Skip to main content

Newman's Development of Doctrine and acorns

It might be helpful to compare how the full blown Catholic understanding, say, of Mary developed out of the Scriptural and early Christian understanding of Mary with the way an oak tree develops from an acorn.  In each case, the before and after look different but are essentially the same.  And one naturally leads to the other just as promise leads naturally (on a good day) to fulfillment.

Comments

Tim D said…
I like that. There's also the line of argument that it's practiced to some degree in the Old Testament - Jeremiah fights from heaven in 2 Maccabees (though that book will not be recognized by an Evangelical), as well as Revelation 5:8 - and some traditions in Judaism of Elijah communicating to the present world.
Leo White said…
Thanks for your comment; but could you give me more details?
Tim D said…
The Maccabees example shows Jeremiah interceding from heaven to help them win against the Macedonians. Even if one doesn't think it's scripture, it's evidence that the practice of the intercession of saints pre-dated Christianity. Revelation 5:8 talks about the heavenly elders bringing bowls of incense to the altar, "which are the prayers of the saints". An in Judaism today there is the occasional example of Elijah communicating from heaven, which also suggests the ancient origin of the intercession of the saints.
Leo White said…
Got it. Well, my point in the original post is to look for a Catholic doctrine that at first glance seems to have a less than sufficient basis in ancient beliefs, and then to look for ways in which the presently held faith has grown out of the past--in a manner analogous to oak/acorn. That is, the oak and acorn are very different in shape. One who knows the oak only from afar and has never seen it drop from the acorn wouldn't think of the two as related. But one who not only knows the story up close but also has looked into the dna of the acorn and oak, can explain how the oak is a natural development from the acorn. The combination of "natural development" and "different in (superficial) form" is my target.

So the Old Eve / New Eve contrast alluded to, I think by Iraneaus (or was it Ignatius -- I get those two guys mixed up) is a kind of acorn from which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed.

As for intercession of the saints, that is very, very helpful inasmuch as it undercuts the possible claim that the Catholic focus on the saints is an adaptation of the Roman Pantheon. But if ancient Jews understood Elijah as you say, then the doctrine of intercession was already "oakie" to begin with (I probably should avoid such wordplay when in Oklahoma).

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...

Daniel Dennett, disqualifying qualia, softening up the hard problem, fullness of vacuity, dysfunctional functionalism

Around track 2 of disc 9 of Intuition Pumps , Dennett offers what I would call an argument from vacuity.  He argues that David Chalmers unwittingly plays a magic trick on himself and others by placing a set of issues under the one umbrella called the "hard problem of consciousness." None of these issues is really , in Dennett's opinion, a hard problem.  But in naming them thus, Chalmers (says Dennett) is like a magician who seems to be playing the same card trick over and over again, but is really playing several different ones.  In this analogy, expert magicians watch what they think is the same trick played over and over again.  They find it unusually difficult to determine which trick he is playing because they take these performances as iterations of the same trick when each is  in fact different from the one that came before.  Furthermore, each of the tricks that he plays is actually an easy one, so it is precisely because they are looki...