church worrying about itself (self-referentiality) rather than looking to Christ present in the beggar on the street.

For Benedict and dozens of his predecessors, the truth (faith + reason) and its expression in liturgy was about justice - the dignified kind of worship God is owed. For Francis, and his predecessors, the truth and its expression in service is about charity - and understanding for each human being's journey.

For Catholics when it comes to popes and the magisterium of their pontificate --it is a "both/and" approach. Just like it is unfair to say that the beauty of the liturgy is not important to Pope Francis in light of his 'emancipated formation' it is also unfair to say that the beggars were not important to Pope Benedict because of his academic formulation. Follow the hermeneutic of continuity...

Meanwhile in Ferrarra Italy...

Pope Francis Says Everyone Is Going to Heaven. What? Not Really.

The media in too many places to list (The Independent, Washington Post, Hufflington Post, etc), is reporting in a frenzy that Francis considers Catholics just as likely to go to heaven as atheists, unlike his big mean predecessor Pope Benedict. In fact what Pope Francis had to say was insightful, but an important distinction between redemption vs. salvation and truth vs. goodness is not being reported. To me it's hilarious how many conclusions are being reached that are not from the words he said. In the noted parts on this topic of his homily he said:

“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”

How is this the groundbreaking revolutionary idea that the media is presenting it as? Have they read Thomas Aquinas? Newsflash: Good men can do evil things. Evil men can do good things...just like Francis says, it is what we all share in common...the ability to do good...or evil. Heck, Aquinas would say that plants do good when they grow and asteroids when they orbit the earth because they are fulfilling their purpose. Congratulations, atheists you have the possibility of doing good! Everyone knows this. He is reaching out to atheists to show that, intellectually Catholics are not painting with too broad of a brush (or should not be). It helps (alot) to have the truth to know what is good so that you can do it, but that doesn't mean you can't do good. Next:

"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... [Again...the same topic...] "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

"If we can't meet each other in the truth, at least we can meet each other in the overlap of what we see as good," is the general message. Natural law is inscribed on every creature and though some will ignore it, its impossible to avoid pursuing "goodness" or you wouldn't get up in the morning.

However, here is the root of the problem theologically in what is being reported: "The Lord has redeemed all of us" does not mean in theology the same thing as "We are all going to be saved at the Last Judgement." Redemption means "the opportunity to be freed from sin," a distinction which is hard to expect those in the media to understand...Catholics educated in the last 40 years too for that matter.  It simply means that Christ died for everyone, even atheists, and offered everyone the possibility of being saved." Some choose not to be freed from sin, or to do good. It is in the choice, and it is much easier to be freed from doing evil when you know what is evil and what is good (truth).

In summary, redemption is universal, salvation is individual.

For example, just because an atheist doesn't believe that abortion is wrong doesn't mean that he is not committing evil--it is written on his heart. Just because a Catholic is a Catholic (and thereby believes abortion is wrong) doesn't mean he is going to be any less guilty for committing an abortion--in fact he would be more guilty before God.

Wow! This is groundbreaking! Not really.

As WDTPRS points out, the full text of his homily has not been released and story is coming from one Vatican news outlet which released selected parts of his words (as they do every day). It would be good if the whole homily were released to avoid these issues...especially since it is not clear either what type of magisterial quality daily homilies have.

As a last point, not only is the topic of Francis' sermon not about eternal salvation but rather about redemption, but also this confusion is being used to pit Francis against Benedict as if their teachings contradict. Even more, it is definitely being used as Francis contradicting the big bad judgmental Catholic Church of the last five centuries.  I leave you with these quotes from 'big bad judgmental popes":

"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) Pope Pius IX

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) Pope Pius IX

Ok, 1863 sounds like a fairly judgmental period for Catholics. Either Pope Pius IX was insane by writing contradictory statements here....wait they are about different items! Ignorance relates to the truth aspect, following natural law relates to the good. So...if someone attains eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace...they must have somehow got on the ark of salvation before they died...can someone say the traditional terms Baptism by Desire or Omnipotence?

Media, sorry to ruin your frenzy, but there is nothing new here, nor is there a contradiction with Benedict who barely ever spoke on the topic.

Here is your typical media report which I found quite interesting how they commented that its bad for business to consider non-Catholics "wrong". Actually guys, its the other way around, unfortunately many in the Church believe the same--that identifying error and only promoting what is in common will make the Church grow...strange...to me that makes the Church's identity and mission irrelevant? The truth and the good are important.

Totally over their heads. Many will use this as an excuse to ignore...the truth, to justify their understanding of what is good. 

What Is Truth and What is Truth?

The question "What is truth?" has been asked throughout the centuries and continues to be. However, from a Christian point of view, "the truth" can be looked at in different ways.

Play Video

The truth can be seen in the most general definition as a proposition (proposes a state of affairs about the universe usually in the format x is y) which either 'obtains' or 'fails to obtain' in reality. The proposition is the "truth-bearer" in communication and the actual state of affairs is the truth itself. Take these examples:

• A cat is an animal. (Obtains-reflects reality).
• There are less than 20 cars in the world. (Fails to obtain-does not reflect reality)
• Bill Clinton was a president of the United States. (Obtains-reflects reality)

A Christian would assert, in addition to all of the propositions that obtain for non-Christians (those above and trillions and trillions more), that 

• Christ (God) is truth itself. 

"The addition together of all propositions that obtain" describes God who is full act and no potency. 

Now before you jump all over me and say, "Jon you just missed the point of what Pope Francis was speaking about - truth is a person, not an object," consider that Christ claims to be the way, the truth and the life. 

Christ is God. God is a person (this proposition requires another line of reasoning which I will leave out). God is the summary of all truth and the absence of all error. Like I said, God, a person is the absence of all error and the summary of all truth. 

Then what does Pope Francis mean to communicate when he says that truth is not an object, but a person? Well actually its a very strong statement advocating Christianity. He is saying that though truth can be viewed as an object, doing so leaves out a proposition which changes the whole ball game--to possess the fullness of truth you must see the truth as the person of Christ. 

Don't worry no one will get mad at him, he's supposed to say that, he's the pope. 

Texas: More Young Men Choosing Priesthood

The local Fort Worth news did a little piece on the fact that the local Benedictine seminary continues to grow. The rector makes a clear emphasis on being challenged spiritually and intellectually, but also very much so physically. You may remember from my post 5 minutes ago that the Benedictines are also growing in many other places around the world. The video of the new broadcast is available by clicking here.

FORT WORTH (CBS 11) - No sex, no money, and complete obedience. Not what you think the average 20-year-old guy would go for. But according to the Catholic Church, the number of men joining the priesthood is up.

In the Diocese of Fort Worth alone, the number of seminarians has nearly doubled in the last 10 years.

And who is joining might surprise you.

Brett Metzler bench presses 250 pounds, squats 305, and can shoot hoops with the best of them.

But the former high school Athlete of the Year is not your typical college student.

20-year-old Brett believes becoming a priest is a better fit.

The Denton County native is preparing for the priesthood at Saint Joseph’s Seminary College in Covington, Louisiana–1200 acres of woods, water, and worship north of New Orleans....

Was it just me or did I hear the Hail Mary being said in Latin in that video? Gregorian chant?

Why are the Benedictines all growing so much? Fruits of the last pope?