This post deals with an intra-Catholic subject: the debate on the relationship of nature and grace between Henri de Lubac's "integralism" versus the "extrinsicist" position (using de Lubac's term) of neo-scholastic Thomism, a position which BTW has been consistently endorsed by papal magisterium [1].
As this is just a marginal contribution to the treatment of the subject, if someone arriving at this article is not familiar with the subject but would like to learn about it, I suggest reading [2].
I have realized that there is one hypothetical possibility in which a version of de Lubac's integralism MIGHT be compatible in the general case with the gratuity of the supernatural order, i.e. with the double gratuity of grace. I will describe it below and show that, even considering that possibility, integralism cannot be true in the concrete case of human beings. Ironically, this is the exact reverse of de Lubac's position that extrinsicism was theoretically possible in the general case but was not true in the concrete case of human beings.
The hypothetical possibility is based on a variation in the logical sequence of divine decisions related to the creation of a rational being and its possible elevation to participation in the divine nature. For this sequence, I define two cases:
Case A: antecedent, or initial, definition of nature's specifics
Case B: consequent, or postponed, definition of nature's specifics
where
- "antecedent" and "consequent" are with respect to the free divine decision to raise the nature in question to participation in the divine nature and subsequent attainment of the Beatific Vision, and
- "antecedent", "consequent", "initial", "postponed", and the numbered steps below, are to be understood in terms of logical, not temporal sequence.
Case A
1. God freely decides to create a species [3] of beings with rational nature and at that point defines all the nature's specifics. (gratuity of nature)
2. God freely decides whether to raise those beings to participation in the divine nature. (double gratuity of grace, if the decision is in the affirmative)
In this case, between logical steps 1 and 2 [4], IF those rational beings, whose nature has already [4] been fully defined in step 1, did not have everlasting natural happiness or natural beatitude as their natural end, but would be forever frustrated or unhappy without attaining the Beatific Vision, THEN sanctifying grace would be owed to them for the fulfillment of their nature, and therefore God would not be free to decide in step 2 whether to raise them to participation in the divine nature, as it would not be in accordance to his absolute goodness to create beings that could not, without fault on their part, fulfill their nature.
Therefore, if all the specifics of a rational nature are antecedently or initially defined, then the simultaneous affirmation of divine freedom and goodness requires that such rational nature must have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness or natural beatitude.
Case B.1
1. God freely decides to create a species [3] of beings with rational nature WITHOUT defining at that point all the nature's specifics. (gratuity of nature)
2. God freely decides to raise those beings to participation in the divine nature. (double gratuity of grace)
3. God now [4] can freely decide whether those beings will (subcase B.1.1), or will not (subcase B.1.2), have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness, as either option would be in accordance to his absolute goodness, GIVEN the free decision that has already [4] been taken to raise them to participation in the divine nature.
Thus, subcase B.1.2 is a version of de Lubac's integralism that MIGHT be compatible with the double gratuity of grace, which is actually not clear because at step 2 it is undefined whether the creatures in question strictly need the supernatural order to fulfill their nature.
Case B.2
1. God freely decides to create a species [3] of beings with rational nature WITHOUT defining at that point all the nature's specifics. (gratuity of nature)
2. God freely decides not to raise those beings to participation in the divine nature.
3. God now [4] can only decide, in accordance to his absolute goodness, that those beings will have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness.
Discussion
Admittedly, the logical sequence in case B looks contrived, and it might well be the case that it does not even make philosophical or theological sense. But I am not proposing it as a viable option. Rather, I am using it to show that, even if it makes philosophical and theological sense, it must still be the case that actual human beings have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness.
The first objection to subcase B.1.2 is that the double gratuity of grace is only from God's viewpoint and not from the creatures' viewpoint. Because from the creatures' viewpoint the antecedent reality for any philosophical reasoning is their own nature, and reasoning from that reality - and assuming that they have realized by means of philosophical reflection that they do not have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness - they would legitimately come to the conclusion that participation in the divine nature was due to their nature for its fulfillment. Thus, without an explicit divine revelation that case B was the actual way in which God proceeded when creating them, a revelation that did not take place in actual human history, the creatures would be holding, wholly legitimately from their epistemic viewpoint, the propositions condemned by Pius V, Clement XI, Pius VI, and particularly Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: "that there is in human nature (or more generally, in any rational nature created in the way of subcase B.1.2) a true and rigorous necessity with regard to the supernatural order – and not merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural." [1]
As if the above objection were not enough, and for Catholics it is, a second related objection to subcase B.1.2 comes via the following reasoning, in which the term "creation", "created" and "creating" are used in an extended sense to mean all logical steps in cases A or B:
a. A creature cannot possibly discern philosophically whether logical step 1 in the process of his creation was actually according to case A or B. Rather, the only way they could know that would be via divine revelation.
b. From a and the fact that the divine revelation that took place in actual human history says only that God freely decided to raise human beings to participation in the divine nature, it follows that there is no way at all for human beings ("we" / "us") to know whether we have been created according to case A or B.1.
c. From the conclusion of b and the fact that God has revealed to us everything we need to know for our salvation, it follows that we do not need to know for our salvation whether we have been created according to case A or B.1.
d. From the conclusion of c and the fact that for our salvation we need to know with certainty that God acts with both infinite freedom and goodness, it follows that whether we have been created according to case A or B.1 is irrelevant to our knowing that God has acted with both infinite freedom and goodness when creating us.
e. From the conclusion of c and the fact that for our salvation we need to have some knowledge of ourselves, including of whether we have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness, it follows that whether we have been created according to case A or B.1 is irrelevant to our knowing whether we have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness.
f. From the conclusions of d and e and the fact that in case A the simultaneous affirmation of divine freedom and goodness requires that the rational nature in question has a natural end of everlasting natural happiness, it follows that, in the case of human beings, this must also be true in case B.1, which means that if B.1 was the actual case in the creation of human beings, then it was in the form of subcase B.1.1.
In other words, the only way in which the humanly insoluble epistemic dilemma between cases A and B.1 may be irrelevant to our knowing whether we have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness is that, if B.1 was the actual case in the creation of human beings, then it was in the form of subcase B.1.1. Thus, whether the actual case was A or B.1.1, we know that we have a natural end of everlasting natural happiness and that God has acted with both infinite freedom and goodness when creating us.
References and notes:
[1] A very good summary of papal statements on the issue was provided
by Dr Bryan Cross as comment #79, dated December 30th, 2011, under his
article:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/nature-grace-and-mans-supernatural-end-feingold-kline-and-clark/
[2] Mulcahy, Matthew Bernard (2008). "Not Everything Is Grace: Aquinas’s
notion of “pure nature” and the Christian integralism of Henri de Lubac
and of radical orthodoxy"
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-acuvp238.11012011/index.html
[3] It could alternatively be a genus, in the case of purely spiritual beings. In any case, genus and species are to be understood in a philosophical sense and not in the sense of biological taxonomy.
[4] As I said, "between steps 1 and 2", "already" and "now" are to be understood in terms of logical, not temporal sequence.
17 August 2012
Creation of man: concordance between scientific findings and the Genesis account according to its Pauline interpretation
The conceptual framework of divine creation of biological beings by means of evolution (theistic evolution) does not address the creation of true human beings as such, as opposed to just their biological layer, because essential to a true human being is a spiritual soul which can only derive from a direct creative act from God. This is an essential point in Christian faith: a true human being is not a purely biological being, and his spiritual soul does not arise from his biological layer (or from the souls of his parents), but involves a direct creative act from God.
With that in mind, the central issue regarding the creation of true human beings is: how did direct divine creation of spiritual souls start?
- With only two beings-made-truly-human, a man and a woman, as Genesis says? (the "historical Adam" position)
- Or with a few thousand beings-made-truly-human (at the same time), to accomodate the fact that genetic data suggests that there has never been a population bottleneck of fewer than a few thousand individuals, humans or previous hominins? (the "symbolical Adam" position)
And even more importantly: does Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19, which speaks of "Adam", "one man" and "one trespass", still work with the "symbolical Adam" position? This question is an issue of biblical interpretation, and for Roman Catholics the answer is in the negative, as RCs believe that the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, and that teaching office has thus spoken on the subject in consideration:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 37)
Therefore the issue for any scientifically-minded Christian who - whatever his denomination - embraces the "historical Adam" position becomes: can that position be made compatible with current scientific findings? After studying the issue, we see two possible "concordant conceptual frameworks" (CCFs) whereby it can. One, which we call CCF1, involves only natural processes at the biological level. The other, which we call CCF2, involves a high degree of miraculous divine intervention at the biological level to provide genetic diversity to the germinal cells of Biblical Adam and Eve and the first n generations of their descendants.
We will use this notation:
t-men = true men = theological men = metaphysical men = with an infused spiritual soul
q-men = quasi men = biologically identical to t-men but without an infused spiritual soul
immediate-previous-hominins = individuals of the immediate ancestral species to q-men/t-men
where "men" above can be replaced by "women" or "people" as fit, keeping in mind that q-people were not really persons from the theological or metaphysical viewpoints, as they had no spiritual soul.
We have two possible cases for the creation of the first two t-people, Biblical Adam & Eve:
1U: Spiritual-only Upgrade
In this case q-people were brought into existence by way of biological evolution. When there were at least several thousand of q-people around, God created Biblical Adam & Eve by producing in two q-people a spiritual-only "upgrade": they were biologically identical to the surrounding q-people, differing only by having been infused a spiritual soul.
2U: Physical & Spiritual Upgrade
In this case there were no q-people, and God created Biblical Adam & Eve by producing in two individuals engendered by immediate-previous-hominin parents both a physical and a spiritual "upgrade": at the biological level, at least a brain-enhancing macro-mutation, plus the infusion of a spiritual soul.
To note, Biblical Adam & Eve are the only t-people for which infusion of a spiritual soul could have occurred at any time after birth (and in our personal opinion, it probably occurred after they had become independent of their respective q- or immediate-previous-hominin parents). In the case of all their descendants, infusion of the soul took place at conception.
Next we will present the constraints that both CCFs must satisfy. First, 3 constraints coming from the side of science:
C1. Current scientific evidence for all living people being descended patrilineally from one most recent common ancestor or MRCA, "Y-chromosomal Adam", who lived approx. 142 KY ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711001649
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 88, Issue 6, 10 June 2011, Pages 814-818
doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.002
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Fulvio Cruciani, Beniamino Trombetta, Andrea Massaia, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Daniele Sellitto, Rosaria Scozzari
Abstract: To shed light on the structure of the basal backbone of the human Y chromosome phylogeny, we sequenced about 200 kb of the male-specific region of the human Y chromosome (MSY) from each of seven Y chromosomes belonging to clades A1, A2, A3, and BT. ... An estimate of 142 KY was obtained for the coalescence time of the revised MSY tree, which is earlier than that obtained in previous studies and easier to reconcile with plausible scenarios of modern human origin.
To note, the researchers were not from a Pontifical University but from Sapienza Università di Roma, a place where the Pope has not been exactly welcome lately.
C2. Current scientific evidence for all living people being descended matrilineally from one MRCA, "Mitochondrial Eve", who lived approx. 174 KY ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580910000493
Theoretical Population Biology, Volume 78, Issue 3, November 2010, Pages 165-172
doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.001
Alternatives to the Wright–Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating
Krzysztof A. Cyran, Marek Kimmel
C3. Current scientific evidence for no human or pre-human population bottleneck ever that was smaller than a few thousand individuals.
Then, 2 constraints coming from the side of faith:
C4. Genesis chapters 1-3, interpreted in neither a literal nor a purely symbolic way, but in a way in which they, "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, ... state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation" (Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 38).
This constraint is satisfied by both CCF1 and CCF2, as it is evident that, from the theological and metaphysical viewpoints, both q-people and immediate-previous-hominins, like chimps or gorillas, were just "dust of the ground".
C5. Pauline and consequent Catholic teaching on original sin, which requires (and cares only about) a historical individual Adam as patrilineal ancestor of all human beings and teaches fatherly transmission of original sin, as stated in:
- St Paul's treatment of the subject in Romans 5:12-19, which speaks only of "Adam", "one man" and "one trespass", and does not even mention Eve.
- St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica II-I, Question 81, Article 5 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm): "original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father."
- Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session V, Decree concerning original sin, canons 1-4 (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html), which speaks only of "Adam" and "one man", and does not even mention Eve.
- Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 37, quoted at the beginning of this article.
To note, this constraint can be used by non-RC Christians by selecting only its Pauline part.
And finally, one somewhat loose observational constraint:
C6. Zoological and historical evidence on how groups of chimps or people deal with other groups competing for the same land (relevant only to CCF1).
We will cover first CCF2, which works equally well with both creation cases 1U and 2U. It was originally proposed by Drew in Professor Coyne's blog on a comment dated June 2, 2011 at 9:07 am:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/#comment-107005
and subsequently selected by Professor Coyne in this post:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/winners-adam-and-eve-contest/
as the best way to reconcile Genesis narrative and genetic data regarding overall theological and biological plausibility. It is:
"Roughly 140,000 years ago God slightly tinkered with the genes of two existing hominin pairs to ensure that the next baby they each had would have brains which were capable of interacting with a soul. These two individuals, one male and one female were Adam and Eve. God then imparted them both with many germ line cells each carrying a different genome, this allowed that each of Adam and Eve’s children would not be genetic siblings so that there would be no loss of fitness due to sibling interbreeding. Each distinct gene set was based roughly on the genomes of various human-like beings that had preceded Adam and Eve, which had evolved through natural processes, but was distinct enough that it allowed for the brains of the offspring also to interact with a soul. One consequence of this modification was that it gave the F1 generation enough genetic diversity to appear as though they sprang up from a large pool of existing ancestors. It may also have been necessary that for a few generations following F1 that the individuals continued to have the variable germ cells to further protect the offspring from inbreeding defects."
As t-men mated with only t-women, it is irrelevant whether the creation case is 1U or 2U.
In CCF2 Biblical Adam is Y-chromosomal Adam, and Biblical Eve is Mitochondrial Eve. This requires applying some "flexibility" to the date of Y-chromosomal Adam to make it match that of Mitochondrial Eve (whose determination is in principle more robust), which is the main drawback of CCF2 (regarding exclusively the fulfillment of constraints). Aside from that, CCF2 clearly satisfies C1, C2 and C3 by design. Satisfaction of C1 implies in turn satisfaction of C5.
We must point out that CCF2 has the same conceptual disadvantage as the creationist view that the universe was created 7500-7200 years ago looking as if it were much older, including scattered fossils on earth of animals that never actually existed. In this case, mankind would look as if there has never been a population bottleneck smaller than a few thousand people while in fact we are all descended from only two people. Although to be fair, we must also point out that the high degree of divine intervention in CCF2, in contrast with the creationist view of the age of the universe, not only or even mainly would have had the purpose of fulfilling the literal narrative of Genesis but also, and much more importantly, would have had the practical purpose of enabling mankind to achieve a healthy level of genetic diversity without having to resort to mating with beings that, while physically humans, were metaphysically animals. Still, in our view CCF1 presented below is just as plausible both theologically and biologically, though it might seem somewhat shocking to some Christians. And moreover, CCF2 and CCF1 could have coexisted, obviously with creation case 1U only, with God willing to perform miraculous genetic intervention as needed if t-men would not mate with q-women.
CCF1, which works best with creation case 1U, is as follows:
Biblical Adam is Y-chromosomal Adam. Mitochondrial Eve could be either Biblical Eve or a matrilineal ancestor thereof, as explained below.
Biblical Adam and Eve themselves had intercourse only with each other.
Starting with Adam's children, or perhaps grandchildren, t-people, and specifically t-men, had to start dealing with q-people competing for the same land, and they took care of them in the typical way chimps or people deal with other groups competing for the same land: by killing them all, with the exception of young attractive q-women, which were spared to be used as "wives", or more exactly sex slaves. (Hey, they looked as good as t-women but did not talk! What else could a hard-working, hard-fighting t-man ask for? This humorous comment is meant to remind readers that we are dealing with fallen men.) Thus, the restriction is simply that t-men mated with q-women as extensively as needed to satisfy C3 above, but t-women never mated with q-men.
Here an objection could be raised about why a similar degree of interbreeding did not occur with Neanderthals or Denisovans in Eurasia after the Out-of-Africa event (if any such interbreeding occurred at all [1]). The answer is quite simple: as the Neanderthal and Denisovan lineage had diverged from the lineage leading to t-men around 800-600 KY ago, Neanderthal and Denisovan females, in contrast with q-women, looked really awful from the perspective of t-men, so that very few t-men (if any at all [1]) had such a terribly bad taste or were in such dire sexual need as to take them as sexual slaves.
Regarding the offspring resulting from t-men having intercourse with q-women, there are two possible cases that satisfy C2:
I1: Interbreeding resulted in t-men who were reproductively viable. Either there was no female offspring, or that female offspring was sterile. In this case Biblical Eve is Mitochondrial Eve. This case is implausible from a biological viewpoint, and also, by implying simultaneity of Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, has the same drawback as CCF2: it requires applying some "flexibility" to the date of Y-chromosomal Adam to make it match that of Mitochondrial Eve (whose determination is in principle more robust).
I2: Interbreeding resulted in both t-men and t-women who were reproductively viable. In this case Mitochondrial Eve was the matrilineal MRCA of BOTH Biblical Eve AND all the q-women that t-men mated with. This case is biologically plausible and can directly fit the current most probable dates for Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.
Leaving aside the mentioned drawback in case I1, CCF1 clearly satisfies C1, C2 and C3 by design. Satisfaction of C1 implies in turn satisfaction of C5. C6, though a much more loose constraint than the others, is also satisfied. Whereby we can now broaden our treatment of C4 by focusing on another, usually overlooked passage: Genesis 6:1-4, where we add between parentheses the corresponding elements of this framework, to show their remarkable (and quite unexpected by this blogger) degree of concordance:
When human beings (q-people) began to grow numerous on the earth and daughters (q-women) were born to them,
the sons of God (t-men) saw how beautiful the daughters of human beings (q-women) were, and so they took for their wives whomever they pleased.
Then the LORD said: My spirit shall not remain in human beings forever, because they are only flesh. Their days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years. (Therefore the interbreeding was against divine will, as would be expected.)
The Nephilim appeared on earth in those days, as well as later, (could "later" refer to the much less frequent intercourse with Neanderthals and Denisovans after Out-of-Africa - if any such interbreeding occurred at all [1]?) after the sons of God (t-men) had intercourse with the daughters of human beings (q-women), who bore them children. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (this seems to imply that those "children" born by q-women were only male, which would support I1 above.)
At this point some shocked Christian could argue: How could it be that God would have planned that the formation of mankind, at least at the level of its genetic diversity, be carried out through immoral actions? And the Christian answer is quite straightforward: Did not God plan that the redemption (new creation) of mankind be carried out through evil human actions like the betrayal of Judas and the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin?
In neither case did God positively order or even approve the respective evil human actions. Rather, from eternity, He foresaw them, permitted them, and included them in his creative/redemptive plan (CCC 311-312, 599-600).
[1] A recent study shows that the excess polymorphism shared between Eurasians and Neanderthals (and possibly also that shared between Australians and Melanesians and Denisovans) is compatible with scenarios in which no hybridization occurred:
Eriksson and Manica (2012). "Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins". Online at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/14/1200567109.full.pdf
With that in mind, the central issue regarding the creation of true human beings is: how did direct divine creation of spiritual souls start?
- With only two beings-made-truly-human, a man and a woman, as Genesis says? (the "historical Adam" position)
- Or with a few thousand beings-made-truly-human (at the same time), to accomodate the fact that genetic data suggests that there has never been a population bottleneck of fewer than a few thousand individuals, humans or previous hominins? (the "symbolical Adam" position)
And even more importantly: does Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19, which speaks of "Adam", "one man" and "one trespass", still work with the "symbolical Adam" position? This question is an issue of biblical interpretation, and for Roman Catholics the answer is in the negative, as RCs believe that the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone, and that teaching office has thus spoken on the subject in consideration:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." (Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 37)
Therefore the issue for any scientifically-minded Christian who - whatever his denomination - embraces the "historical Adam" position becomes: can that position be made compatible with current scientific findings? After studying the issue, we see two possible "concordant conceptual frameworks" (CCFs) whereby it can. One, which we call CCF1, involves only natural processes at the biological level. The other, which we call CCF2, involves a high degree of miraculous divine intervention at the biological level to provide genetic diversity to the germinal cells of Biblical Adam and Eve and the first n generations of their descendants.
We will use this notation:
t-men = true men = theological men = metaphysical men = with an infused spiritual soul
q-men = quasi men = biologically identical to t-men but without an infused spiritual soul
immediate-previous-hominins = individuals of the immediate ancestral species to q-men/t-men
where "men" above can be replaced by "women" or "people" as fit, keeping in mind that q-people were not really persons from the theological or metaphysical viewpoints, as they had no spiritual soul.
We have two possible cases for the creation of the first two t-people, Biblical Adam & Eve:
1U: Spiritual-only Upgrade
In this case q-people were brought into existence by way of biological evolution. When there were at least several thousand of q-people around, God created Biblical Adam & Eve by producing in two q-people a spiritual-only "upgrade": they were biologically identical to the surrounding q-people, differing only by having been infused a spiritual soul.
2U: Physical & Spiritual Upgrade
In this case there were no q-people, and God created Biblical Adam & Eve by producing in two individuals engendered by immediate-previous-hominin parents both a physical and a spiritual "upgrade": at the biological level, at least a brain-enhancing macro-mutation, plus the infusion of a spiritual soul.
To note, Biblical Adam & Eve are the only t-people for which infusion of a spiritual soul could have occurred at any time after birth (and in our personal opinion, it probably occurred after they had become independent of their respective q- or immediate-previous-hominin parents). In the case of all their descendants, infusion of the soul took place at conception.
Next we will present the constraints that both CCFs must satisfy. First, 3 constraints coming from the side of science:
C1. Current scientific evidence for all living people being descended patrilineally from one most recent common ancestor or MRCA, "Y-chromosomal Adam", who lived approx. 142 KY ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929711001649
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 88, Issue 6, 10 June 2011, Pages 814-818
doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.05.002
A Revised Root for the Human Y Chromosomal Phylogenetic Tree: The Origin of Patrilineal Diversity in Africa
Fulvio Cruciani, Beniamino Trombetta, Andrea Massaia, Giovanni Destro-Bisol, Daniele Sellitto, Rosaria Scozzari
Abstract: To shed light on the structure of the basal backbone of the human Y chromosome phylogeny, we sequenced about 200 kb of the male-specific region of the human Y chromosome (MSY) from each of seven Y chromosomes belonging to clades A1, A2, A3, and BT. ... An estimate of 142 KY was obtained for the coalescence time of the revised MSY tree, which is earlier than that obtained in previous studies and easier to reconcile with plausible scenarios of modern human origin.
To note, the researchers were not from a Pontifical University but from Sapienza Università di Roma, a place where the Pope has not been exactly welcome lately.
C2. Current scientific evidence for all living people being descended matrilineally from one MRCA, "Mitochondrial Eve", who lived approx. 174 KY ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580910000493
Theoretical Population Biology, Volume 78, Issue 3, November 2010, Pages 165-172
doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.001
Alternatives to the Wright–Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating
Krzysztof A. Cyran, Marek Kimmel
C3. Current scientific evidence for no human or pre-human population bottleneck ever that was smaller than a few thousand individuals.
Then, 2 constraints coming from the side of faith:
C4. Genesis chapters 1-3, interpreted in neither a literal nor a purely symbolic way, but in a way in which they, "in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, ... state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation" (Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 38).
This constraint is satisfied by both CCF1 and CCF2, as it is evident that, from the theological and metaphysical viewpoints, both q-people and immediate-previous-hominins, like chimps or gorillas, were just "dust of the ground".
C5. Pauline and consequent Catholic teaching on original sin, which requires (and cares only about) a historical individual Adam as patrilineal ancestor of all human beings and teaches fatherly transmission of original sin, as stated in:
- St Paul's treatment of the subject in Romans 5:12-19, which speaks only of "Adam", "one man" and "one trespass", and does not even mention Eve.
- St Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica II-I, Question 81, Article 5 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm): "original sin is transmitted to the children, not by the mother, but by the father."
- Ecumenical Council of Trent, Session V, Decree concerning original sin, canons 1-4 (http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html), which speaks only of "Adam" and "one man", and does not even mention Eve.
- Pius XII's 1950 Encyclical "Humani Generis", 37, quoted at the beginning of this article.
To note, this constraint can be used by non-RC Christians by selecting only its Pauline part.
And finally, one somewhat loose observational constraint:
C6. Zoological and historical evidence on how groups of chimps or people deal with other groups competing for the same land (relevant only to CCF1).
We will cover first CCF2, which works equally well with both creation cases 1U and 2U. It was originally proposed by Drew in Professor Coyne's blog on a comment dated June 2, 2011 at 9:07 am:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-standoff-between-science-and-faith-and-a-contest/#comment-107005
and subsequently selected by Professor Coyne in this post:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/winners-adam-and-eve-contest/
as the best way to reconcile Genesis narrative and genetic data regarding overall theological and biological plausibility. It is:
"Roughly 140,000 years ago God slightly tinkered with the genes of two existing hominin pairs to ensure that the next baby they each had would have brains which were capable of interacting with a soul. These two individuals, one male and one female were Adam and Eve. God then imparted them both with many germ line cells each carrying a different genome, this allowed that each of Adam and Eve’s children would not be genetic siblings so that there would be no loss of fitness due to sibling interbreeding. Each distinct gene set was based roughly on the genomes of various human-like beings that had preceded Adam and Eve, which had evolved through natural processes, but was distinct enough that it allowed for the brains of the offspring also to interact with a soul. One consequence of this modification was that it gave the F1 generation enough genetic diversity to appear as though they sprang up from a large pool of existing ancestors. It may also have been necessary that for a few generations following F1 that the individuals continued to have the variable germ cells to further protect the offspring from inbreeding defects."
As t-men mated with only t-women, it is irrelevant whether the creation case is 1U or 2U.
In CCF2 Biblical Adam is Y-chromosomal Adam, and Biblical Eve is Mitochondrial Eve. This requires applying some "flexibility" to the date of Y-chromosomal Adam to make it match that of Mitochondrial Eve (whose determination is in principle more robust), which is the main drawback of CCF2 (regarding exclusively the fulfillment of constraints). Aside from that, CCF2 clearly satisfies C1, C2 and C3 by design. Satisfaction of C1 implies in turn satisfaction of C5.
We must point out that CCF2 has the same conceptual disadvantage as the creationist view that the universe was created 7500-7200 years ago looking as if it were much older, including scattered fossils on earth of animals that never actually existed. In this case, mankind would look as if there has never been a population bottleneck smaller than a few thousand people while in fact we are all descended from only two people. Although to be fair, we must also point out that the high degree of divine intervention in CCF2, in contrast with the creationist view of the age of the universe, not only or even mainly would have had the purpose of fulfilling the literal narrative of Genesis but also, and much more importantly, would have had the practical purpose of enabling mankind to achieve a healthy level of genetic diversity without having to resort to mating with beings that, while physically humans, were metaphysically animals. Still, in our view CCF1 presented below is just as plausible both theologically and biologically, though it might seem somewhat shocking to some Christians. And moreover, CCF2 and CCF1 could have coexisted, obviously with creation case 1U only, with God willing to perform miraculous genetic intervention as needed if t-men would not mate with q-women.
CCF1, which works best with creation case 1U, is as follows:
Biblical Adam is Y-chromosomal Adam. Mitochondrial Eve could be either Biblical Eve or a matrilineal ancestor thereof, as explained below.
Biblical Adam and Eve themselves had intercourse only with each other.
Starting with Adam's children, or perhaps grandchildren, t-people, and specifically t-men, had to start dealing with q-people competing for the same land, and they took care of them in the typical way chimps or people deal with other groups competing for the same land: by killing them all, with the exception of young attractive q-women, which were spared to be used as "wives", or more exactly sex slaves. (Hey, they looked as good as t-women but did not talk! What else could a hard-working, hard-fighting t-man ask for? This humorous comment is meant to remind readers that we are dealing with fallen men.) Thus, the restriction is simply that t-men mated with q-women as extensively as needed to satisfy C3 above, but t-women never mated with q-men.
Here an objection could be raised about why a similar degree of interbreeding did not occur with Neanderthals or Denisovans in Eurasia after the Out-of-Africa event (if any such interbreeding occurred at all [1]). The answer is quite simple: as the Neanderthal and Denisovan lineage had diverged from the lineage leading to t-men around 800-600 KY ago, Neanderthal and Denisovan females, in contrast with q-women, looked really awful from the perspective of t-men, so that very few t-men (if any at all [1]) had such a terribly bad taste or were in such dire sexual need as to take them as sexual slaves.
Regarding the offspring resulting from t-men having intercourse with q-women, there are two possible cases that satisfy C2:
I1: Interbreeding resulted in t-men who were reproductively viable. Either there was no female offspring, or that female offspring was sterile. In this case Biblical Eve is Mitochondrial Eve. This case is implausible from a biological viewpoint, and also, by implying simultaneity of Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, has the same drawback as CCF2: it requires applying some "flexibility" to the date of Y-chromosomal Adam to make it match that of Mitochondrial Eve (whose determination is in principle more robust).
I2: Interbreeding resulted in both t-men and t-women who were reproductively viable. In this case Mitochondrial Eve was the matrilineal MRCA of BOTH Biblical Eve AND all the q-women that t-men mated with. This case is biologically plausible and can directly fit the current most probable dates for Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.
Leaving aside the mentioned drawback in case I1, CCF1 clearly satisfies C1, C2 and C3 by design. Satisfaction of C1 implies in turn satisfaction of C5. C6, though a much more loose constraint than the others, is also satisfied. Whereby we can now broaden our treatment of C4 by focusing on another, usually overlooked passage: Genesis 6:1-4, where we add between parentheses the corresponding elements of this framework, to show their remarkable (and quite unexpected by this blogger) degree of concordance:
When human beings (q-people) began to grow numerous on the earth and daughters (q-women) were born to them,
the sons of God (t-men) saw how beautiful the daughters of human beings (q-women) were, and so they took for their wives whomever they pleased.
Then the LORD said: My spirit shall not remain in human beings forever, because they are only flesh. Their days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years. (Therefore the interbreeding was against divine will, as would be expected.)
The Nephilim appeared on earth in those days, as well as later, (could "later" refer to the much less frequent intercourse with Neanderthals and Denisovans after Out-of-Africa - if any such interbreeding occurred at all [1]?) after the sons of God (t-men) had intercourse with the daughters of human beings (q-women), who bore them children. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown. (this seems to imply that those "children" born by q-women were only male, which would support I1 above.)
At this point some shocked Christian could argue: How could it be that God would have planned that the formation of mankind, at least at the level of its genetic diversity, be carried out through immoral actions? And the Christian answer is quite straightforward: Did not God plan that the redemption (new creation) of mankind be carried out through evil human actions like the betrayal of Judas and the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin?
In neither case did God positively order or even approve the respective evil human actions. Rather, from eternity, He foresaw them, permitted them, and included them in his creative/redemptive plan (CCC 311-312, 599-600).
[1] A recent study shows that the excess polymorphism shared between Eurasians and Neanderthals (and possibly also that shared between Australians and Melanesians and Denisovans) is compatible with scenarios in which no hybridization occurred:
Eriksson and Manica (2012). "Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins". Online at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/14/1200567109.full.pdf
18 August 2010
On launching a joint study on the Shroud to ascertain whether it was stolen in 1204
This post will be of a completely different nature than all the previous posts related to the issues of doctrinal disagreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. While previously I have focused on truth (orthodoxy) I will now focus on charity (orthopraxis). And the best introduction for this topic is probably what Jonathan Andrew Deane wrote in comment #130 to this article of his authorship (emphasis added):
Pope John Paul II said in his book "Crossing the threshold of hope" chapter 22: "It is legitimate to affirm that between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox the difference is not very deep. ... At the same time, we must also note that the difficulties of psychological and historical nature are sometimes greater in the Orthodox Churches than in some of the communities born from the Reformation." Clearly the only way to overcome those "difficulties of psychological and historical nature" is by practicing charity, which "does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor 13:6) and must be practiced "not in word or speech but in deed and truth" (1 Jn 3:18). But the practice of charity involves keeping the Commandments, including "you shall not steal". And if someone has sinned against this commandment, they must repair the harm caused, returning the stolen goods (CCC #1459). "Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven" (CCC #2487). And in the case of theft, "in virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner: ... Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them" (CCC 2412).
I said before that I honestly believe that the One Church founded by Jesus subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Rome. But how can the See of Rome ask the Eastern Orthodox Churches to acknowledge its primacy of jurisdiction and its infallibility while it retains property that was stolen from them? And that stolen property is none other than the most precious Christian relic, the Shroud of Turin. There has been an overwhelming accumulation of solid evidence that the Shroud is the same relic as the "Mandylion" that was taken in an undetermined date to Edessa, where it was discovered in the city walls between 525 and 544 AD and placed in a church built specially for the relic, in which it was until 944, when the byzantine emperor Romanos I Lekapenos moved it from Edessa to Constantinople. There it was kept in the Imperial Palace until 1204, when it was taken to Athens and then to France as a result of the sack of Constantinople in the infamous Fourth Crusade.
Thus charity, by its requirement of justice and truth, demands that the Holy See, in view of the evidence accumulated recently - particularly by research conducted by staff of the Vatican Archives -, make an offer to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to undertake a joint scientific and historical study to ascertain whether the Shroud of Turin was indeed stolen from Constantinople in 1204, so that, if the study concludes in the affirmative, the relic will be handed over to the Patriarchate or whoever they designate (as it is possible that the Patriarch might not perceive Istanbul as the optimal location for the Shroud). This is legally possible because ownership of the Shroud passed to the Holy See in 1983.
The evidence comprises the following items (note particularly items 5, 7 and 8):
1) A greek manuscript with the sermon of Archdeacon Gregory of Hagia Sofia the day the relic arrived to Constantinople (15 August 944) [1]. This sermon had been lost, but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives (Codex Vaticanus Graecus 511) and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004 [2].
2) A miniature from 1081 (Miniatura Skylitres (1081-1118)) showing emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (920-944) kissing the Shroud when it arrived from Edessa. In the scene the Shroud is unfolded and the emperor kisses the part of the head while other person holds the cloth. (Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, vitrina 26, 2, folio 131, r).
3) The cloth is in the catalog of relics of the Imperial Palace of Constantinopla made by the Nicholas Soemundarson (Thingeyrensis), an Icelandic pilgrim in 1157 [3]. It is also in a list from 1201 made by Nicholas Mesarites, the skeuophylax (overseer) of the treasuries in the Pharos Chapel of the Boucoleon Palace of the emperors in Constantinople [4].
4) The account by knight Robert de Clari of the Fourth Crusade [5]:
"There was another of the churches which they called My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the sydoines in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the features of Our Lord could be plainly seen there. And no one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this sydoines after the city was taken."
5) A letter dated 1 August 1205, written by Theodore Angelos aka Theodore Komnenos Doukas, who was cousin of two former byzantine emperors and second uncle of former emperor Alexios IV Angelos (the one who had enticed the Crusaders to seize Constantinople), and addressed to Pope Innocent III [6]:
6) Nicholas of Otranto, abbot of Casole monastery in southern Italy, travelled in 1205 with the papal legate, Benedict of St. Susanna to Constantinople. The most plausible interpretation of his account in 1207 is that he saw the burial linens of Jesus "with their own eyes" outside the capital, probably in Athens [7].
7) Max Frei, a renowned Zurich criminologist, in 1973 took pollen samples and identified a total of 58 different pollens on the Shroud. According to him, these pollens are native to areas around:
- the Dead Sea and the Negev
- the Anatolian Steppe of central and western Turkey (which includes Edessa)
- the immediate environs of Constantinople
- Western Europe
8) Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican Secret Archives [8], announced in 2009 that, as part of her study of the trial of the Knights Templar, she had brought to light a document (the Chinon Parchment) in which Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287, testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to “a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access”. There he was shown “a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man” and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times [9].
This fits with the concidence between the name of one of the Knights Templar burned at the stake in 1314 with the Grand Master Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charney (first name sometimes spelled Geoffrey, surname sometimes spelled de Charnay and de Charny), and the first documented owner of the Shroud in Europe, Geoffroi de Charny (first name sometimes spelled Geoffrey), who very probably was nephew of the former.
Those who support this initiative, apart from making statements to that effect in their sites or blogs, may want to send correspondence to:
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm
President: H. E. Kurt Card. Koch
Pontifical Council for Culture
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm
Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Patrimony of the Church
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/pcchc/index.htm
Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/index.htm
President (of all 3 above): H. E. Gianfranco Card. Ravasi
Notably, then Msgr. Ravasi prepared the meditations for the Way of the Cross on Good Friday 2007, which featured biblical stations, as opposed to traditional [10]. At the station "Jesus is denied by Peter", Msgr. Ravasi reflected upon
Let's pray that Card. Ravasi can make the case to the Successor of Peter that turning back from the betrayals of past generations may be the only path to be able again to strenghthen his Eastern brothers.
(Updated after Msgrs. Koch and Ravasi became cardinals in November 2010.)
References:
[1] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Gregory_Referendarius.htm
[2] http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf
[3] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Soemundarson.htm
[4] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Mesarites.htm
[5] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Robert_Of_Clari.htm
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari4.htm
[6] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Theodore_Angelus.htm
[7] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Of_Otranto.htm
[8] http://asv.vatican.va/en/pers/personale/Barbara_Frale.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frale
[9] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/researcher_knights_templar_trial_records_indicate_possession_of_shroud_of_turin/
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/079q04a1.html (in Italian)
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/137q05a1.html (in Italian)
[10] http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20070406_via-crucis_en.html
Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions.
Pope John Paul II said in his book "Crossing the threshold of hope" chapter 22: "It is legitimate to affirm that between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox the difference is not very deep. ... At the same time, we must also note that the difficulties of psychological and historical nature are sometimes greater in the Orthodox Churches than in some of the communities born from the Reformation." Clearly the only way to overcome those "difficulties of psychological and historical nature" is by practicing charity, which "does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth" (1 Cor 13:6) and must be practiced "not in word or speech but in deed and truth" (1 Jn 3:18). But the practice of charity involves keeping the Commandments, including "you shall not steal". And if someone has sinned against this commandment, they must repair the harm caused, returning the stolen goods (CCC #1459). "Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven" (CCC #2487). And in the case of theft, "in virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner: ... Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them" (CCC 2412).
I said before that I honestly believe that the One Church founded by Jesus subsists in the Catholic Church in communion with the See of Rome. But how can the See of Rome ask the Eastern Orthodox Churches to acknowledge its primacy of jurisdiction and its infallibility while it retains property that was stolen from them? And that stolen property is none other than the most precious Christian relic, the Shroud of Turin. There has been an overwhelming accumulation of solid evidence that the Shroud is the same relic as the "Mandylion" that was taken in an undetermined date to Edessa, where it was discovered in the city walls between 525 and 544 AD and placed in a church built specially for the relic, in which it was until 944, when the byzantine emperor Romanos I Lekapenos moved it from Edessa to Constantinople. There it was kept in the Imperial Palace until 1204, when it was taken to Athens and then to France as a result of the sack of Constantinople in the infamous Fourth Crusade.
Thus charity, by its requirement of justice and truth, demands that the Holy See, in view of the evidence accumulated recently - particularly by research conducted by staff of the Vatican Archives -, make an offer to the Patriarchate of Constantinople to undertake a joint scientific and historical study to ascertain whether the Shroud of Turin was indeed stolen from Constantinople in 1204, so that, if the study concludes in the affirmative, the relic will be handed over to the Patriarchate or whoever they designate (as it is possible that the Patriarch might not perceive Istanbul as the optimal location for the Shroud). This is legally possible because ownership of the Shroud passed to the Holy See in 1983.
The evidence comprises the following items (note particularly items 5, 7 and 8):
1) A greek manuscript with the sermon of Archdeacon Gregory of Hagia Sofia the day the relic arrived to Constantinople (15 August 944) [1]. This sermon had been lost, but was rediscovered in the Vatican Archives (Codex Vaticanus Graecus 511) and translated by Mark Guscin in 2004 [2].
2) A miniature from 1081 (Miniatura Skylitres (1081-1118)) showing emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (920-944) kissing the Shroud when it arrived from Edessa. In the scene the Shroud is unfolded and the emperor kisses the part of the head while other person holds the cloth. (Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, vitrina 26, 2, folio 131, r).
3) The cloth is in the catalog of relics of the Imperial Palace of Constantinopla made by the Nicholas Soemundarson (Thingeyrensis), an Icelandic pilgrim in 1157 [3]. It is also in a list from 1201 made by Nicholas Mesarites, the skeuophylax (overseer) of the treasuries in the Pharos Chapel of the Boucoleon Palace of the emperors in Constantinople [4].
4) The account by knight Robert de Clari of the Fourth Crusade [5]:
"There was another of the churches which they called My Lady Saint Mary of Blachernae, where was kept the sydoines in which Our Lord had been wrapped, which stood up straight every Friday so that the features of Our Lord could be plainly seen there. And no one, either Greek or French, ever knew what became of this sydoines after the city was taken."
5) A letter dated 1 August 1205, written by Theodore Angelos aka Theodore Komnenos Doukas, who was cousin of two former byzantine emperors and second uncle of former emperor Alexios IV Angelos (the one who had enticed the Crusaders to seize Constantinople), and addressed to Pope Innocent III [6]:
"Theodore Angelus wishes long life for Innocent [III], Lord and Pope at old Rome, in the name of Michael, Lord of Epirus and in his own name. In April of last year a crusading army, having falsely set out to liberate the Holy Land, instead laid waste the city of Constantine. During the sack, troops of Venice and France looted even the holy sanctuaries. The Venetians partitioned the treasures of gold, silver, and ivory while the French did the same with the relics of the saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after his death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice, in France, and in other places, the sacred linen in Athens . . . Rome, Kalends of August, 1205"
6) Nicholas of Otranto, abbot of Casole monastery in southern Italy, travelled in 1205 with the papal legate, Benedict of St. Susanna to Constantinople. The most plausible interpretation of his account in 1207 is that he saw the burial linens of Jesus "with their own eyes" outside the capital, probably in Athens [7].
7) Max Frei, a renowned Zurich criminologist, in 1973 took pollen samples and identified a total of 58 different pollens on the Shroud. According to him, these pollens are native to areas around:
- the Dead Sea and the Negev
- the Anatolian Steppe of central and western Turkey (which includes Edessa)
- the immediate environs of Constantinople
- Western Europe
8) Barbara Frale, a researcher at the Vatican Secret Archives [8], announced in 2009 that, as part of her study of the trial of the Knights Templar, she had brought to light a document (the Chinon Parchment) in which Arnaut Sabbatier, a young Frenchman who entered the order in 1287, testified that as part of his initiation he was taken to “a secret place to which only the brothers of the Temple had access”. There he was shown “a long linen cloth on which was impressed the figure of a man” and instructed to venerate the image by kissing its feet three times [9].
This fits with the concidence between the name of one of the Knights Templar burned at the stake in 1314 with the Grand Master Jacques de Molay, Geoffroi de Charney (first name sometimes spelled Geoffrey, surname sometimes spelled de Charnay and de Charny), and the first documented owner of the Shroud in Europe, Geoffroi de Charny (first name sometimes spelled Geoffrey), who very probably was nephew of the former.
Those who support this initiative, apart from making statements to that effect in their sites or blogs, may want to send correspondence to:
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/index.htm
President: H. E. Kurt Card. Koch
Pontifical Council for Culture
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/cultr/index.htm
Pontifical Commission for the Cultural Patrimony of the Church
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/pcchc/index.htm
Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/archeo/index.htm
President (of all 3 above): H. E. Gianfranco Card. Ravasi
Notably, then Msgr. Ravasi prepared the meditations for the Way of the Cross on Good Friday 2007, which featured biblical stations, as opposed to traditional [10]. At the station "Jesus is denied by Peter", Msgr. Ravasi reflected upon
all of us who daily make petty betrayals, protecting ourselves with cowardly justifications, letting ourselves be overcome with base fears. But, like the Apostle, we too can take the road that brings us to Christ’s gaze and we can hear him give us the same charge: you, too, "once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers!"
Let's pray that Card. Ravasi can make the case to the Successor of Peter that turning back from the betrayals of past generations may be the only path to be able again to strenghthen his Eastern brothers.
(Updated after Msgrs. Koch and Ravasi became cardinals in November 2010.)
References:
[1] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Gregory_Referendarius.htm
[2] http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf
[3] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Soemundarson.htm
[4] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Mesarites.htm
[5] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Robert_Of_Clari.htm
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari4.htm
[6] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Theodore_Angelus.htm
[7] http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/terms/Nicholas_Of_Otranto.htm
[8] http://asv.vatican.va/en/pers/personale/Barbara_Frale.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Frale
[9] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/researcher_knights_templar_trial_records_indicate_possession_of_shroud_of_turin/
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/079q04a1.html (in Italian)
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/cultura/137q05a1.html (in Italian)
[10] http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2007/documents/ns_lit_doc_20070406_via-crucis_en.html
Discerning where the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists
It is important at this juncture to state plainly the main purpose of this site: help people make their way to the fullness of the knowledge and love of God by becoming members of Jesus Christ in his mystical body which is the Catholic Church. This is the one Universal Church in which subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its Head, the Church that receives from Christ "the fullness of the means of salvation" which He has willed:
1. correct and complete confession of faith,
2. full sacramental life, and
3. ordained ministry in apostolic succession (which is a prerequisite for 2).
Additionally, this Catholic Church, by enjoying continued divine assistance including infallible magisterial authority, does not suffer from the problems of ecclesiastical deism and definition of the scriptural canon that affect Protestantism.
Let's place ourselves for a moment in the shoes of the people making that journey. They see a menu of "totalities of particular Churches in communion with one another" that might in principle be "the" one Catholic Church founded by Christ: RC, EO, OO and SSPX (the last included only as theoretical example), in order of decreasing volume. Then they start to narrow the menu by making these initial steps:
- Regarding SSPX, it is impossible that, if until 1962 the RC was "the" Church, then at Vatican II only one RC bishop (Lefebvre) was right and all the other RC bishops and the Pope were wrong. So this option is discarded.
- Regarding OO, it is necessary to examine the historical context of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. This is because the discernment of whether the Catholic Church subsists in the RC, EO or OO candidates cannot possibly be done by using principles specific to any of the candidates. Therefore the following facts must be checked:
Therefore the OO option is discarded.
Thus those comprising the target audience of this site have to choose between the RC and EO options. The choice is not trivial because the issues of doctrinal disagreement between RCs and EOs (mainly Filioque, Papal Primacy and those related to Palamism) are serious enough that, as a consequence, the technical position of each side is that the other side is in material heresy in a number of matters (even when members of a particular side may choose not to use the h-word for reasons of charity or courtesy). As a result, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists in only one of the two sides. Notably, each side has a completely different view on the consequences of this objective reality on the status of the other side regarding possession of the means of salvation listed above. Thus:
- RCs believe that EOs lack 1 but have 2 and 3.
- most EOs believe that RCs lack 1, 2 and 3.
Let's review the issues of doctrinal disagreement and their status to appreciate their seriousness:
- The Lateran IV Ecumenical Council (1215) defined the dogma of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS), which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Dei Filius" (1870). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.
- Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined the dogma of Beatific Vision whereby saints in Heaven see the divine essence, which was confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.
- The Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) defined dogmatically, quoting from the latter, "that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration", doctrine commonly designated as Filioque. EOs do not accept that dogma, with some EOs denying it outright and other EOs considering it just a theologumenon.
- The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) defined the dogma of papal primacy, which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" (1870), which added the definition of papal infallibility. Both dogmas are denied by EOs.
To discern in which side the One Church founded by Jesus subsists, the primary path is to check which of the two doctrinal positions is supported or refuted by the 73 books of the Bible (72 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) that both sides recognize as inspired. Here is a summary of the results of the checks I made in previous posts:
Filioque: RC position supported by Jn 17:26 and Rev 22:1.
Papal Primacy: RC position strongly supported by Mt 16:17-19 and additionally by Jn 21:15-17.
Teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas:
O1. "God is being and not being." Against Ex 3:14 and Wis 13:1. Strongly against Jn 4:24.
O2. Divine essence-energies distinction.
O3. Deification (theosis) through divine energies only. Strongly against Jn 17:26.
O4. Saints in Heaven see only the divine energies. Strongly against 1 Cor 13:12 and 1 Jn 3:2. Against Mt 5:8.
Therefore the biblical texts overwhelmingly support the RC position in almost all the points of disagreement, and are neutral in the rest.
The secondary path to confirm which side is the One Church founded by Jesus is to examine the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II and Florence, which were attended by Eastern bishops who in their overwhelming majority (in Florence all the Eastern bishops but one) approved the decrees defining the doctrine of Filioque. Regarding those Councils, there are two possibilities:
a. That at least one of those Councils was indisputably Ecumenical (and not just "RC" Ecumenical, which of course for RCs are truly Ecumenical), meaning by that that the positive vote of the majority of Eastern bishops was valid. In this case, the fact that both Councils are accepted by RCs and rejected by EOs would independently confirm that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church.
b. That in both Councils most of the Eastern bishops did not act freely and in right conscience, but were pressed and/or bribed in a way that rendered their vote invalid. To note, this latter possibility would not prevent both Councils from being "RC" Ecumenical, neither would it affect the conclusion from the examination of biblical passages that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church. It would just not provide additional independent confirmation for that conclusion.
It should be noted that, independently of the final result of the discernment, since there is only one Universal Church founded by Jesus, and from the serious doctrinal disagreements between the RC and EO sides it is clear that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists in only one of the two sides, then only one of the two sides can be properly called "Church" as a whole, and the proper term for the totality of particular Churches comprising the other side is "the XX Churches".
Thus the proper terms for the sides as a whole are either
a. "the RC Church" and "the EO Churches", or
b. "the RC Churches" and "the EO Church".
If my plain stating of this fact sounds uncharitable to some ears, I strongly suggest reading the "Note on the expression "Sister Churches"" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated June 30, 2000 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The core points are 9 to 12. It's at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
Appendix:
It might be useful to have a formal description of the framework involved in this discernement. Let us call System any of the options among which we are discerning, so that:
System = {Sources, Entities, Corpus, Rules}
Thus, a System is comprised of (the examples of Sources and Entities are from the RC Church):
- Sources of Divine Revelation = {Scripture, Tradition}
- Authoritative Entities = {Ecumenical Council, Pope}
- Corpus: definitions by Entities of the content of the divine revelation in the Sources, including the identification of the Sources
- Rules: Subset of Corpus defining Entities, how they work, and particularly how they define the Corpus.
The one divinely-founded System must exhibit several levels of logical consistency:
1. Instrumental: capacity for identifying infallibly and dynamically (i.e. at any time as needed) the content of the divine revelation in the Sources (and the Sources themselves), and for transmitting that content trans-historically and geographically.
2. Historical: abidance by Rules.
3. Internal: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and content of Sources, and between definitions in Corpus themselves.
4. External: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and physical laws or historical facts.
5. Extraordinary: confirmation by occasional targeted breakings of physical laws (miracles).
I posit that all five levels of logical consistency are relevant in principle to discern between Systems, although in some practical cases the evidence from looking at one of the levels might be strong enough to dispense with the need to look at the others. Thus I discarded the OO option above on the basis of just historical consistency, by looking at historical context for the Council of Chalcedon. The importance of external consistency can be appreciated by imagining the consequences to any System that had defined geocentrism as dogma. (By the way, the RC Church never did so, even when its authorities prohibited for a long time the publication of books supporting that theory and, as is well known, gave Galileo a hard time.)
Thus, the main levels for discerning between the RC and EO options are:
- instrumental: superbly covered in Ray Stamper's comments #88 and #89 to this article), and
- internal: covered in my previous posts and summarized above.
As I said above, in order for the EO Churches to exhibit historical consistency, it is critical for them to claim that in Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) the third point in the examination above of the Council of Chalcedon applied to the Eastern bishops, who were either pressed by the Emperor in the first case and practically bribed by the Pope, in the context of the Ottoman threat, in the second. Sure enough that claim does not cause the RC Church to exhibit historical inconsistency, because the Western bishops were under no pressure.
Finally, regarding extraordinary consistency, either the RC Church has received ample confirmation at this level, or many RC Saints had very serious mental problems or were pathological liars, or the RC Church has been forsaken by God as playground for the dark side. (BTW, I am talking only about RC Church-approved miracles like Lourdes. I perceive Medjugorje as a purely human phenomenon in the very best case.)
1. correct and complete confession of faith,
2. full sacramental life, and
3. ordained ministry in apostolic succession (which is a prerequisite for 2).
Additionally, this Catholic Church, by enjoying continued divine assistance including infallible magisterial authority, does not suffer from the problems of ecclesiastical deism and definition of the scriptural canon that affect Protestantism.
Let's place ourselves for a moment in the shoes of the people making that journey. They see a menu of "totalities of particular Churches in communion with one another" that might in principle be "the" one Catholic Church founded by Christ: RC, EO, OO and SSPX (the last included only as theoretical example), in order of decreasing volume. Then they start to narrow the menu by making these initial steps:
- Regarding SSPX, it is impossible that, if until 1962 the RC was "the" Church, then at Vatican II only one RC bishop (Lefebvre) was right and all the other RC bishops and the Pope were wrong. So this option is discarded.
- Regarding OO, it is necessary to examine the historical context of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. This is because the discernment of whether the Catholic Church subsists in the RC, EO or OO candidates cannot possibly be done by using principles specific to any of the candidates. Therefore the following facts must be checked:
- Second (“Robber” for RCs and EOs) Council of Ephesus in 449: 130 attendants. Council of Chalcedon in 451: at least 370 attendants, who in their overwhelming majority signed its confession of faith.
- Was the high number of diophysite attendants in Chalcedon due to the diophysite side having embarked on a massive consecration of bishops during the run-up to the Council in order to tilt the vote to their favor? No.
- Were many of those signing the diophysite position pressed in any way by the emperor so as to render their vote invalid? No.
Therefore the OO option is discarded.
Thus those comprising the target audience of this site have to choose between the RC and EO options. The choice is not trivial because the issues of doctrinal disagreement between RCs and EOs (mainly Filioque, Papal Primacy and those related to Palamism) are serious enough that, as a consequence, the technical position of each side is that the other side is in material heresy in a number of matters (even when members of a particular side may choose not to use the h-word for reasons of charity or courtesy). As a result, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists in only one of the two sides. Notably, each side has a completely different view on the consequences of this objective reality on the status of the other side regarding possession of the means of salvation listed above. Thus:
- RCs believe that EOs lack 1 but have 2 and 3.
- most EOs believe that RCs lack 1, 2 and 3.
Let's review the issues of doctrinal disagreement and their status to appreciate their seriousness:
- The Lateran IV Ecumenical Council (1215) defined the dogma of Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS), which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Dei Filius" (1870). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.
- Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined the dogma of Beatific Vision whereby saints in Heaven see the divine essence, which was confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439). The teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which were adopted by the EO Churches in three councils held in Constantinople (1341, 1347 and 1351), are against that dogma.
- The Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) defined dogmatically, quoting from the latter, "that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration", doctrine commonly designated as Filioque. EOs do not accept that dogma, with some EOs denying it outright and other EOs considering it just a theologumenon.
- The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) defined the dogma of papal primacy, which was confirmed by the Vatican I Ecumenical Council in its Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" (1870), which added the definition of papal infallibility. Both dogmas are denied by EOs.
To discern in which side the One Church founded by Jesus subsists, the primary path is to check which of the two doctrinal positions is supported or refuted by the 73 books of the Bible (72 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) that both sides recognize as inspired. Here is a summary of the results of the checks I made in previous posts:
Filioque: RC position supported by Jn 17:26 and Rev 22:1.
Papal Primacy: RC position strongly supported by Mt 16:17-19 and additionally by Jn 21:15-17.
Teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas:
O1. "God is being and not being." Against Ex 3:14 and Wis 13:1. Strongly against Jn 4:24.
O2. Divine essence-energies distinction.
O3. Deification (theosis) through divine energies only. Strongly against Jn 17:26.
O4. Saints in Heaven see only the divine energies. Strongly against 1 Cor 13:12 and 1 Jn 3:2. Against Mt 5:8.
Therefore the biblical texts overwhelmingly support the RC position in almost all the points of disagreement, and are neutral in the rest.
The secondary path to confirm which side is the One Church founded by Jesus is to examine the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon II and Florence, which were attended by Eastern bishops who in their overwhelming majority (in Florence all the Eastern bishops but one) approved the decrees defining the doctrine of Filioque. Regarding those Councils, there are two possibilities:
a. That at least one of those Councils was indisputably Ecumenical (and not just "RC" Ecumenical, which of course for RCs are truly Ecumenical), meaning by that that the positive vote of the majority of Eastern bishops was valid. In this case, the fact that both Councils are accepted by RCs and rejected by EOs would independently confirm that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church.
b. That in both Councils most of the Eastern bishops did not act freely and in right conscience, but were pressed and/or bribed in a way that rendered their vote invalid. To note, this latter possibility would not prevent both Councils from being "RC" Ecumenical, neither would it affect the conclusion from the examination of biblical passages that the One Universal Church founded by Jesus subsists in the RC Church. It would just not provide additional independent confirmation for that conclusion.
It should be noted that, independently of the final result of the discernment, since there is only one Universal Church founded by Jesus, and from the serious doctrinal disagreements between the RC and EO sides it is clear that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus subsists in only one of the two sides, then only one of the two sides can be properly called "Church" as a whole, and the proper term for the totality of particular Churches comprising the other side is "the XX Churches".
Thus the proper terms for the sides as a whole are either
a. "the RC Church" and "the EO Churches", or
b. "the RC Churches" and "the EO Church".
If my plain stating of this fact sounds uncharitable to some ears, I strongly suggest reading the "Note on the expression "Sister Churches"" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated June 30, 2000 and signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The core points are 9 to 12. It's at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
Appendix:
It might be useful to have a formal description of the framework involved in this discernement. Let us call System any of the options among which we are discerning, so that:
System = {Sources, Entities, Corpus, Rules}
Thus, a System is comprised of (the examples of Sources and Entities are from the RC Church):
- Sources of Divine Revelation = {Scripture, Tradition}
- Authoritative Entities = {Ecumenical Council, Pope}
- Corpus: definitions by Entities of the content of the divine revelation in the Sources, including the identification of the Sources
- Rules: Subset of Corpus defining Entities, how they work, and particularly how they define the Corpus.
The one divinely-founded System must exhibit several levels of logical consistency:
1. Instrumental: capacity for identifying infallibly and dynamically (i.e. at any time as needed) the content of the divine revelation in the Sources (and the Sources themselves), and for transmitting that content trans-historically and geographically.
2. Historical: abidance by Rules.
3. Internal: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and content of Sources, and between definitions in Corpus themselves.
4. External: absence of contradiction between definitions in Corpus and physical laws or historical facts.
5. Extraordinary: confirmation by occasional targeted breakings of physical laws (miracles).
I posit that all five levels of logical consistency are relevant in principle to discern between Systems, although in some practical cases the evidence from looking at one of the levels might be strong enough to dispense with the need to look at the others. Thus I discarded the OO option above on the basis of just historical consistency, by looking at historical context for the Council of Chalcedon. The importance of external consistency can be appreciated by imagining the consequences to any System that had defined geocentrism as dogma. (By the way, the RC Church never did so, even when its authorities prohibited for a long time the publication of books supporting that theory and, as is well known, gave Galileo a hard time.)
Thus, the main levels for discerning between the RC and EO options are:
- instrumental: superbly covered in Ray Stamper's comments #88 and #89 to this article), and
- internal: covered in my previous posts and summarized above.
As I said above, in order for the EO Churches to exhibit historical consistency, it is critical for them to claim that in Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439) the third point in the examination above of the Council of Chalcedon applied to the Eastern bishops, who were either pressed by the Emperor in the first case and practically bribed by the Pope, in the context of the Ottoman threat, in the second. Sure enough that claim does not cause the RC Church to exhibit historical inconsistency, because the Western bishops were under no pressure.
Finally, regarding extraordinary consistency, either the RC Church has received ample confirmation at this level, or many RC Saints had very serious mental problems or were pathological liars, or the RC Church has been forsaken by God as playground for the dark side. (BTW, I am talking only about RC Church-approved miracles like Lourdes. I perceive Medjugorje as a purely human phenomenon in the very best case.)
15 August 2010
Point 4. Beatific Vision: angels and saints see the divine essence.
I will finally address the fourth of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which is, in its RC and EO versions:
C4. Beatific Vision: Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined that saints in Heaven "see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence." The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) confirmed it in a more succint manner, defining that saints in Heaven "clearly behold the triune God as he is".
On the other hand, RC St Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between vision and comprehension. Creatures in the beatific vision see the whole, but they do not comprehend it wholly. Only God wholly comprehends God, as no created intellect can comprehend the divine essence (according to Aquinas, not even the glorified soul of Jesus, although I do not know whether this specific point is generally accepted RC doctrine or just Aquinas' personal opinion.)
O4. Saints in Heaven do not see the divine essence, only the divine energies.
Of course, one way to solve the disagreement would be to prove that there is no ontological distinction between the divine essence and energies, i.e. to solve point 2. However, I will proceed the other way.
There are two NT passages that are most relevant regarding this issue:
At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. (1 Cor 13:12)
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 Jn 3:2)
Most clearly, the statements that "I shall know fully, as I am fully known." and that "we shall see him as he is" are not compatible with Palamas' doctrine that the blessed do not see the divine essence. Moreover, the Pauline statement seems at first sight even incompatible with Aquinas' restriction that the blessed do not comprehend the divine essence, because God certainly does comprehend mine!
Regarding the possible objection that the two quoted passages refer to the vision of Jesus in glory like (Rev 1:13-16) and not to the vision of God, an objection which seems to be reinforced by the Pauline reference to God "whom no human being has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16), I answer:
First, that the interpretation of the two passages quoted first as referring to the vision of God and not (only) of Jesus in glory is the most logical by far is clearly seen when we take into account that:
1. It does not make sense to refer to the future vision as the two passages do if it is only of a (however much) glorified human nature.
2. The last noun before "he" and "him" in the second passage is "God" (which unequivocally refers to the Father as it is used in the expression "children of God"), and therefore those pronouns refer to God.
Second, that St Paul's statement at (1 Tim 6:16) refers only to human beings on earth is clearly seen when we read it in conjunction with Jesus' statement: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5:8). And at this point it may be useful to compare the interpretations of both statements on the vision of God, regarding:
- what is meant by "God", and
- the circumstances of the vision or lack thereof.
xx -- The clean of heart will see God (Mt 5:8). -- No man has seen or can see God (1 Tim 6:16).
RC -- Essence, in Heaven. -- Essence, on earth.
EO -- Energies, in Heaven and on earth. -- Essence, on earth and in Heaven.
While the EO interpretation of "God" in (Mt 5:8) as referring to the divine energies and in (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to the divine essence is clearly arbitrary, the RC interpretation of (Mt 5:8) as referring to Heaven and of (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to earth is completely logical as it derives directly from the verbal tense used in each statement:
(Mt 5:8): "will see" = future => in Heaven
(1 Tim 6:16): "has seen or can see" = past and present => on earth
C4. Beatific Vision: Pope Benedict XII in his Constitution "Benedictus Deus" (1336) defined that saints in Heaven "see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence." The Ecumenical Council of Florence (1439) confirmed it in a more succint manner, defining that saints in Heaven "clearly behold the triune God as he is".
On the other hand, RC St Thomas Aquinas distinguishes between vision and comprehension. Creatures in the beatific vision see the whole, but they do not comprehend it wholly. Only God wholly comprehends God, as no created intellect can comprehend the divine essence (according to Aquinas, not even the glorified soul of Jesus, although I do not know whether this specific point is generally accepted RC doctrine or just Aquinas' personal opinion.)
O4. Saints in Heaven do not see the divine essence, only the divine energies.
Of course, one way to solve the disagreement would be to prove that there is no ontological distinction between the divine essence and energies, i.e. to solve point 2. However, I will proceed the other way.
There are two NT passages that are most relevant regarding this issue:
At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. (1 Cor 13:12)
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 Jn 3:2)
Most clearly, the statements that "I shall know fully, as I am fully known." and that "we shall see him as he is" are not compatible with Palamas' doctrine that the blessed do not see the divine essence. Moreover, the Pauline statement seems at first sight even incompatible with Aquinas' restriction that the blessed do not comprehend the divine essence, because God certainly does comprehend mine!
Regarding the possible objection that the two quoted passages refer to the vision of Jesus in glory like (Rev 1:13-16) and not to the vision of God, an objection which seems to be reinforced by the Pauline reference to God "whom no human being has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16), I answer:
First, that the interpretation of the two passages quoted first as referring to the vision of God and not (only) of Jesus in glory is the most logical by far is clearly seen when we take into account that:
1. It does not make sense to refer to the future vision as the two passages do if it is only of a (however much) glorified human nature.
2. The last noun before "he" and "him" in the second passage is "God" (which unequivocally refers to the Father as it is used in the expression "children of God"), and therefore those pronouns refer to God.
Second, that St Paul's statement at (1 Tim 6:16) refers only to human beings on earth is clearly seen when we read it in conjunction with Jesus' statement: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5:8). And at this point it may be useful to compare the interpretations of both statements on the vision of God, regarding:
- what is meant by "God", and
- the circumstances of the vision or lack thereof.
xx -- The clean of heart will see God (Mt 5:8). -- No man has seen or can see God (1 Tim 6:16).
RC -- Essence, in Heaven. -- Essence, on earth.
EO -- Energies, in Heaven and on earth. -- Essence, on earth and in Heaven.
While the EO interpretation of "God" in (Mt 5:8) as referring to the divine energies and in (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to the divine essence is clearly arbitrary, the RC interpretation of (Mt 5:8) as referring to Heaven and of (1 Tim 6:16) as referring to earth is completely logical as it derives directly from the verbal tense used in each statement:
(Mt 5:8): "will see" = future => in Heaven
(1 Tim 6:16): "has seen or can see" = past and present => on earth
Point 3. Union with God is through his essence. Also Filioque.
The second and third of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) are, in their EO version:
O2. There is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and divine energies. God is his essence and his energies. The divine essence is the cause of the divine energies, which are uncreated. Each divine Person is the divine essence and the divine energies.
O3. Deification (theosis) is union with God through his energies (uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit = uncreated grace), and not through his essence.
Let's assume for a moment that O2 is true, and examine O3 in light of the last statement in Jesus' priestly prayer:
"I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them." (Jn 17:26)
Jesus is asking that "the love with which the Father has loved Him" may be in us. Is Jesus talking about the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead, or about the love with which the Father loves the Son in his human nature? The answer is just two verses before:
"that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world." (Jn 17:24)
and in case there were any remaining doubts related to which one is the nature whose glory Jesus is talking about (which should be clear from the past tense anyway), there is this also this verse:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (Jn 17:5)
Therefore it is clear that "the love with which the Father has loved Jesus", which Jesus asks that "may be in us", is the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead. Now, assuming that there is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and energies, the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son "ad-intra" must necessarily be at the level of the essence. And if this love is in us, then the proposition that we only interact with God's energies is false.
Now, let's try to learn more about that love by looking again at Jn 17:26. Jesus is placing that love on an equal standing with Himself regarding the desired presence of both in the disciples. This can be seen even more clearly in some translations of that verse, such as in the New Jerusalem Bible:
"so that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and so that I may be in them." (Jn 17:26b)
The only possible interpretation then is that the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead is the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is asking that the Holy Spirit may be in us. He is thus fulfilling at this moment the promise He had made earlier to the disciples:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate ("Paraclete") to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you, and will be in you. (Jn 14:16-17)
And at this point, with the help of God and asking for the light of the Holy Spirit, we can address the issue of Filioque. Can the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son remain unidireccional? Will not the Son reciprocate by eternally loving the Father with the same love? Or does this truth revealed by Jesus apply only to the activity of the Son "ad-extra":
To this Jesus replied: "In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too." (Jn 5:19)
If God is love, and if the Son is "the exact imprint of God's being" (Hb 1:3), there can be no possible doubt that the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son is eternally and equally reciprocated. And since this love is the Holy Spirit, this is a most clear and firm basis for affirming "that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, ... and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration." (Ecumenical Council of Florence, session 6)
So, the Filioque is central to the RC conception of God.
O2. There is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and divine energies. God is his essence and his energies. The divine essence is the cause of the divine energies, which are uncreated. Each divine Person is the divine essence and the divine energies.
O3. Deification (theosis) is union with God through his energies (uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit = uncreated grace), and not through his essence.
Let's assume for a moment that O2 is true, and examine O3 in light of the last statement in Jesus' priestly prayer:
"I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them." (Jn 17:26)
Jesus is asking that "the love with which the Father has loved Him" may be in us. Is Jesus talking about the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead, or about the love with which the Father loves the Son in his human nature? The answer is just two verses before:
"that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world." (Jn 17:24)
and in case there were any remaining doubts related to which one is the nature whose glory Jesus is talking about (which should be clear from the past tense anyway), there is this also this verse:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." (Jn 17:5)
Therefore it is clear that "the love with which the Father has loved Jesus", which Jesus asks that "may be in us", is the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead. Now, assuming that there is a real, ontological distinction between divine essence and energies, the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son "ad-intra" must necessarily be at the level of the essence. And if this love is in us, then the proposition that we only interact with God's energies is false.
Now, let's try to learn more about that love by looking again at Jn 17:26. Jesus is placing that love on an equal standing with Himself regarding the desired presence of both in the disciples. This can be seen even more clearly in some translations of that verse, such as in the New Jerusalem Bible:
"so that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and so that I may be in them." (Jn 17:26b)
The only possible interpretation then is that the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son in the Godhead is the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is asking that the Holy Spirit may be in us. He is thus fulfilling at this moment the promise He had made earlier to the disciples:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate ("Paraclete") to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows him. But you know him, because he remains with you, and will be in you. (Jn 14:16-17)
And at this point, with the help of God and asking for the light of the Holy Spirit, we can address the issue of Filioque. Can the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son remain unidireccional? Will not the Son reciprocate by eternally loving the Father with the same love? Or does this truth revealed by Jesus apply only to the activity of the Son "ad-extra":
To this Jesus replied: "In all truth I tell you, by himself the Son can do nothing; he can do only what he sees the Father doing: and whatever the Father does the Son does too." (Jn 5:19)
If God is love, and if the Son is "the exact imprint of God's being" (Hb 1:3), there can be no possible doubt that the love with which the Father eternally loves the Son is eternally and equally reciprocated. And since this love is the Holy Spirit, this is a most clear and firm basis for affirming "that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, ... and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration." (Ecumenical Council of Florence, session 6)
So, the Filioque is central to the RC conception of God.
Point 1. God is He Who Is.
I will address here the first of the four points of RC-EO disagreement related to the teachings of EO St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), which is, in its EO version:
O1. "God is being and not being." (EO St Gregory Palamas)
The biblical passage that is most relevant regarding this issue is precisely the fundamental revelation for both the Old and the New Covenants: the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush:
God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." And He said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I Am has sent me to you.'" (Ex 3:14)
The expressions in bold above, which in the original Hebrew text are:
"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" = "I Am Who I Am"
and
"Ehyeh" = "I Am"
were translated in the Septuagint as:
"Ego Eimi Ho On" = "I Am The One Who Is" / "I Am He Who Is"
and
"Ho On" = "The One Who Is" / "He Who Is".
The fact that the Septuagint translators chose this rendering instead of the (counterfactual) literal translation "Ego Eimi Ho Ego Eimi" is not seen as a fluke by Roman Catholics (RCs) and Eastern Orthodox (EOs) but as a providential design, intended to enable the synthesis between ontology and biblical faith. To note, the Christian certainty that the Septuagint rendering conveys the correct sense of the original Hebrew text does not arise only, or even primarily, from linguistic or philosophical reasons, but from two facts:
a. It is confirmed by a key teaching in one of the two Old Testament books originally written in Greek, the Wisdom of Solomon, a teaching which clearly echoes in Rom 1:19-21:
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing Him Who Is, (Wis 13:1)
The coincidence is even clearer in the NETS Septuagint translation at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/, where both Exodus' "He Who Is" and Wisdom's "Him Who Is" are rendered as "The One Who Is".
b. It is in agreement with the centuries-old patristic tradition, as attested by the following two quotes:
St Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368). On the Trinity - Book 12 [1]:
St Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – 389 or 390). Fourth Theological Oration [2]:
To note, it is only in the context of the revelation of the divine name at the burning bush that we are able to understand these three assertions of his divinity by Jesus in John's Gospel:
"For if you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins." (Jn 8:24)
"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I Am" (Jn 8:28)
"From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I Am." (Jn 13:19)
And if any doubts remained that in the above three instances Jesus is claiming to be the same and only "I Am" of Exodus 3:14, they would be cleared by his statement: "The Father and I are one." (Jn 10:30), which clearly echoes the Shema: YHWH Echad, YHWH is one. (Dt 6:4)
Additionally, there is a well-known RC private revelation that provides a strong confirmation of this sense of Ex 3:14 and of its importance. In his Life of Catherine of Siena, RC Bl Raymond of Capua records what RC St Catherine (1347-1380) had often told him Christ taught her when He first began appearing to her:
(BTW, this is a clear example that Church-recognized private revelations, while they certainly do not "improve" or "complete" Christ's definitive Revelation, can confirm the correctness of a certain interpretation of the Revelation. This is also the exact case of St Mary's words to RC St Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes in 1858: "I am the Immaculate Conception", four years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had been defined by Pope Pius IX.)
Catholic magisterium has always taught this sense of Ex 3:14, lately through John Paul II in two audiences (Jul 31 and Aug 7, 1985, available from http://catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/The+Father? ), from which I quote (with a few touches to render the translation more faithful to the Italian original and some rephrasing in the first sentence of the second paragraph):
Moreover, this is clearly confirmed by St. Hilary of Poitiers in precisely the sentences following that quoted above, where the extended quote reads [1]:
And this is a key point because it is sometimes stated that the Filioque disagreement causes RC’s and EO’s to worship a different God. Here there is clearly an even deeper issue. Because for us RC’s, God is Being from itself, subsistent Being, absolute fullness of Being that is infinitely "above" the received, contingent, limited being of creatures, and definitely not “not being”. So we RCs do not worship a God which is “not being”. Our God is He Who Is, YHWH (blessed be his name). And He Who Is is our God:
References:
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330212.htm
http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/164-hilary-trinity?start=11
[2] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html
O1. "God is being and not being." (EO St Gregory Palamas)
The biblical passage that is most relevant regarding this issue is precisely the fundamental revelation for both the Old and the New Covenants: the revelation of the divine name to Moses in the theophany of the burning bush:
God said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am." And He said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I Am has sent me to you.'" (Ex 3:14)
The expressions in bold above, which in the original Hebrew text are:
"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" = "I Am Who I Am"
and
"Ehyeh" = "I Am"
were translated in the Septuagint as:
"Ego Eimi Ho On" = "I Am The One Who Is" / "I Am He Who Is"
and
"Ho On" = "The One Who Is" / "He Who Is".
The fact that the Septuagint translators chose this rendering instead of the (counterfactual) literal translation "Ego Eimi Ho Ego Eimi" is not seen as a fluke by Roman Catholics (RCs) and Eastern Orthodox (EOs) but as a providential design, intended to enable the synthesis between ontology and biblical faith. To note, the Christian certainty that the Septuagint rendering conveys the correct sense of the original Hebrew text does not arise only, or even primarily, from linguistic or philosophical reasons, but from two facts:
a. It is confirmed by a key teaching in one of the two Old Testament books originally written in Greek, the Wisdom of Solomon, a teaching which clearly echoes in Rom 1:19-21:
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God, and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing Him Who Is, (Wis 13:1)
The coincidence is even clearer in the NETS Septuagint translation at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/, where both Exodus' "He Who Is" and Wisdom's "Him Who Is" are rendered as "The One Who Is".
b. It is in agreement with the centuries-old patristic tradition, as attested by the following two quotes:
St Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368). On the Trinity - Book 12 [1]:
"For according to the words spoken to Moses, He Who Is has sent me unto you, we obtain the unambiguous conception that absolute being belongs to God;"
St Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329 – 389 or 390). Fourth Theological Oration [2]:
"As far then as we can reach, He Who Is, and God, are the special names of His Essence; and of these especially He Who Is, not only because when He spake to Moses in the mount, and Moses asked what His Name was, this was what He called Himself, bidding him say to the people “I Am has sent me”, but also because we find that this Name is the more strictly appropriate. For the Name theos (God), ... would still be one of the Relative Names, and not an Absolute one; ... But we are enquiring into a Nature Whose Being is absolute and not into Being bound up with something else. But Being is in its proper sense peculiar to God, and belongs to Him entirely,"
To note, it is only in the context of the revelation of the divine name at the burning bush that we are able to understand these three assertions of his divinity by Jesus in John's Gospel:
"For if you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins." (Jn 8:24)
"When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I Am" (Jn 8:28)
"From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I Am." (Jn 13:19)
And if any doubts remained that in the above three instances Jesus is claiming to be the same and only "I Am" of Exodus 3:14, they would be cleared by his statement: "The Father and I are one." (Jn 10:30), which clearly echoes the Shema: YHWH Echad, YHWH is one. (Dt 6:4)
Additionally, there is a well-known RC private revelation that provides a strong confirmation of this sense of Ex 3:14 and of its importance. In his Life of Catherine of Siena, RC Bl Raymond of Capua records what RC St Catherine (1347-1380) had often told him Christ taught her when He first began appearing to her:
"Do you know, daughter, who you are and who I am? If you know these two things you have beatitude in your grasp. You are that who is not; I Am He Who Is. Let your soul but become penetrated with this truth, and the Enemy can never lead you astray; you will never be caught in any snare of his, nor ever transgress any commandment of mine; you will have set your feet on the royal road which leads to the fulness of grace, and truth, and light." (Life, no. 92. Original: "Tu sei colei che non è; Io sono Colui che è.")
(BTW, this is a clear example that Church-recognized private revelations, while they certainly do not "improve" or "complete" Christ's definitive Revelation, can confirm the correctness of a certain interpretation of the Revelation. This is also the exact case of St Mary's words to RC St Bernadette Soubirous in Lourdes in 1858: "I am the Immaculate Conception", four years after the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had been defined by Pope Pius IX.)
Catholic magisterium has always taught this sense of Ex 3:14, lately through John Paul II in two audiences (Jul 31 and Aug 7, 1985, available from http://catechesisofthepopes.wikispaces.com/The+Father? ), from which I quote (with a few touches to render the translation more faithful to the Italian original and some rephrasing in the first sentence of the second paragraph):
According to the tradition of Israel, the name expresses the essence. The Sacred Scriptures give different names of God ... But the name which Moses heard from the midst of the burning bush is as it were the root of all the others. He who is expresses the very essence of God, which is Being from itself (original: Essere per se stesso), subsistent Being, as the theologians and philosophers say.And if it were objected that the self-definition of God as "I Am", "He Who Is" is not incompatible with Palamas' statement "God is being and not being", there is yet one more self-definition of God to consider: "God is spirit," (Jn 4:24) which is clearly incompatible with the notion that "God is ... not being". Thus it is clearly seen that, while the RC doctrine is in complete accordance with the biblical texts, the statement by EO St Gregory Palamas is not.
A creature does not possess in itself the source, the reason of its existence, but receives it "from another." This is synthetically expressed in the Latin phrase "ens ab alio". He who creates - the Creator - possesses existence in himself and from himself ("ens a se").
To be pertains to his substance: his essence is to be. He is subsisting Being ("Esse subsistens"). Precisely for this reason he cannot not be, he is "necessary" being. Differing from God, who is "necessary being", the things which receive existence from him, that is, creatures, are able not to be. Being does not constitute their essence; they are "contingent" beings.
These considerations regarding the revealed truth about the creation of the world help us to understand God as "Being." They help also to link this Being with the reply received by Moses to the question about the name of God: "I am who I am." In the light of these reflections the solemn words heard by St. Catherine of Siena acquire full clarity: "You are that who is not; I Am He Who Is". This is the Essence of God, the name of God, read in depth in the faith inspired by his self-revelation, confirmed in the light of the radical truth contained in the concept of creation. It would be fitting, when we refer to God, to write that "I Am" and that "He Is" in capitals, reserving the lower case for creatures. This would also signify a correct way of reflecting on God according to the categories of "being."
Inasmuch as he is "ipsum Esse Subsistens" - that is the absolute fullness of Being and therefore of every perfection - God is completely transcendent in regard to the world. By his essence, by his divinity, he "goes beyond" and infinitely "surpasses" everything created - both every single creature, however perfect, and the ensemble of creation, the visible and invisible beings.
It is clear then that the God of our faith, he who is, is the God of infinite majesty. This majesty is the glory of the divine Being, the glory of the name of God, many times celebrated in Sacred Scripture.
Moreover, this is clearly confirmed by St. Hilary of Poitiers in precisely the sentences following that quoted above, where the extended quote reads [1]:
"For according to the words spoken to Moses, He Who Is has sent me unto you, we obtain the unambiguous conception that absolute being belongs to God; since that which is, cannot be thought of or spoken of as not being. For being and not being are contraries, nor can these mutually exclusive descriptions be simultaneously true of one and the same object: for while the one is present, the other must be absent. Therefore, where anything is, neither conception nor language will admit of its not being."
And this is a key point because it is sometimes stated that the Filioque disagreement causes RC’s and EO’s to worship a different God. Here there is clearly an even deeper issue. Because for us RC’s, God is Being from itself, subsistent Being, absolute fullness of Being that is infinitely "above" the received, contingent, limited being of creatures, and definitely not “not being”. So we RCs do not worship a God which is “not being”. Our God is He Who Is, YHWH (blessed be his name). And He Who Is is our God:
Shema Yisrael YHWH Eloheinu YHWH Echad.
Hear O Israel: YHWH is our God, YHWH is one. (Dt 6:4)
References:
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330212.htm
http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/164-hilary-trinity?start=11
[2] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
