The Fruit of Heresy Is More Heresy

One fruit of heresy is more heresy. Catholic apologists have for some time--decades, at least--been noting that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible. By this, what is largely meant is that neither the word "Trinity" nor the understanding of the doctrine is to be found in the Bible alone: the Bible certainly points to it, supports it (and does not contradict it), and this is a "right reading" of the Bible: but it is not self-evident from the Bible without the benefit of either hindsight or holy guidance. Now, as a Catholic, I do (or at least should!) read the Bible in the light of guidance from the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church and Tradition. Many Protestant exegetes would contend that we should of course consider guidance form the Church Fathers and maybe even some early councils, but these are no infallible (the Catholic or Orthodox might agree with the former but not the latter assessment).

Thus, it comes as no surprise that some Protestant (or even pot-Protestant) sects end up rejecting even what may be called "Mere Christianity" or "Christian orthodoxy": some things which Protestants take for granted as being supported by Sola Sciptura had to be uncovered and developed over centuries.

The doctrine of the Trinity is one such thing. The idea of three distinct persons being one God, all coequal, coeternal, of one substance and of one being without confusion developed over several centuries. It makes the most "sense" out of the "data" (e.g. what has been revealed to us), but it had to develop, often by way of negation (e.g. by rejecting and responding to incorrect interpretations of what we find in the Scriptures). Thus, the Church had to contend with modalism on the one side (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not different persons but instead different "modes" of existence or revelation of the one God) and Arianism soon after on the other (the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God in the fullest sense, not coequal or coeternal with God the Father).

While I reject the theology of the Oneness movement, I acknowledge that it is a very logical result of embracing Sola Scriptura an rejecting all outside/historical interpretations of Scripture (excepting of course the local Oneness pastor's, of course). It is also, alas, looking to become the next big Challenge for the Church to confront from within Christianity.

This One Question Is Commonly Asked at Many Faithful Catholic Colleges

I have been at my present university, a fairly faithful (and generally earnest) Catholic university, for the last two academic years. During the previous decade, I was at a state university, and I frequently considered leaving it. Two year ago, I became quite serious in my efforts to leave, and I landed interviews at several universities, including a few Catholic ones. I noticed that these latter fell into two general camps: generally faithful Catholic universities, and universities which happen to be Catholic.

I applied to a few of what are reputed to be both type of college, and I had the opportunity to visit several of each type. By and-large, my impression is that these colleges have each earned at least some of their reputation--some are or try to be vibrantly Catholic, for others Catholic is a part of their identity which has generally fallen by the wayside.

Oddly enough, there is one question in the application process that the former had, and the latter did not. It was not "Explain how you will contribute to our mission" or "...to our identity," nor was it "Please write a general set of your beliefs" or "Explain your relationship to the Church." Instead, every one of the reputed "good Catholic" colleges--and none of the "marginal," "culturally," or "historically" Catholic ones--asked me to write a reflection on the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesia (the Apostolic Constitution written by Pope St. John Paul II on Catholic Universities).

Perhaps this is a good starting point for a number of "nominally Catholic" universities which are interested in becoming something more than nominal.

Success and Mediocrity

One frequent request that I receive as feedback from my students in general--and in particular, from the ones in the lowest level courses--is that I work more examples in my lecture classes. They also want an "example test," by which is meant a version of the test to be given out before the test, which differs at most in altering numbers or minor details in the tests. And finally, they want tests which adhere closely to the exact set of examples worked in class, or at most to the exact homework problems assigned. In the labs, they often want to see specific grading rubric for lab reports before handing in the reports. 

I dislike accommodating all of these requests for several reasons: physics is not meant to be reduced to merely copying off the professor's works and calling it one's own--nor should this be the norm of (m)any other academic disciplines. A part of education in general, and the introductory physics courses in particular, is learning how to problem solve, how to think critically, and for that matter how to acquire, evaluate, and even synthesis knowledge. With a lot of work, most students are capable of these things, and a few will actually thrive when pushed to do them.

The lab rubrics are a simple case in point. When I make a rubric, it is for the sake of being consistent in my grading from one report to the next (or from one instructor to the next, as I co-teach some labs). The rubric is based on the instructions for the lab, but it is not meant to be the be-all, end-all of a "good" lab report. In fact, I have read some very mediocre-quality reports which would otherwise excel against any pre-made rubric but for a "catch-all" writing quality/quality of the report grade. The rubric reduces the idea of writing up the methodology and results (and any analysis done upon or conclusions drawn from said results) into a narrow checklist. Yes, the checklist is easier to grade, but the students are able to learn considerably less from it.

Unfortunately, the standards set by acquiescing to these requests--let us see the test before seeing the test, grade the lab before grading the lab--is that while the grades in the class may be higher, they also mean much less than they otherwise would. Our students will be "successful," and yet they will all be mediocre. They will have missed the opportunity to fail and then learn from their failures--some of them don't do this much anyway--and at the same time, the top quartile is then robbed of its opportunity to excel.

---

Image generated by Google's Gemini AI

Ashes, Ashes

 Today is Ash Wednesday, and so begins another Lent. I was reminded last Sunday our pastor that in giving something up, the point is not to prove that I can do without it, but instead to allow the longing for it to turn to prayer. Prayer is something that we could all spend more time in doing: I've taken to praying frequently for my family and a few specific friends. Perhaps this time of Lent can be a reminder that I should pray, not only for today's daily bread, but in gratitude for all the bread of my yesterdays.

The Mute Speaking in Tongues

Speaking in tongues is a possible charism* which we may receive from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, though as St. Paul says, it is not given to all but to some. Pentecostals in general, and "Oneness" Pentecostals** in particular, seem to have latched onto this one gift and made it the ultimate sign of the working of the Spirit, to the extent that it seems to have become a major point in their theology that this is a necessary sign of a believer's salvation.

I have a few thoughts on this, but there is one that is in a sense wanting to be written down, even if in a disorganized manner. This is the problem of mute (and, I suppose, deaf) people's speaking in tongues. There is a distinction made (by Pentecostals and other Charismatics alike) between glossolalia and xenoglossia/xenolalia, with the former being maybe more correctly interpreted as "ecstatic utterance."

Back to deaf and mute people: how can either practice "speaking in tongues?" I have seen the answer returned that this could involve simply making "gibberish sounds" or "speaking in tongue via signing." This seems a reasonable interpretation, but on the other hand, it seems to me that there is something just "off" from this explanation. I can't put words to it (ironic, I know), but there seems to me to be a problem in all this: perhaps that, if "signing" is a form of speaking in tongues, it just seems odd to me that only the deaf and the mute would be moved to this, that those who can speak normally speak aloud (or quietly in their heads) in tongues, but do not seem to sign in tongues as well.

---

*The gifts of the Holy Spirit include: counsel, piety, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, fortitude, and fear of the Lord. I'm using the word gift or charism here in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12:4-11. Perhaps "charism" is a better term here than gift, therefore.

**Other Pentecostals, such as Assemblies of God, do not take this to necessarily be a requisite for salvation, though they still emphasize it.

Three Errors About the Trinity

 The stated belief of most Christians is that God is a Trinity: three distinct persons united as one God. Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son, the Sone is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father (nor vice-verse). Catholics would add that this is a mystery: we can know that this is true, it has been revealed to us as true through Tradition and the Church's teaching authority. Most other Christians--C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christians" (whether Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican, or other ecclesial communities) would agree with these ideas; they might say with Peter Kreeft that while we cannot fully understand the Trinity, it makes the most sense out of the data (truths about God revealed to us, e.g. in Scripture).

There are, nonetheless, several errors about the Trinity, a few of which have appeared in one form or another as being among the larger and more widespread or pernicious of heresies. I want to mention three such errors in this post.

The first error is that the Trinity is a belief in three different Gods. Thus, a form of polytheism. This error would make God less than all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing, as the three Gods might strive against each other: a three-person version of the early Gnostic and Manichaen heresies. I don't think that this error is especially common in a formal sense (it quickly becomes untenable), but it may be materially present in the ways that many Christians (Catholic or otherwise) interact with God practically.

The second error is that there are not indeed three persons, but only three modalities, three ways in which God presents Himself to us (or, more insidiously--three ways in which God has presented Himself to us...so far!). This error is Modalism or Sabellianism (the latter named after the third-century bishop who taught this idea, largely in response to other errors of his day). Modern days "Oneness" Pentecostals embrace a version of this error, and it perhaps will be making its way through the "Holiness" Pentecostal ranks by contact osmosis. Pentecostalism is one of the fastest growing Christian sects, and Oneness Pentecostals are themselves growing rapidly as a sect. Among other things, they teach that Jesus is God's name, and that Father, Son, Holy Spirit are different offices of the one God named Jesus*; this is analogous to how most Mere Christians would consider God as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. As a consequence, the Oneness Pentecostals do not baptize using a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"). 

The third error is related to the first: there are three divine persons, but they are not coequal. Hence, the Father might be greater than the Son and the Spirit. All three are divine and participate in being God, but not all three to an equal degree. The pagan Plotinus taught a version of this in conceiving of a divine trinity, and one of the great heresies--Arianism and its offshoots--likewise allowed for Christ to be divine yet lesser that the Father.

---

*It seems odd to me that God's "true" name means "YHWH is Salvation" or "God is Deliverance," since this means that God's true name (and hence nature) is thus dependent on the existence of an other to save.

Corrective Thomism

Ten or fifteen years ago, had you asked me about what kind of philosopher I was, I might have replied "I'm a Thomist" or maybe (more modestly but also more accurately) "I'm an amateur Thomist." Today, if you asked me the same question and I was in a reflective enough state of mind to answer rightly, I might reply that I am a "corrective Thomist."

What I mean by this response is not that I am a particular type of Thomist, e.g. a neo-Thomist or a scholastic-Thomist or an Aristotelian-Thomist; rather, I look to St. Thomas* to help correct my philosophy when I become aware of disagreement or error between us. The same may be said of my theology, in some sense. Thus, I need not know everything that St. Thomas teaches as a philosopher or as a theologian; I need not even agree with everything I do know of what he teaches--but when I encounter a disagreement, I try to take it very seriously and to discover whether this means I have an error in either my reasoning or the principles, axioms, or evidence from which I reason. Saint Thomas was not infallible, of course, but when I encounter a disagreement between us, I may then suspect that my conclusions are on less stable ground than I might have previously supposed.

Thus, I do ask at times "What would St. Thomas conclude here?" as a means of approaching what is likely true in this case.

I suppose that in another sense, my theology might be said to be "corrective Catholic." I strive to think as the Church does, often miss the mark, but take the teachings of the Church to be corrective in such a way that if I am made aware that there is a disagreement between what I believe and what the Church teaches, then I need to stop and discover where I have gone astray. Is the disagreement in conclusion running afoul of an actual dogma, of a doctrine, or merely of a pious opinion? Even the lattermost of these should give me some pause.

There is, indeed, one more important question still: what does God say is true here? What might the Father reveal? What might Jesus, the Son, teach? To what conclusion may the Holy Spirit lead me**?

---

*Primarily, St. Thomas, but there are other reliable guides of course. He draws on many of them, and other stand upon his shoulders in turn.

**As a faithful Catholic, I would note that the Holy Spirit primarily leads us through the Church, offering the most direct correctives through the Church's infallible dogmas.

A Decade

 I was looking at the time stamps on this site. Yes, it's been a decade and maybe more since I have posted anything here or elsewhere (unless you count my "work" blog, but that is a different story). A lot has changed in that time. My family has grown, and we have experienced joy, loss, sorrow, and hope. I have a few wonderful children here, and many more that I have not met and whom I hope to meet in the hereafter. I have gone through an entire cycle of starting as an assistant professor, earning tenure, and leaving for a new job. I'm now an associate professor at a Catholic university, for what it is worth. The unfortunate rise of generative AI has ruined much of the internet, and while there remain a number of people still writing online, it seems to me that many more have given up.

What brings me back, after all this time? And why here, as opposed to my older more established blogs (or, to creating a new one)? My original blog still exists, but in an un-accessible state. I think I can go in and get the best of my posts form it (I can access the blog's editor), but it is not really accessible to the internet at large anymore. My other project blog--Nicene Guys--is not accessible. I may ask the friend why build the back-end whether he still has the old posts, but I don't have any plans to re-constitute it. And I have considered creating a new blog--it has been a decade, after all, and so revisiting this one seems like an odd choice. I have considered two titles (Passing the Fruits, or After the Chores Are Done). Perhaps I will visit these, and perhaps if I sustain work here, I may transition to those instead.

I've been wanting to take this back up for some time, but the timing hasn't been good. There have been some doubts: will I be able to sustain this, will it really make the world a better place? And what should be the scope? For now, I want to keep the scope relatively limited, mostly short posts to be written with a short time. Let's see where it takes me.

A part of why I am here, hopefully with more regularity, is that my wife has been encouraging me to get back into doing this. It's a sort of self-care, I suppose, but she is much more supportive of my writing again than she was when I stopped. Our family is in a different place, I suppose, and hopefully for the better. Here's to more decades, I suppose.